Understanding Einstein's Derivation of EM Transformations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding Einstein's derivation of the electromagnetic transformations as presented in his 1905 paper. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in applying transformations to the Maxwell equations, the use of Minkowski's formalism, and the implications of Lorentz transformations on various components of the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on how to apply Einstein's transformations to derive the equations mentioned in his paper.
  • Another participant suggests that Minkowski's covariant formalism simplifies the process, describing the electromagnetic field using the Faraday tensor and its transformation properties.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the Minkowski method and seeks pointers on Einstein's original approach.
  • It is noted that converting partial derivatives using the chain rule is necessary to relate the original coordinates to the new coordinates, which some find tedious.
  • One participant summarizes Einstein's approach, stating he transforms field components to maintain the form of Maxwell's equations across different frames, emphasizing the tedious nature of the calculations.
  • A participant asks how to derive the transformation of partial derivatives from the Lorentz transformation equations.
  • Another participant points out the differing transformation behavior of the y and z components compared to the x component.
  • A participant explains the application of the chain rule to derive the transformations of the partial derivatives, providing the necessary inverse Lorentz boost relations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the methods used in the derivation, with some favoring Minkowski's approach while others focus on Einstein's original methods. There is no consensus on the best approach or clarity on all mathematical steps involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants indicate that the derivation process is tedious and may require a solid understanding of the covariant formalism, which is not universally agreed upon as the preferred method. The discussion also highlights the complexity of transforming partial derivatives, which remains unresolved.

greswd
Messages
764
Reaction score
20
I was reading Einstein's seminal work: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdfGo to this part:

II. ELECTRODYNAMICAL PART § 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion

Einstein says "If we apply to these equations the transformation developed in § 3, by referring the electromagnetic processes to the system of co-ordinates there introduced, moving with the velocity v, we obtain the equations"

But I'm not sure how applying the transformations obtains those equations.

Can someone show me the intermediate steps?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks to Minkowski, it's much simpler nowadays. Einstein (and Lorentz, Poincare et al before him) had to do this by hand.

The trick is to use Minkowski's ingenious covariant formalism. The electromagnetic field is described by an antisymmetric four-tensor (the Faraday tensor), which derives as a four-curl from a vector potential:
$$F_{\mu \nu}(x) = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}(x)-\partial_{\nu} A_{\mu} (x).$$
The four-potential vector field transforms as a vector field, i.e., for an arbitrary Lorentz transformation ##{\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}##, which transforms the coordinates from one inertial frame to another via
$$\tilde{x}^{\mu} = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} x^{\nu}, \quad \tilde{x} = \hat{\Lambda} x$$
you have
$$\tilde{A}^{\mu}(\tilde{x}) = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} A^{\nu}(x)={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} A^{\nu}(\hat{\Lambda}^{-1} \tilde{x}).$$
Then taking the derivatives of the new tensor components with respect to the new spacetime coordinates, using this transformation formula, you get the transformation of the field components written down in Einstein's paper.
 
haha I don't understand the Minkowski method.

what did Einstein use? no need to write the full working, just give me some pointers, thanks.
 
Basically, you have to convert the partial derivatives of X, Y, Z, L, M, N with respect to the original coordinates x, y, z, t (e.g. ##\partial X / \partial t##) to partial derivatives with respect to the new coordinates ##\xi, \eta, \zeta, \tau## (e.g. ##\partial X / \partial \tau##), by using the chain rule for partial derivatives. It's a tedious slog.

I seem to remember participating in a previous thread about this... ah, here it is!

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/transforming-maxwells-equations-in-special-relativity.667526/
 
Last edited:
Well, this Einstein describes in detail in his famous paper of 1905. First he uses the field components in the initial frame but writes the Maxwell equations in terms of the spacetime coordinates of the boosted frame. Then he argues, that there should be transformations of the field components to new field components such that for these new components the Maxwell equations hold in the same form as for the original components in the original frame, and he derives these equations. It's not so difficult in principle, but a bit tedious to do by hand. Of course, modern vector notation should simplify the task significantly. Because that tedious exercise is a good motivation for you to learn the manifestly covariant four-vector formalism, because then you don't need this tedious calculation, Einstein had to do 110 years ago :-).
 
Thanks, that thread is very useful. But how do we go from this:

<br /> \begin{align}<br /> t&#039; = &amp; \gamma \left( t-\frac{v}{c^2}x \right) \\<br /> x&#039; = &amp; \gamma \left( x-vt \right) \\<br /> y&#039; = &amp; y \\<br /> z&#039; = &amp; z<br /> \end{align}<br />

to this:
<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \frac{\partial }{\partial t}\equiv &amp; \gamma \left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t&#039;} - v \frac{\partial }{\partial x&#039;}\right) \\<br /> \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\equiv &amp; \gamma \left( \frac{\partial }{\partial x&#039;} - \frac{v}{c^2} \frac{\partial }{\partial t&#039;}\right) \\<br /> \frac{\partial }{\partial y}\equiv &amp; \frac{\partial }{\partial y&#039;} \\<br /> \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\equiv &amp; \frac{\partial }{\partial z&#039;}<br /> \end{align}<br />
 
I also find it interesting that the y and z components don't transform in the same manner. one is +v and the other is -v.
 
You just use the chain rule
$$\partial_t=\frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \partial_{t'} + \frac{\partial t}{\partial x'} \partial_{x'}.$$
The inverse Lorentz boost needed reads
$$t=\gamma(t'+v/c^2 x'), \quad x=\gamma(x+v t).$$
Thus you have
$$\frac{\partial t}{\partial t'}=\gamma, \quad \frac{\partial t}{\partial x'}=\frac{\gamma v}{c^2}.$$
The same you have to do for ##\partial_x##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K