Wave equation and Galilean Transformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Galilean invariance of the classical wave equation within the context of special relativity. Participants explore the transformation of the wave equation under Galilean transformations and the implications for partial derivatives, while also considering the transition to Lorentz transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to demonstrate that the classical wave equation is not Galilean invariant, referencing specific transformations and equations.
  • Another participant corrects the first by stating that the correct relationship for time in the transformation is \( t = \bar{t} \) and \( x = \bar{x} + v \bar{t} \).
  • Subsequent posts discuss the implications of these transformations on partial derivatives, with some participants asserting that \( \frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{x}} = 0 \) is correct.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the indices and the application of the wave equation in transformed coordinates, leading to further clarification on the relationships between derivatives.
  • There is a suggestion to calculate partial derivatives with respect to \( (x, t) \) instead of \( (\bar{x}, \bar{t}) \) to clarify the situation.
  • A later reply mentions that applying Lorentz transformations should yield the invariance of the wave equation, contrasting with the Galilean case.
  • One participant notes that they need to complete additional work and theory before addressing Lorentz transformations for their exam.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of transformations and the implications for the wave equation. There is no consensus on the resolution of the initial confusion regarding the transformations and their effects on the wave equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the mathematical steps involved in transforming the wave equation, and there are indications of missing assumptions or misunderstandings regarding the relationships between variables and derivatives.

Advent
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi! I was reading some notes on relativity (Special relativity) (http://teoria-de-la-relatividad.blogspot.com/2009/03/3-la-fisica-es-parada-de-cabeza.html) and it says that the classical wave equation is not Galilean Invariant. I tried to show it by myself, but I think there is some point that I'm missing.

Given two coordinate frames, if [tex]x=\bar{x}+vt[/tex] the classical wave equation transforms to:

[tex]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{x}^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{y}^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{z}^2} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{t}^2} + \frac{1}{c^2} \left( 2v \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{x} \partial \bar{t}}- v^2 \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{x}^2} \right) = 0[/tex]

But i can really get that answer. Supose I want to compute

[tex]\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \bar{x}} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x }{\partial \bar{x}} + \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y } \frac{\partial y }{\partial \bar{x}} + \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial z } \frac{\partial z }{\partial \bar{x}} + \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial t } \frac{\partial t }{\partial \bar{x}}[/tex]

And

[tex]t = \bar{t} = \frac{x-\bar{x}}{v}[/tex]

should be my hints to get to that result?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Advent said:
And

[tex]t = \bar{t} = \frac{x-\bar{x}}{v}[/tex]

No, this is incorrect. You need to use

[tex]t = \bar{t}[/tex]

and

[tex]x=\bar{x}+v \bar{t}[/tex]
 
So the right thing is [tex]\frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{x}} = 0[/tex] ? and every partial derivative involving time except [tex]\frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial \bar{t}{\partial t}[/tex] which are one
 
Advent said:
So the right thing is [tex]\frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{x}} = 0[/tex]

Yes, of course
 
Ok, thank you! Let's see if I can do it now
 
Ok, I'm almost done, because now I have problems with the indices.

I started by [tex]x=\bar{x} + vt[/tex] where [tex]v[/tex] is a constant. Now the wave equation [tex]\nabla^2 \phi = \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t}[/tex].

So i start writing the wave equation in the "\bar" coordinates. The Laplacian is the same [tex]\nabla_{bar}^2 \phi = \nabla^2 \phi[/tex] because

[tex]\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \bar{x}} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial \bar{x}} + \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{x}} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}[/tex]

For time:

[tex]\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial \bar{t}} + \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} + v \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar{t}^2} = \frac{\partial }{\partial \bar{t}} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial \phi^2}{\partial t ^2} + 2v \frac{\partial ^2 \phi}{\partial t \partial x} + v^2 \frac{\partial ^2 \phi}{\partial x^2}[/tex]

And the wave equation reads what I said in the first post but without bars. It should be a very silly thing, but I can't see it... Thanks for your time.
 
Advent said:
And the wave equation reads what I said in the first post but without bars. It should be a very silly thing, but I can't see it... Thanks for your time.

What happens if you start by calculating the partial derivatives wrt (x,t) instead of (x_bar,t)?
 
I was thinking that should be that... in fact, a very very silly thing.

PS: Btw the equation you have calculating with "bar" instead with normal is not the one in my first post. Actually is calculating with normal instead of bars.

Absolutely clear now, thanks again!
 
Advent said:
I was thinking that should be that... in fact, a very very silly thing.

PS: Btw the equation you have calculating with "bar" instead with normal is not the one in my first post. Actually is calculating with normal instead of bars.

Absolutely clear now, thanks again!

You are welcome, glad that I could help.
Now, if you do the same exercise by replacing the Galilean transforms with the Lorentz ones, you should get the famous invariance of the wave equation.
 
  • #10
I know, in fact i should do it for my speclal relativity exam, but there is some little work and theory before Lorentz Transformations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K