Invariant under Lorentz transformation

In summary, the conversation is about showing that B^2-E^2/C^2 is invariant under Lorentz transformation, where E and B are electromagnetic fields. The equations for the transformed components of E and B are given, but the correct answer cannot be obtained due to a problem with the \gamma^2 term. After some discussion and corrections to the equations, the problem is successfully solved. One person also mentions the importance of using hyperbolic functions in solving these types of problems and suggests a website to check for accurate physics information.
  • #1
Spook
3
0
HI guys first post :cool:

I need to show that

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2[/tex] is invariant under Lorentz transformation (E and B are electromagnetic fields)

now:

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2)[/tex]

and

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_y-\frac{v}{c}B_z)[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_z-\frac{v}{c}B_y)[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z+\frac{v}{c}E_y)[/tex]

but i can't manupilate it to give me the correct answer ie

[tex]B'^2-E'^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2[/tex]

Can anyone help me out? Basically because of the [tex]\gamma^2[/tex] term I am tring to factorise out a [tex]1-\frac{v^2}{C^2}[/tex] ie [tex](1/\gamma^2)[/tex] but I am having no joy.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First of all, you can make things less complicated by rotating the coordinate system so that E = exEx (or, just as well, eyEy or ezEz). (EDIT: I TAKE IT BACK; NO YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS.) I'll give it a more thorough look to see if I can find your problem.

The first suspicion I have is that the problem is stated in a different unit system (SI) than you are using in your solution (Gaussian?). In the SI units, E has the same units as cB (or E/c as B), but your transformed components add E to (v/c)B, so the units don't seem like they agree.

I get a (+) sign in front of the B term in my transformed Ez'. I think this makes sense, because the orientation of z to y is the opposite of the orientation of y to z (wrt rotation about the x axis).
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Dont make it anymore complicated than it needs to be :p. Its a direct substitution problem ie change E to E' and B to B' and using the transformed values show that [tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B'^2-E'^2/C^2[/tex]
 
  • #4
In my experience, identities involving [tex]\gamma[/tex] and [tex]v[/tex] are more recognizable if you use the hyperbolic functions.

Write [tex]v = \tanh\theta[/tex] and [tex]\gamma =\cosh\theta[/tex], where [tex]\theta[/tex] is the rapidity. Of course, [tex]\gamma v = \sinh\theta[/tex].

[tex]\exp\theta[/tex] has physical significance, as well.
 
  • #5
Spook said:
HI guys first post :cool:

I need to show that

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2[/tex] is invariant under Lorentz transformation (E and B are electromagnetic fields)

now:

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2)[/tex]

and

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_y-\frac{v}{c}B_z)[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_z-\frac{v}{c}B_y)[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z+\frac{v}{c}E_y)[/tex]

but i can't manupilate it to give me the correct answer ie

[tex]B'^2-E'^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2[/tex]

Can anyone help me out? Basically because of the [tex]\gamma^2[/tex] term I am tring to factorise out a [tex]1-\frac{v^2}{C^2}[/tex] ie [tex](1/\gamma^2)[/tex] but I am having no joy.

A couple of your equations have wrong signs(and wrong factors of c depending on your choice of units). They should be

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_{y}-vB_{z})[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_{z}+vB_{y})[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c^2}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z-\frac{v}{c^2}E_y)[/tex]

Adjust the signs and try again.
 
  • #6
Yes thanks I forgot to report back that I had done it successfully. The annoying thing was I actually looked up the equations on a website so assumed they were correct.
 
  • #7
Spook said:
Yes thanks I forgot to report back that I had done it successfully. The annoying thing was I actually looked up the equations on a website so assumed they were correct.

LOL. Out of curiosity what was the website? About assuming website physics as accurate, check out the link
http://www.crank.net/physics.html
 

1. What is meant by "invariant under Lorentz transformation"?

When a physical quantity remains unchanged after undergoing a Lorentz transformation, it is said to be invariant. This means that the laws of physics remain the same regardless of the observer's frame of reference. The speed of light is an example of a quantity that is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

2. Why is it important for a quantity to be invariant under Lorentz transformation?

If a quantity is invariant under Lorentz transformation, it means that it is a fundamental property of the universe and is not dependent on the observer's frame of reference. This allows for the laws of physics to be consistent and applicable in all reference frames, which is essential in theories like special relativity.

3. How is invariance under Lorentz transformation related to the concept of spacetime?

The concept of spacetime in special relativity is based on the idea that space and time are intertwined and can be described as a four-dimensional continuum. Invariance under Lorentz transformation is necessary for this concept to hold, as it ensures that the laws of physics remain consistent in all frames of reference within this spacetime continuum.

4. Can any physical quantity be invariant under Lorentz transformation?

No, not all physical quantities are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Only those that are independent of the observer's frame of reference, such as the speed of light, can be considered invariant. Other quantities, such as velocity and momentum, will change depending on the observer's frame of reference.

5. Are there any exceptions to invariance under Lorentz transformation?

Invariance under Lorentz transformation is a fundamental principle in special relativity and has been extensively tested and proven. However, there are some exceptions in certain extreme scenarios, such as near black holes or in the presence of strong gravitational fields. In these cases, the laws of physics may need to be modified to account for the effects of gravity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
921
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
120
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
681
Back
Top