Galilean invariance of Maxwell equation

[sadegh4137]

always say us Maxwell equations are not covariance under Galilean Transformation

They say merely this because of constant speed of light that the result of Maxwell Equations

But there arent any excitability prove for Non-Ggalilean invariance of Maxwell equation

I Decided try to show this
i found this article when i was searched net




do you think this is true?

 

[DrDu]

You want to read:


@article{le1973galilean,
title={Galilean electromagnetism},
author={Le Bellac, M. and L{\'e}vy-Leblond, J.M.},
journal={Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)},
volume={14},
number={2},
pages={217--234},
year={1973},
publisher={Springer}
}

 

[Meir Achuz]

The paper is wrong. It misinterprets the meaning of epsilonzero in SI.
In any system of units, Maxwell derived that EM waves would propagate at c, which the paper is correct in saying was first measured by W and K. Galilean invariance is broken because it would make c no longer a constant. If you use, SI, then epsilonzero would no longer be constant, while miraculously muzero would be constant.

 

[chrisbaird]

http://faculty.uml.edu/cbaird/95.658%282011%29/Lecture10.pdf" [Broken]

 

[aabottom]

http://faculty.uml.edu/cbaird/95.658%282011%29/Lecture10.pdf" [Broken]

Thank you chrisbaird, this is an excellent read. I now have a greater understanding of Einstein’s work, genius, and boldness.

Believe it or not, I've been using the term bold (as the paper does) to describe Einstein for several years now.

 

[vanhees71]

What's concretely wrong with the paper by LeBellac et al? They investigate the well-known non-relativistic limits of classical electromagnetics in a systematic way. "Non-relativistic" can of course only mean to describe the matter (or more abstractly charges and currents) non-relativistically. Em. wave fields can never behave non-relativistic, but the static, stationary and quasi-stationary limits do.