I Maxwell's Equations & GR: How Scientists Got Away With It

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sorcerer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Sorcerer
Messages
281
Reaction score
53
Maxwell’s Equations are Lorentz invariant, so they are valid in inertial reference frames, right? However, the surface of Earth is not truly an inertial reference frame, yet the experiments that led to Maxwell’s equations were all done on the surface of Earth.

Does that not pose a small problem?

(a) How were scientists able to get away with this and still have an accurate theory? Is it because the Earth is big enough compared to the experimental set ups that spacetime was close enough to being flat that the divergence in results was too small to notice?

(b) I take it there are general relativistic modifications to Maxwell’s Equations? Could anyone point me to a source that explains the differences between the flat spacetime Maxwell Equations and the GR versions?Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maxwell equations survive replacing usual derivatives by covariant derivatives.
 
  • Like
Likes Sorcerer
sweet springs said:
Maxwell equations survive replacing usual derivatives by covariant derivatives.
Oh my, new operations to look up. Thanks!
 
I don't think you need to go to curved spacetime to understand the basics of (a). An accelerated observer in Minkowski should do fine locally to deal with the OP's question regarding the effect of acceleration. You should get something like ##\nabla \to \nabla + \vec \alpha/c^2## in the sourced Maxwell's equations. If the correction term ##\sim \vec \alpha/c^2## is small compared to the field derivatives you can forget about the effects of acceleration and ##c^2/\alpha## gives you the typical length scale over which the effects would be relevant. For ##\alpha \sim 10\ \mbox{m/s}^2##, you would find a relevant length scale of about a lightyear (coincidentally, since a year is roughly ##3\cdot 10^7## seconds and therefore ##c/\alpha \sim 1## year).

So:
Sorcerer said:
(a) How were scientists able to get away with this and still have an accurate theory? Is it because the Earth is big enough compared to the experimental set ups that spacetime was close enough to being flat that the divergence in results was too small to notice?
No. It is because the Earth gravity is way too weak for the effect to be noticeable at relevant length scales.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and bhobba
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
105
Views
8K
Replies
49
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top