Relative Simultaneity and Electrodynamics: Lorentz Maths

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between Lorentz transformations and Maxwell's electrodynamics, particularly exploring the conceptual implications of relative simultaneity in electrodynamics. Participants are interested in how these mathematical frameworks interact and whether relative simultaneity is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations or a separate convention.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express interest in understanding how Lorentz mathematics relate to Maxwell's equations on a conceptual level, particularly regarding electrostatic fields and their interactions.
  • There is a suggestion that the Lorentz transformation is not derived from Maxwell's equations, with one participant stating that Lorentz hoped for this connection but it has not been established.
  • Participants discuss the mixing of electric and magnetic fields in relativistic electrodynamics when viewed from a moving frame, indicating that transformations affect both space-time and field configurations.
  • One participant notes that the essence of relative simultaneity may have existed prior to Lorentz's work, suggesting that the gamma factor was a later addition to the concept of local time.
  • There is a question about the relevance of relative simultaneity in electrodynamics, with some arguing it only becomes relevant when relativity is incorporated.
  • Participants explore the implications of clock synchronization conventions and how they relate to the understanding of simultaneity in the context of electrodynamics.
  • Some participants raise concerns about the mathematical soundness of using quantum mechanics to derive Lorentz transformations, questioning the validity of certain arguments presented.
  • Maxwell's equations are noted to be invariant under the Poincare group, with discussions on how this relates to the broader context of special relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation of Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's equations, with multiple competing views on the relevance of relative simultaneity and the implications of clock synchronization conventions. The discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted, including the dependence on definitions of simultaneity and the unresolved nature of how relativistic effects directly relate to moving fields and particles.

Austin0
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
1
I am interested in how the Lorentz maths were derived from the Maxwell electrodynamic and field equations. But not in a struct mathemetical sense as the math is outside my range but on a simpler conceptual level. For eg. contraction seems to have relevance wrt electron electrostatic fields and their interactions.
Is there any relevance of relative simultaneity in the calculations of electrodynamics?
Was the mathematical expression of relative simultaneity in any way derived from the Maxwell maths or could it be??
Or is it directly a consequence of the clock synchronization convention that was added later with no correlation to electrodynamics?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Austin0 said:
I am interested in how the Lorentz maths were derived from the Maxwell electrodynamic and field equations. But not in a struct mathemetical sense as the math is outside my range but on a simpler conceptual level. For eg. contraction seems to have relevance wrt electron electrostatic fields and their interactions.
Is there any relevance of relative simultaneity in the calculations of electrodynamics?
Was the mathematical expression of relative simultaneity in any way derived from the Maxwell maths or could it be??
Or is it directly a consequence of the clock synchronization convention that was added later with no correlation to electrodynamics?
Thanks

I don't think you need Maxwell's equations to show that the Lorentz transformation is the proper length conserving transformation of Minkowski spacetime.

The interesting thing about relativistic electrodynamics is that electric and magnetic fields 'mix' when viewed from a moving frame. When a frame is boosted, space and time 'mix'

t' = Yt + vYx
x' = Yx + vYt

and a similar thing happens to E and B. If we have 3 electric fields Ex, Ey and Ez and we get a velocity v in the z-direction, then the new fields are (Y is the gamma from the z boost)

E'x = YEx
E'y = YEy
Ez = Ez

and now there are magnetic fields where there were none,

By = vYEx
Bx = vYEy

I've omitted the constants that convert B -> E for clarity.
 
Mentz114 said:
I don't think you need Maxwell's equations to show that the Lorentz transformation is the proper length conserving transformation of Minkowski spacetime.

The interesting thing about relativistic electrodynamics is that electric and magnetic fields 'mix' when viewed from a moving frame. When a frame is boosted, space and time 'mix'

t' = Yt + vYx
x' = Yx + vYt

and a similar thing happens to E and B. If we have 3 electric fields Ex, Ey and Ez and we get a velocity v in the z-direction, then the new fields are (Y is the gamma from the z boost)

E'x = YEx
E'y = YEy
Ez = Ez

and now there are magnetic fields where there were none,

By = vYEx
Bx = vYEy

I've omitted the constants that convert B -> E for clarity.
From what I have read so far in the link grandpa provided it seems that the basis for
t' = Yt + vYx
did appear much earlier in the form of what they called local time. So it appears the real change is the addition of the gamma transformation factor but the essence of relative simultaneity appeared even before Lorentz. I would not bet large sums on the correctness of my understanding here but so far it seems like this is the basis for simultaniety and the clock convention came later as a rational implementation of this.
I still want to learn more regarding the meaning of "local time" in electrdynamics and more of how relative simultaneity would practically relate to particles and fields etc. in the same way as contraction.
Thanks for your explication ,,,food for thought
 
"I am interested in how the Lorentz maths were derived from the Maxwell electrodynamic and field equations."
They haven't been and don't follow from Maxwell. Lorentz hoped that would happen, but no one has done it.

"Is there any relevance of relative simultaneity in the calculations of electrodynamics?"
Not until relativity is added.

"Was the mathematical expression of relative simultaneity in any way derived from the Maxwell maths or could it be??"
Only in the sense that in order for Maxwell to be relativistic, simultaneity has to be relative."clock synchronization convention"
What does this mean?
 
At a conceptual level, you can try "How to teach special relativity'" on p67 of http://books.google.com/books?id=FGnnHxh2YtQC&dq=bell+unspeakable&source=gbs_navlinks_s The handwavy argument has to do with the contraction of the electric field of a moving point charge. The argument has a hole because it needs a system of charges to have a unique equilibium configuration, which isn't true in classical electrostatics. I've heard an argument that tries to fix this by using quantum mechanics, saying that many systems have unique ground states. However, the quantum theory of Maxwell's equations does not hold to arbitrarily high energies, so one might object to using a mathematically unsound theory to derive the Lorentz transformations. I wonder if this can be done by saying that QED is a sound and unique theory (has an infrared fixed point) at low energies, so we can use that to derive the Lorentz transformations (ie. use the canonical form where Lorentz covariance is not manifest, and show that it is equivalent to the covariant form)?

Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare group, and a larger group called the conformal group. The restriction to the Poincare group for special relativity comes when massive fields are considered, in addition to the massless field of Maxwell.
 
Last edited:
clem said:
"I am interested in how the Lorentz maths were derived from the Maxwell electrodynamic and field equations."
They haven't been and don't follow from Maxwell. Lorentz hoped that would happen, but no one has done it.

"Is there any relevance of relative simultaneity in the calculations of electrodynamics?"
Not until relativity is added.

Then at relativistic velocities does it directly relate to the moving fields and particles and if so how?

"clock synchronization convention"
What does this mean?
The Einstein convention of synchronization through calculations based on reflected light transmission.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
10K
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
955