Could be possible to build a 4-vector in special relativity whose spatial component was the electric field E?












1















Hi everyone and sorry for my English.



I would like to know if I can build a legitimate 4-vector as $E^alpha=(E^0,mathbf{E})$.



I'd like you to check if my way is correct.



1- We already know that $mathbf{E}$ transforms under Lorentz boost as:
begin{equation}label{sdf}
begin{aligned}
mathbf{E}'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)-dfrac{gamma^2}{gamma+1}vec{beta}left(vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}right)\[5mm]
&text{So:}\[5mm]
E'_parallel&=E_parallel\
mathbf{E}_perp'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}_perp+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)
end{aligned}
end{equation}

2- While the spatial component of any 4-vector must obey the following rule:
begin{equation}
begin{aligned}
E_parallel'&=gamma(E_{parallel}-beta E^0)\
mathbf{E}_perp'&=mathbf{E}_perp
end{aligned}
end{equation}

So both expressions must to be equal:
begin{equation}
left{
begin{aligned}
gamma E_parallel-gammabeta E^0&=E_parallel\
gammamathbf{E}_perp+gammavec{beta}timesmathbf{B}&=mathbf{E}_perp
end{aligned}
right.
end{equation}

From the first one we can conclude that time component of 4-vector must be $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta}E_parallel$ or $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta^2}vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}$
But what can we conclude for the second one? Is therefore possible to build that 4-vector $E^alpha$?



Thank you very much










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    1















    Hi everyone and sorry for my English.



    I would like to know if I can build a legitimate 4-vector as $E^alpha=(E^0,mathbf{E})$.



    I'd like you to check if my way is correct.



    1- We already know that $mathbf{E}$ transforms under Lorentz boost as:
    begin{equation}label{sdf}
    begin{aligned}
    mathbf{E}'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)-dfrac{gamma^2}{gamma+1}vec{beta}left(vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}right)\[5mm]
    &text{So:}\[5mm]
    E'_parallel&=E_parallel\
    mathbf{E}_perp'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}_perp+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)
    end{aligned}
    end{equation}

    2- While the spatial component of any 4-vector must obey the following rule:
    begin{equation}
    begin{aligned}
    E_parallel'&=gamma(E_{parallel}-beta E^0)\
    mathbf{E}_perp'&=mathbf{E}_perp
    end{aligned}
    end{equation}

    So both expressions must to be equal:
    begin{equation}
    left{
    begin{aligned}
    gamma E_parallel-gammabeta E^0&=E_parallel\
    gammamathbf{E}_perp+gammavec{beta}timesmathbf{B}&=mathbf{E}_perp
    end{aligned}
    right.
    end{equation}

    From the first one we can conclude that time component of 4-vector must be $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta}E_parallel$ or $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta^2}vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}$
    But what can we conclude for the second one? Is therefore possible to build that 4-vector $E^alpha$?



    Thank you very much










    share|cite|improve this question







    New contributor




    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      1












      1








      1








      Hi everyone and sorry for my English.



      I would like to know if I can build a legitimate 4-vector as $E^alpha=(E^0,mathbf{E})$.



      I'd like you to check if my way is correct.



      1- We already know that $mathbf{E}$ transforms under Lorentz boost as:
      begin{equation}label{sdf}
      begin{aligned}
      mathbf{E}'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)-dfrac{gamma^2}{gamma+1}vec{beta}left(vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}right)\[5mm]
      &text{So:}\[5mm]
      E'_parallel&=E_parallel\
      mathbf{E}_perp'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}_perp+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)
      end{aligned}
      end{equation}

      2- While the spatial component of any 4-vector must obey the following rule:
      begin{equation}
      begin{aligned}
      E_parallel'&=gamma(E_{parallel}-beta E^0)\
      mathbf{E}_perp'&=mathbf{E}_perp
      end{aligned}
      end{equation}

      So both expressions must to be equal:
      begin{equation}
      left{
      begin{aligned}
      gamma E_parallel-gammabeta E^0&=E_parallel\
      gammamathbf{E}_perp+gammavec{beta}timesmathbf{B}&=mathbf{E}_perp
      end{aligned}
      right.
      end{equation}

      From the first one we can conclude that time component of 4-vector must be $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta}E_parallel$ or $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta^2}vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}$
      But what can we conclude for the second one? Is therefore possible to build that 4-vector $E^alpha$?



      Thank you very much










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      Hi everyone and sorry for my English.



      I would like to know if I can build a legitimate 4-vector as $E^alpha=(E^0,mathbf{E})$.



      I'd like you to check if my way is correct.



