Invariance of the Lorentz transform

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the invariance of the electromagnetic wave equation through the differential operator. Participants note that while the y and z terms are invariant, the x and t terms introduce an additional factor of 1/1-v^2/c^2. The use of a trial function f(t', x') is suggested for differentiation, employing the chain rule to derive the necessary relationships. The process involves taking second derivatives and managing cross terms effectively. Ultimately, the approach simplifies the derivation of the invariance of the wave equation.
tina21
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Prove the invariance of the electromagnetic wave equation by showing that the corresponding differential operator is an invariant.
Relevant Equations
d^2/dx^2+d^2/dy^2+d^2/dz^2-1/c^2d^2/dt^2 = d^2/dx^2+d^2/dy^2+d^2/dz^2-1/c^2d^2/dt^2
of course y and z terms are invariant but for the x and t terms I am getting an additional factor of 1/1-v^2/c^2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tina21 said:
Homework Statement: Prove the invariance of the electromagnetic wave equation by showing that the corresponding differential operator is an invariant.
Homework Equations: d^2/dx^2+d^2/dy^2+d^2/dz^2-1/c^2d^2/dt^2 = d^2/dx^2+d^2/dy^2+d^2/dz^2-1/c^2d^2/dt^2

of course y and z terms are invariant but for the x and t terms I am getting an additional factor of 1/1-v^2/c^2
Can you use Latex to show what you got?

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
I haven't used latex before. I hope these images are okay
 

Attachments

  • WhatsApp Image 2019-11-24 at 7.23.02 AM.jpeg
    WhatsApp Image 2019-11-24 at 7.23.02 AM.jpeg
    42.6 KB · Views: 157
  • WhatsApp Image 2019-11-24 at 7.23.16 AM.jpeg
    WhatsApp Image 2019-11-24 at 7.23.16 AM.jpeg
    24.8 KB · Views: 173
That doesn't look right. I prefer to differentiate a trial function. Imagine we have a function ##f(t', x')##, where ##t' = \gamma(t - vx/c^2), \ x' = \gamma(x - vt)##.

Now, we differentiate ##f## with respect to ##x## using the chain rule:

##\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial t'}\frac{\partial t'}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial x'}\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial t'}(-\gamma v/c^2) + \frac{\partial f}{\partial x'}(\gamma)##

Now you need to take the second derivative of ##f## by repeating this process - and remember that you have to differentiate both terms using the chain rule, so you will get cross terms in ##\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t' \partial x'}##.

At the end, you can remove the trial function to leave, for example:

##\frac{\partial}{\partial x} = (-\gamma v/c^2)\frac{\partial }{\partial t'} + (\gamma)\frac{\partial}{\partial x'}##

That's what you get if you only wanted the first derivative.

Note that you can do the chain rule on differentials, but I prefer to have a function to differentiate, and then take the function away when I'm finished.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes tina21
yes, I tried doing it too. Made it a whole lot easier and I got the answer. Thanks so much !
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top