IFRs, EM Waves & Moving at c Velocity: What's the Effect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of moving at the speed of light (c) in relation to inertial frames of reference (IFRs) and electromagnetic (EM) waves. It questions the validity of Maxwell's equations at this velocity and seeks to understand the spatial dimensions (x, y, z) in these equations without invoking relativity. Participants note that classical models fail to account for a reference frame traveling at light speed, and some argue that relativity is inherently embedded in Maxwell's equations. The conversation highlights the historical context of electromagnetic theory before 1905 and emphasizes the necessity of relativity in understanding EM wave behavior. Ultimately, the consensus is that ignoring relativity in classical electromagnetism leads to nonsensical conclusions.
alvaros
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Inertial frames of reference ( IFRs ) and Electromagnetic ( EM ) waves.

What would happen if you move at c velocity ? ( at the same velocity of a EM wave )
Maxwell equations are valid ?
No relativity, please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do x, y and z mean in Maxwell equations ?
They must be measured respect to an IFR ?
I have no idea.
What was the approach before 1905 ?
Any comment would be appreciated.
 
The models we have wouldn't make sense for a reference frame traveling at the speed of light, certainly not for matter.

Here is Maxwell's approach in 1861 - http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

x,y,z are Cartesian spatial dimensions (coordinate system), because EM fields exist in space and their magnitude (intensity) varies with distance.


J. C. Maxwell, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field -
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/yw7lx230g0h64637/fulltext.pdf (probably best to use 'save target as'.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To Astronuc: Thank you for your answer and the links.

But I wanted somebody guide me on the path EM waves -> Relativity , not just showing the theory. I want to view the need of relativity.
Thats the reason I said "no relativity, please"
What happen if we just consider classical IFRs and EM theory ?
Some books I read state that relativity is implicit in Maxwell equations. ( ?? )
 
alvaros said:
relativity is implicit in Maxwell equations.

Yes, that is exactly why this thread is nonsensical.

For example, Maxwell's equations say EM waves move "at speed c". Not just "at speed c relative to the source", but always at c. At first this was interpreted to mean that Maxwell's equations are only valid in some special reference frame (the ether frame), which matches nicely with other classical waves (the speed is always constant relative to the medium) but has since contradicted experiment and inspired Einstein to propose the theory that Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial reference frames. We can't ignore relativity in classical electromagnetism.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top