Galilean transform and the maxwell equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of Maxwell's equations under Galilean and Lorentz transformations, focusing on the implications for electric fields and charge densities. Participants explore the mathematical details of these transformations and their effects on the equations, particularly Gauss' law, within the context of classical and relativistic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to demonstrate that Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations by transforming Gauss' law and observing the resulting equations.
  • Another participant agrees with the observation that if the electric field is independent of time, the Galilean transformation appears invariant, prompting a discussion about the implications of time independence.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the transformation process using Lorentz transformations and seeks clarification on how the equations reduce to a simpler form.
  • There is a mention of the Ampère-Maxwell law and how it relates to the transformation of electric fields and charge densities, with a focus on the cancellation of Lorentz factors and the treatment of current density terms.
  • One participant introduces the concept of using wedge products to represent electromagnetic fields, suggesting that the EM field is more complex than a simple vector field.
  • Another participant elaborates on the nature of the EM field as a bivector field and discusses how Lorentz transformations affect its components differently based on their spatial relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding and confusion regarding the transformations, with some agreeing on certain aspects while others challenge or seek clarification on specific points. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the implications of the transformations or the correctness of the approaches taken.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential conceptual errors in their transformation processes and express uncertainty about the relationships between different terms in the equations. There is also a lack of resolution regarding the exact process of transforming charge density from p to p' and the implications of using different mathematical representations.

GarageDweller
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
So I keep hearing that the maxwell equations are variant under Galilean transform. Tired of simply accepting it without seeing the maths, I decided to do the transformation on my own.

To make things easy, I only tried Gauss' law, furthermore I constricted the field to the x-axis only. So I have E(x,t).

∇°E(x,t)=ρ(x)/ε

So now I will transform to another inertial frame x' that is moving with speed u with respect to the original frame x.
x'=x-ut
t'=t

What originally was ∂E/∂x=ρ(x)/ε became ∂E/∂x'-(1/u)∂E/∂t=ρ'(x')/ε.
Is this basically what they mean when they say it isn't invariant?

I looked at this again, and noticed that if the electric field is independent of time, then the Galilean transform of this turns out to be invariant, coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi GarageDweller! Welcome to PF! :smile:
What originally was ∂E/∂x=ρ(x)/ε became ∂E/∂x'-(1/u)∂E/∂t=ρ'(x')/ε.
Is this basically what they mean when they say it isn't invariant?

Yup! :smile:
I looked at this again, and noticed that if the electric field is independent of time, then the Galilean transform of this turns out to be invariant, coincidence?

Not really … if there's no time, then there's no difference between galilean and relativistic, is there? :wink:
 
oops, missed that
 
However, I tried transforming the equation by the Lorentz transform, and yet I'm still getting something different, I think I may have a conceptual error here, my transformation process was:

∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * ∂x'/∂x + ∂E/∂t' * ∂t'/∂x

x'=γ(x-ut)
t'=γ(1-ux/c^2)

Which gives me..

∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * γ + ∂E/∂t' * (-γu/c^2)

Exactly how does this reduce to ∂E/∂x' ??
 
(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)
GarageDweller said:
∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * γ + ∂E/∂t' * (-γu/c^2)

Exactly how does this reduce to ∂E/∂x' ??

because (from the ampere-maxwell law) ∂E/∂t = J …

so the RHS ρ * γ + J * (-γu/c2) = ρ' :wink:

from the pf library on Maxwell's equations

(on the RHS, * denotes a pseudovector: a "curl" must be a pseudovector, the dual of a vector)

Changing to units in which [itex]\varepsilon_0[/itex] [itex]\mu_0[/itex] and [itex]c[/itex] are 1, we may combine the two 3-vectors [itex]\mathbf{E}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{B}[/itex] into the 6-component Faraday 2-form [itex](\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})[/itex], or its dual, the Maxwell 2-form [itex](\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})^*[/itex].

And we may define the current 4-vector J as [itex](Q_f,\mathbf{j}_f)[/itex].

Then the differential versions of Gauss' Law and the Ampère-Maxwell Law can be combined as:

[tex]\nabla \times (\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})^*\,=\,(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ ,\ \frac{\partial\mathbf{E}}{\partial t}\,+\,\nabla\times\mathbf{B})^*\,=\,J^*[/tex]

and those of Gauss' Law for Magnetism and Faraday's Law can be combined as:

[tex]\nabla \times (\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B}) = (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}\ ,\ \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\,+\,\nabla\times\mathbf{E})^*\,=\,0[/tex]​
 
Ooh right forgot bout the charge density term, thanks lol
So basically the lorentz factors all get canceled and the J terms go away on either side?

Oh and one more thing, what's the exact process of changing p into p'?
 
Last edited:
GarageDweller said:
So basically the lorentz factors all get canceled and the J terms go away on either side?

sorry, not following you :confused:

i always prefer to translate everything into wedge (Λ) products when dealing with maxwell's laws

(Ex,Ey,Ez;Bx,By,Bz) becomes Ex(tΛx) + Ey(tΛy) + Ez(tΛz) + Bx(yΛz) + By(zΛx) + Bz(xΛy)

(ρ,Jx,Jy,Jz) becomes ρt + Jxx + Jyy + Jzz (and similarly for div)

and you use aΛb = -bΛa, aΛa = 0, xΛyΛz = t*, yΛzΛt = x* etc​
Oh and one more thing, what's the exact process of changing p into p'?

ρ is part of the 4-vector (ρ,Jx,Jy,Jz) :wink:
 
To elaborate on what Tim is saying: once you get into relativity and EM, it's helpful to get used to the idea that the EM field isn't a simple vector field. Rather, just as a vector field is a combination of directions, there are bivector fields which are combinations of planes. That's what the EM field is. You can write its six components as

[tex]F = E_x e_t \wedge e_x + E_y e_t \wedge e_y + E_z e_t \wedge e_z + B_x e_y \wedge e_z + B_y e_z \wedge e_x + B_z e_x \wedge e_y[/tex]

Each of the [itex]e_\mu \wedge e_\nu[/itex] represents a plane spanning the [itex]e_\mu, e_\nu[/itex] directions.

Because the EM field is a set of planes, the Lorentz transformation works a little differently. It acts on each basis vector in a wedge, so for example, under a Lorentz transformation [itex]\underline L[/itex], we have the tx-plane [itex]e_t \wedge e_x \mapsto \underline L(e_t) \wedge \underline L(e_x)[/itex]. If the boost itself is in the tx plane, however, it must leave that plane invariant, even though both vectors get rotated. Similarly, since both [itex]e_y, e_z[/itex] are out of the plane, neither get transformed, and they're left invariant.

What's nice about using the Faraday bivector [itex]F[/itex] is that, without matter, Maxwell's equations boil down to a single expression:

[tex]\nabla F = - \mu_0 j[/tex]

(The sign depends on your metric convention and how you assemble [itex]F[/itex], but this is the convention I prefer.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K