Electromagnetic waves relativistic

In summary, the conversation is about why phase must be invariant under Lorentz Transformation otherwise a paradox with interference patterns can happen.
  • #1
Petar Mali
290
0
If we have case [tex]\rho=0[/tex], [tex]\vec{j}=\vec{0}[/tex]

then we have this equations

[tex]\Delta\vec{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 \vec{E}}{\partial t^2}[/tex]

[tex]\Delta\vec{B}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 \vec{B}}{\partial t^2}[/tex]

Particular solutions of this equation

[tex]\vec{E}=\vec{E}_0 e^{i(wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r})}[/tex]

[tex]\vec{B}=\vec{B}_0 e^{i(wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r})}[/tex]

If we have coordinate frames [tex]S,S'[/tex]

System [tex]S'[/tex] has relative velocity [tex]\vec{u}[/tex] in [tex]x[/tex] direction compared with [tex]S[/tex]

System [tex]S'[/tex]

[tex]\vec{E}'=\vec{E}_0' e^{i(w't'-\vec{k}'\cdot\vec{r}')}[/tex]

[tex]\vec{B}'=\vec{B}'_0 e^{i(w't'-\vec{k}'\cdot\vec{r}')}[/tex]

System [tex]S[/tex]

[tex]\vec{E}=\vec{E}_0 e^{i(wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r})}[/tex]

[tex]\vec{B}=\vec{B}_0 e^{i(wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r})}[/tex]


Why phase

[tex]wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}[/tex]

must be invariant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Think of it this way. The phase determines where in the cycle you are. If I choose a point in space where the electric field is a maximum, all observers should agree that this is the maximum point. They may disagree on the the value of the spacetime coordinates, the value of the E-field, the frequency of the wave, the wavelength of the wave, etc, but they should all agree that this point in space is the peak. In order for this to happen, the phase needs to be a scalar invariant.
 
  • #3
Why they must agree that in this point is peak?

If I choose a point in space where the electric field is a maximum, all observers should agree that this is the maximum point.

Why? That is my question!
 
  • #4
If you want a solid derivation, the electric and magnetic fields transform under Lorentz as elements of the Faraday Tensor. Otherwise, you could do it an easier way and look-up the equations for the Lorentz transformation of the electric and magnetic fields.

But
[tex]wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}[/tex]
appears to be Lorentz invariant, in general, for any wave in Special Relativity, which may help.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
In fact,

[itex]D^\mu = (ct, \vec{r})[/itex]
[itex]K^\nu = (c\omega, \vec{k})[/itex]

[itex]D_\mu = (-ct, \vec{r})[/itex]
[itex]K_\nu = (-c\omega, \vec{k})[/itex]

[itex]\phi = *(D_\mu \wedge (* K_\nu)) = wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}= scalar[/itex]

Scalars are constant under Lorentz Transformations. So the invariance of
[itex]wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}[/itex]
is true for a wave at any velocity.

Group velocity could be more interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Ok I can tell

[tex]x^{\mu}=(\vec{r},ct)[/tex]

[tex]k^{\mu}=(\vec{k},c\omega)[/tex]

[tex]x_{\mu}=(-\vec{r},ct)[/tex]

[tex]k_{\mu}=(-\vec{k},c\omega)[/tex]

In your notation

[itex]
\phi = *(D_\mu \wedge (* K_\nu)) = wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}= scalar
[/itex]

What is [tex]*[/tex] and what is [tex]\wedge[/tex]?
 
  • #7
hmm... this are something of an advanced topic called variously the exterior calculus or differential form (or just forms, or p-forms). But the mathematicians here, are comfortable with it. It is really the only way to go with electromagnetism as a four dimensional theory, or anytime one impresses a vector field on a Riemann manifold.

* = Hodge duality operator
/\ = wedge product

add the exterior derivative "d" and Stokes Theorem, and the set is, for the most part, complete.

The general form of your equation
[itex]\phi = wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}[/itex]
keeps coming up--twice this week, even. With other variables/operators, it's the charge continuity equation, or the redefinition of the metric.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Phrak said:
hmm... this are something of an advanced topic called variously the exterior calculus or differential form (or just forms, or p-forms). But the mathematicians here, are comfortable with it. It is really the only way to go with electromagnetism as a four dimensional theory, or anytime one impresses a vector field on a Riemann manifold.

* = Hodge duality operator
/\ = wedge product

add the exterior derivative "d" and Stokes Theorem, and the set is, for the most part, complete.


Is it hard? What do this operators?
 
  • #9
Petar Mali said:
Why? That is my question!

phase must be invariant under LT otherwise a paradox with interference patterns can happen.

