SR, electromagnetic waves in moving reference frames.

Lavabug
Messages
858
Reaction score
37

Homework Statement


Not really a homework/coursework problem, I'm just trying to make sense of some class notes from our chapter on special relativity. I'm trying to find the expression for electromagnetic wave propagation in a reference frame S' that is moving at a constant velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame S.
[PLAIN]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4058/p1000897f.jpg
Where capital phi is either the B or E vector (see relevant equations).

Homework Equations


[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/5/a/45adde5635abaf78b4b9174bf210f504.png[/URL]
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/a/4/da48cd00768a325141e38f519b4ca55e.png[/URL]
or more generally:
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/7/0/670fa614a400a15236d39ece735e6f14.png[/URL]

Just need to find the 2nd order partials with respect to x, y, z for the Laplacian and the 2nd order partial with respect to t.

The Attempt at a Solution



I have no trouble finding the first order partial derivatives of phi with respect to all 4 variables (note the red checkmark), nor the 2nd order partial derivatives with respect to x, y and z. But I don't know what happened with the 2nd derivative with respect to time, I don't know where the two middle terms came from. (see arrows)

2nd question: What does the solution imply? I didn't understand/am missing the bit of theory that came afterwards (I'm not studying in my native language and my lecturer speaks blazingly fast lol), supposedly the solution for this equation in a moving reference frame gives an answer of 0, which implies that their is no preferential reference frame.

Sorry for posing a question so convoluted but I'd appreciate any help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The transformation you've written down there x^\prime = x - vt is a Galilean transformation. The relativistic transformation is known as the Lorentz transformation.

I haven't looked over your maths in detail, but if my memory serves me right, the EM wave equation is not invariant under a Galilean transformation but it is under a Lorentz transformation. You've basically shown there that the Galilean transformation doesn't work for EM waves.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top