Permittivity in inertial reference frames

AI Thread Summary
In discussions about permittivity in different inertial reference frames (IRFs), it is clarified that permittivity and permeability are Lorentz invariant, similar to the speed of light (c). The argument against the variability of permittivity due to relative motion is supported by the observation that identical experiments yield consistent results regardless of the Earth's movement. Permittivity does have units of length, but it also incorporates mass and time, leading to cancellation of units when applying Lorentz transformations. This invariance is crucial for maintaining consistent physical laws across different frames. Ultimately, both permittivity and permeability remain constant, reinforcing the constancy of c.
wimms
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Suppose 2 inertial frames with relative relativistic velocities.
To discuss phenomena in other frame, we need to use Lorentz Transform for length and time. I got question: do we have to also use LT to talk about permittivity and permeability of other IRF? This seems strange. Permittivity has units of distance, which should be LT'ed. Thus we would conclude that permittivity of other IRF is different than that of ours? Are we to suppose that vacuum around other IRF has changes in permittivity just because it is in relative motion? If so, then how comes it is called "constant"? If not, then c must appear different in other IRF for us?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wimms,

The permittivity and permeability of empty space are Lorentz invariant, just as c (the reciprocal of the sqrt of their product) is.

Consider permittivity. It shows up in Coulomb's law which gives the force between two charged particles separated by a distance. If permittivity changed with velocity, the force would change, and the two particles would accelerate differently. In other words, identical experiments on the motion of charged particles done in two labratories, in relative motion would yield different results. Or even stranger, an experiment done in January would yield different results from the same experiment done in June when the Earth's velocity around the sun has changed by 60,000miles/hr. No such difference has ever been observed (ditto for experments involving permeability). Everyone who understands what that means, believes that c is constant. Because what it means is that c is constant!
 
wimms said: "Permittivity has units of distance, which should be LT'ed."

I got carried away and forgot to address this point explicitly. Permittivity does have units of length, and they do get LT'd. But it also has units of mass and time which get LT'd as well. The units of permittivity (SI) are:

coulomb^2/(meter^2*Newton) =

coulomb^2/(meter^2*kg*m/sec^2) =

coulomb^2/(kg*m)(m^2/sec^2)

Experiments in particle accelerators have shown with outrageous precision that charge is Lorentz invariant, so that takes care of the numerator.

The LT's cancel for (kg*m) because mass gets bigger but lengths get shorter.

The LT's for m/sec have to cancel in order for c to be invariant.

So, premittivity is invariant.

You can do the same thing with the units for permeability.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top