If an event is triggered by a dark line falling on a detector, then in some frames the event is triggered, in others not. This is obviously because a phase change displaces interference lines.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Mentz114 said:
phase must be invariant under LT otherwise a paradox with interference patterns can happen.

If an event is triggered by a dark line falling on a detector, then in some frames the event is triggered, in others not. This is obviously because a phase change displaces interference lines.

Nicely thought and put.

It begs the question," In the case of wave phenomena, why should the relative covariance between the propagation vector and displacement have a correspondence to what we would call objective observations?"
 
  • #11
Phrak said:
Nicely thought and put.

It begs the question," In the case of wave phenomena, why should the relative covariance between the propagation vector and displacement have a correspondence to what we would call objective observations?"

Thanks.

I'm not sure what your question means, but this correspondence is only true for a certain choice of gauge constraint, which is usually a wave equation.
 
  • #12
Mentz114 said:
Thanks.

I'm not sure what your question means, but this correspondence is only true for a certain choice of gauge constraint, which is usually a wave equation.

I'm not sure what you mean by gauge constraint. But, often in the course of studying relativity you see objects like

[itex]\partial_t \phi - \nabla \cdot \vec{J}=constant[/itex]

This happens to be the charge continuity equation. The constant in this case is zero, which can be traced back to the fact that the dual 4-vector of current density is an exact 1-form, expressed as a function of the Faraday tensor, J = -d*F, and therefore J=-dd*F=0. (All exact forms are closed.) If neither is an exact form, the constant will, in general, be nonzero.

It should be a little more interesting if the angular frequency and propagation vector given by the OP are converted to energy and momentum through the Einstein and deBroglie equations respectively. Then we get

[itex]tE - \vec{x}\cdot \vec{p} = \hbar \phi [/tex]

This is also equal to the proper time times intrinsic mass.

But the more interesting part I referred to is the grouping of conjugate variables.

By gauge constraint, were you referring to U(1) the phase invariance of the photon?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Phrak,

I have to admit that in this sentence

"why should the relative covariance between the propagation vector and displacement have a correspondence to what we would call objective observations?"

the bolded terms mean nothing to me. I should have kept quiet instead of shooting in the dark.
 
  • #14
No, no. Thanks for your indulgence, Mentz. I appreciate any input into this corner of relativity physics involving differential p-forms that are not too popular and even less appreciated. I see these fascinating patterns emerge and wonder why. You see, through my series of mathematical gyrations, I obtain something that makes sense, while you, through admirable insight present a solid thought experiment, and obtain the same result. Why? Why are these conclusions the same?? I've been trying--and failing--all day to see the connection.

Two different observers in relative motion will disagree on such things as the magnitude of an electric field. They will not disagree on the phase of a wave, or the interference pattern developed on a piece of film, or a physical event. So I ask, what is the fundamental distinction in these two classes.
 
  • #15
Phrak said:
Two different observers in relative motion will disagree on such things as the magnitude of an electric field. They will not disagree on the phase of a wave, or the interference pattern developed on a piece of film, or a physical event. So I ask, what is the fundamental distinction in these two classes.

I always had a quick answer to this question - counting does not depend on relative simultaneity and so is invariant, but measuring always involves simultaneity, so measurements are always frame dependent.

To labour the point, when a bell rings once, it is a coming together of the worldlines of the clapper and the bell ( an event x,t ) and everyone agrees (a) that the bell rang, and (2) on the number of times the bell chimes along a segment of its worldline. But the time between events depends on two chimes, not just one, and so involves at least 2 events.

The transformation between frames of the delta x and delta t between the points will mix space and time, electricity and magnetism, but none of this happens if there's only one event involved.
 
  • #16
Phrak said:
No, no. Thanks for your indulgence, Mentz. I appreciate any input into this corner of relativity physics involving differential p-forms that are not too popular and even less appreciated. I see these fascinating patterns emerge and wonder why. You see, through my series of mathematical gyrations, I obtain something that makes sense, while you, through admirable insight present a solid thought experiment, and obtain the same result. Why? Why are these conclusions the same?? I've been trying--and failing--all day to see the connection.

Two different observers in relative motion will disagree on such things as the magnitude of an electric field. They will not disagree on the phase of a wave, or the interference pattern developed on a piece of film, or a physical event. So I ask, what is the fundamental distinction in these two classes.
I think this observation, the agreement on the phase of a wave for different observers, is key to understand relativity and its connection with the electromagnetic interaction, and it's telling us something deep about the true nature of the spacetime structure in our universe.
Thinking out loud, this points to a determinate topological property of the space where EM wavefronts have to be agreed by observers, well this seems to arise from the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell equations. The fact that other components of the Faraday tensor like the magnitude of the electric field are coordinate-dependent is compatible with the observation of the observers disagreement on this.
So perhaps the distinction you seek is just that the constant phase or wavefront of EM radiation is defined by the trace of the Faraday tensor and therefore is Lorentz invariant, but I believe this is what has been said better than me in the previous posts by you and phizguy.
Ultimately why is this so can only be traced to the question why does empty space follows minkowski metric. And as I said that is a topological property of the vacuum.
I don't know if this helps or further confuses.
 