      1- We already know that $mathbf{E}$ transforms under Lorentz boost as:
      begin{equation}label{sdf}
      begin{aligned}
      mathbf{E}'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)-dfrac{gamma^2}{gamma+1}vec{beta}left(vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}right)\[5mm]
      &text{So:}\[5mm]
      E'_parallel&=E_parallel\
      mathbf{E}_perp'&=gammaleft(mathbf{E}_perp+vec{beta}timesmathbf{B} right)
      end{aligned}
      end{equation}

      2- While the spatial component of any 4-vector must obey the following rule:
      begin{equation}
      begin{aligned}
      E_parallel'&=gamma(E_{parallel}-beta E^0)\
      mathbf{E}_perp'&=mathbf{E}_perp
      end{aligned}
      end{equation}

      So both expressions must to be equal:
      begin{equation}
      left{
      begin{aligned}
      gamma E_parallel-gammabeta E^0&=E_parallel\
      gammamathbf{E}_perp+gammavec{beta}timesmathbf{B}&=mathbf{E}_perp
      end{aligned}
      right.
      end{equation}

      From the first one we can conclude that time component of 4-vector must be $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta}E_parallel$ or $E^0=dfrac{gamma-1}{gammabeta^2}vec{beta}cdotmathbf{E}$
      But what can we conclude for the second one? Is therefore possible to build that 4-vector $E^alpha$?



      Thank you very much







      special-relativity tensor-calculus classical-electrodynamics lorentz-symmetry






      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question






      New contributor




      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 7 hours ago









      DaniDani

      61




      61




      New contributor




      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          No, it is not possible to make a four-vector from the electric field. But from the electric field and the magnetic field together you can make a four-tensor, $F_{munu}$.



          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor



          This is because electric and magnetic fields transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. The transformed electric field is a linear combination of the untransformed electric field and the untransformed magnetic field. Amd similarly for the transformed magnetic field.



          The lesson is that electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of one unified thing, the electromagnetic field.






          share|cite|improve this answer


























          • Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

            – N. Steinle
            6 hours ago













          • Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

            – Dani
            6 hours ago











          • You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago













          • You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago





















          2














          I thought G. Smith's answer was fine in terms of explaining the physics involved, but the OP says:




          Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction?




          Your deduction is of the form X => Y, where X seems to be the proposition that one can make a four-vector of the form $(E^0,textbf{E})$. What is not totally clear to me about your X is what other data you think should be allowed to be encoded in $E^0$, but anyway I think it's possible to give a nonexistence proof without needing to clarify that point.



          You've proved some equations involving $E^0$ which vanish when the electric field is zero. Therefore when the field is zero, your 4-vector vanishes. But a Lorentz transformation on a zero vector always gives a zero vector, so you've proved that if an electric field is zero in one frame of reference, it's zero in all other frames. This is false, so we have a proof by contradiction that X is false.






          share|cite|improve this answer































            0














            Maybe I could say that my derivation is not possible because the time coordinate $E^0$ depends on another coordinate ($E_parallel$) and it is not allowed because coordinates in a 4-vector must be independent? Is this a factible answer that proofs what I want to?






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





















            • The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

              – Jahan Claes
              1 hour ago



















            0














            As observed by an inertial observer,
            the Electric Field is a spatial vector,
            which means that its time-component in that frame is always zero.



            In addition, the Magnetic Field is also a spatial vector... and thus has zero time-component.



            As @G. Smith notes, the electric and magnetic fields transform by mixing components (because the electric and magnetic fields are components of a two-index tensor).. and remain spatial,

            which are not like 4-vectors (since the time-component of a 4-vector won't generally stay zero after transformation).



            update:

            Up to sign conventions, $$E_b=F_{ab}u^a$$
            is the electric-field according to the observer with 4-velocity $u^a$.
            (It is an observer-dependent four-vector.)

            But since $F_{ab}=F_{[ab]}$, it follows that
            $$E_bu^b=F_{ab}u^a u^b=0,$$
            that is, the observer with 4-velocity $u^b$ measures the time-component of $E_b$ to be zero. Thus, $E_b$ has only spatial-components for that observer.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























            • This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

              – Ben Crowell
              2 hours ago











            • This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

              – robphy
              1 hour ago





















            0














            Your formula for $E_0$ depends on $beta$. If there WERE a legal four-vector for the electric field, it's components can't depend on the Lorentz transformation you do. Your formula for $E_0$ should be independent of $beta$. But as you show with your algebra above, this is not possible.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























            • (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

              – Jahan Claes
              1 hour ago











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            Dani is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453980%2fcould-be-possible-to-build-a-4-vector-in-special-relativity-whose-spatial-compon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes








            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            No, it is not possible to make a four-vector from the electric field. But from the electric field and the magnetic field together you can make a four-tensor, $F_{munu}$.



            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor



            This is because electric and magnetic fields transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. The transformed electric field is a linear combination of the untransformed electric field and the untransformed magnetic field. Amd similarly for the transformed magnetic field.



            The lesson is that electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of one unified thing, the electromagnetic field.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























            • Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

              – N. Steinle
              6 hours ago













            • Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

              – Dani
              6 hours ago











            • You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago













            • You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago


















            2














            No, it is not possible to make a four-vector from the electric field. But from the electric field and the magnetic field together you can make a four-tensor, $F_{munu}$.



