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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sorcerer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Maxwell's Equations in non-inertial reference frames, particularly in the context of general relativity (GR). Participants explore how these equations, which are Lorentz invariant, apply to experiments conducted on the Earth's surface, which is not a true inertial frame. The conversation includes inquiries about the accuracy of Maxwell's theory under such conditions and the potential modifications required when considering GR.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how scientists could rely on Maxwell's Equations given that experiments were conducted in a non-inertial frame, suggesting that the size of the Earth may make spacetime appear flat enough to avoid noticeable discrepancies.
  • Another participant notes that Maxwell's Equations can be adapted by replacing usual derivatives with covariant derivatives, implying a connection to GR.
  • A further contribution suggests that a Lagrangian perspective may provide a better understanding of the relationship between electromagnetism and GR.
  • One participant argues that it is not necessary to invoke curved spacetime to address the original question, proposing that an accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime could suffice. They introduce a correction term related to acceleration and discuss its relevance based on typical length scales.
  • This same participant asserts that the reason scientists could rely on Maxwell's Equations is that Earth's gravity is too weak for the effects of acceleration to be significant at relevant scales.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of considering curved spacetime and the impact of acceleration on Maxwell's Equations. There is no consensus on the best approach to reconcile these equations with non-inertial frames.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions regarding the applicability of Maxwell's Equations in different frames and the conditions under which corrections may be relevant. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical considerations related to the effects of acceleration.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Ibix and bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
9K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K