  • #17
Mentz114 said:
I always had a quick answer to this question - counting does not depend on relative simultaneity and so is invariant, but measuring always involves simultaneity, so measurements are always frame dependent.

To labour the point, when a bell rings once, it is a coming together of the worldlines of the clapper and the bell ( an event x,t ) and everyone agrees (a) that the bell rang, and (2) on the number of times the bell chimes along a segment of its worldline. But the time between events depends on two chimes, not just one, and so involves at least 2 events.

The transformation between frames of the delta x and delta t between the points will mix space and time, electricity and magnetism, but none of this happens if there's only one event involved.

This is a clever way of explaining it.
 
  • #18
Thanks, Tricky. I didn't mean to sound so certain.

TrickyDicky said:
Ultimately why is this so can only be traced to the question why does empty space follows minkowski metric. And as I said that is a topological property of the vacuum.
That's interesting. I presume topology comes into it because it determines things like

1. How many times inertial observers can get close to each other
2. How many geodesics can go through two points ( hmm, not sure about that).
3. any offers ?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
I was thinking about a space with certain properties invariant under specific homeomorphisms.
For instance EM wave phase invariance could be achieved in a spacetime that allowed foliations by constant phase plane waves in every direction,in every point in space and for any Lorentz boost, this would make every point in the space a confluence of the plane waves and of the wave vectors K of every wave (that would make it isotropic). Theoretically such a space would be filled with a pervading radiation that could be detected in the apropriate wavelength with an antenna.
 
  • #20
Petar Mali said:
Why phase

[tex]wt-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}[/tex]

must be invariant?

Certainly in science questions that start with a why are interesting but hard to answer, generally they are given "how" answers, like mathematical derivations of the result.
In this case I think it would be important to try and give a reason why, I hinted at a solution based on constructing a spacetime manifold with certain topological features that ensure the congruence of electromagnetic waves phase for all observers, but I lack the ability to develop it, maybe someone has some other idea to construct such spacetime, or any other way to give a causation to the OP question.
 
  • #21
TrickyDicky said:
Certainly in science questions that start with a why are interesting but hard to answer, generally they are given "how" answers, like mathematical derivations of the result.
In this case I think it would be important to try and give a reason why, I hinted at a solution based on constructing a spacetime manifold with certain topological features that ensure the congruence of electromagnetic waves phase for all observers, but I lack the ability to develop it, maybe someone has some other idea to construct such spacetime, or any other way to give a causation to the OP question.
Though I originally missed it, phyzguy had it from the beginning.
phyzguy said:
[...] In order for this to happen, the phase needs to be a scalar invariant.

In the simplest form that works in special relativity, first defining K and X,

[itex]K=(k_x,k_y,k_z,\omega/c)[/itex]
[itex]X=(x,y,z,ct)[/itex]

[itex]K^\mu g_{\mu\nu}X^\nu=\phi[/itex]

The scalar phi is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
It is not, however invariant under the entire Poincare group.
 

1. What are electromagnetic waves relativistic?

Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy that is created by the interaction of electric and magnetic fields. Relativistic electromagnetic waves refer to these waves in the context of Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains the relationship between space and time.

2. How are electromagnetic waves relativistic different from other types of waves?

Electromagnetic waves relativistic are different from other types of waves because they travel at the speed of light and have both an electric and magnetic component. They also follow the laws of relativity, which means their properties can change depending on the observer's frame of reference.

3. What is the relationship between energy and frequency in electromagnetic waves relativistic?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of an electromagnetic wave is directly proportional to its frequency. This means that higher frequency waves have more energy than lower frequency waves.

4. How are electromagnetic waves relativistic used in everyday life?

Electromagnetic waves relativistic have a wide range of everyday applications, including communication technologies such as radio, television, and cell phones. They are also used in medical imaging, remote sensing, and many other fields.

5. How do electromagnetic waves relativistic interact with matter?

When electromagnetic waves relativistic encounter matter, they can be absorbed, reflected, or transmitted depending on the properties of the material. This interaction is what allows us to see objects, hear sounds, and feel heat from the sun.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
926
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
596
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
512
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
815
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
653
Replies
0
Views
607
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
Back
Top