Is Electromagnetism's Causality Consistent with Special Relativity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between electromagnetism and special relativity, highlighting the contradiction between Newtonian gravity and relativity due to instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Newton's gravitational force is shown to violate special relativity, while Maxwell's equations, which govern electromagnetism, are Lorentz invariant and consistent with relativity. The conversation questions why Gauss' law for electric fields does not imply action-at-a-distance like Newton's law does, emphasizing that all four of Maxwell's equations must be considered collectively. The dialogue suggests that introductory physics courses may lack completeness in explaining these concepts. Overall, the discussion underscores the importance of understanding the full framework of electromagnetic theory in relation to special relativity.
VantagePoint72
Messages
820
Reaction score
34
We are usually told in an introduction to general relativity that when special relativity was completed, there was a contradiction with Newtonian physics. The Newtonian gravitational force of M on m is F_g = -G \frac{M m}{r^2} \hat{r} where \vec{r} is the spatial vector from M to m. This equation for the gravitational force on a point mass, plus the principle of superposition, are equivalent to Gauss' law for the gravitational field: \nabla \cdot \vec{g} = -4\pi G \rho_{mass}.
We conclude from this that the Newtonian gravitational force is instantaneous since any change in \vec{r} immediately translates into a change in the force. Such an instantaneous action-at-a-distance violates special relativity, which tells us that c is the maximum speed of influence. Otherwise, causality is violated.

Now, in the case of electromagnetism, we know that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant. This is true even when they're written in the form usually first encountered in an undergraduate course (i.e. http://www.physics.udel.edu/~watson/phys208/ending2.html), which is to say, not the covariant form in which Lorentz symmetry is obvious. Hence—a point usually emphasized at the end of such a course—classical electromagnetism is fully consistent with special relativity. However, the first of Maxwell's equations is just Gauss' law for the electric field: \nabla \cdot \vec{E} = \rho_{charge}/\epsilon_0. This has precisely the same form as Newton's law of gravity in differential form does. So why does this equation imply action-at-a-distance in the case of the Newtonian field but not in the case of the electric field?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
in an introduction to general relativity ... first encountered in an undergraduate course ...
So... could it be that undergraduate/introduction courses in physics are incomplete?

So why does this equation imply action-at-a-distance in the case of the Newtonian field but not in the case of the electric field?
It doesn't - you need the other three equations as well where, for Newtonian Gravity, you only have the one. Are Maxwell's equations individually Lorentz invarient?
 
Simon Bridge said:
So... could it be that undergraduate/introduction courses in physics are incomplete?

My point is that even in that form they are Lorentz invariant.

Simon Bridge said:
It doesn't - you need the other three equations as well where, for Newtonian Gravity, you only have the one. Are Maxwell's equations individually Lorentz invarient?

Ah, of course. Thanks.
 
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