            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor



            This is because electric and magnetic fields transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. The transformed electric field is a linear combination of the untransformed electric field and the untransformed magnetic field. Amd similarly for the transformed magnetic field.



            The lesson is that electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of one unified thing, the electromagnetic field.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























            • Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

              – N. Steinle
              6 hours ago













            • Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

              – Dani
              6 hours ago











            • You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago













            • You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago
















            2












            2








            2







            No, it is not possible to make a four-vector from the electric field. But from the electric field and the magnetic field together you can make a four-tensor, $F_{munu}$.



            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor



            This is because electric and magnetic fields transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. The transformed electric field is a linear combination of the untransformed electric field and the untransformed magnetic field. Amd similarly for the transformed magnetic field.



            The lesson is that electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of one unified thing, the electromagnetic field.






            share|cite|improve this answer















            No, it is not possible to make a four-vector from the electric field. But from the electric field and the magnetic field together you can make a four-tensor, $F_{munu}$.



            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor



            This is because electric and magnetic fields transform into each other under Lorentz transformations. The transformed electric field is a linear combination of the untransformed electric field and the untransformed magnetic field. Amd similarly for the transformed magnetic field.



            The lesson is that electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of one unified thing, the electromagnetic field.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 7 hours ago

























            answered 7 hours ago









            G. SmithG. Smith

            5,2391021




            5,2391021













            • Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

              – N. Steinle
              6 hours ago













            • Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

              – Dani
              6 hours ago











            • You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago













            • You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago





















            • Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

              – N. Steinle
              6 hours ago













            • Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

              – Dani
              6 hours ago











            • You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago













            • You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

              – G. Smith
              5 hours ago



















            Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

            – N. Steinle
            6 hours ago







            Here is a nice article about the unification of $vec{E}$ and $vec{B}$. arxiv.org/abs/1111.7126

            – N. Steinle
            6 hours ago















            Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

            – Dani
            6 hours ago





            Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction? Thanks!

            – Dani
            6 hours ago













            You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago







            You don’t have a deduction to criticize! You failed to find a four-vector that satisied the equations you wrote down. Since your second equation involves the magnetic field, how could you possibly expect to satisfy it, when your first equation requires $E^0$ to be a combination of the components of the electric field? This seems like proof to me that what you want is impossible. And, of course, if what you were trying to do were possible, it would have been done 100 years ago.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago















            You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago







            You may “know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties” but you didn’t grasp its relevance. If electric and magnetic fields mix together under a Lorentz transformation, then they cannot also stay unmixed under a Lorentz transformation, as in your failed attempt. Things either mix or they don’t. They can’t do both.

            – G. Smith
            5 hours ago













            2














            I thought G. Smith's answer was fine in terms of explaining the physics involved, but the OP says:




            Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction?




            Your deduction is of the form X => Y, where X seems to be the proposition that one can make a four-vector of the form $(E^0,textbf{E})$. What is not totally clear to me about your X is what other data you think should be allowed to be encoded in $E^0$, but anyway I think it's possible to give a nonexistence proof without needing to clarify that point.



            You've proved some equations involving $E^0$ which vanish when the electric field is zero. Therefore when the field is zero, your 4-vector vanishes. But a Lorentz transformation on a zero vector always gives a zero vector, so you've proved that if an electric field is zero in one frame of reference, it's zero in all other frames. This is false, so we have a proof by contradiction that X is false.






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              2














              I thought G. Smith's answer was fine in terms of explaining the physics involved, but the OP says:




              Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction?




              Your deduction is of the form X => Y, where X seems to be the proposition that one can make a four-vector of the form $(E^0,textbf{E})$. What is not totally clear to me about your X is what other data you think should be allowed to be encoded in $E^0$, but anyway I think it's possible to give a nonexistence proof without needing to clarify that point.



              You've proved some equations involving $E^0$ which vanish when the electric field is zero. Therefore when the field is zero, your 4-vector vanishes. But a Lorentz transformation on a zero vector always gives a zero vector, so you've proved that if an electric field is zero in one frame of reference, it's zero in all other frames. This is false, so we have a proof by contradiction that X is false.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                2












                2








                2







                I thought G. Smith's answer was fine in terms of explaining the physics involved, but the OP says:




                Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction?




                Your deduction is of the form X => Y, where X seems to be the proposition that one can make a four-vector of the form $(E^0,textbf{E})$. What is not totally clear to me about your X is what other data you think should be allowed to be encoded in $E^0$, but anyway I think it's possible to give a nonexistence proof without needing to clarify that point.



                You've proved some equations involving $E^0$ which vanish when the electric field is zero. Therefore when the field is zero, your 4-vector vanishes. But a Lorentz transformation on a zero vector always gives a zero vector, so you've proved that if an electric field is zero in one frame of reference, it's zero in all other frames. This is false, so we have a proof by contradiction that X is false.






                share|cite|improve this answer













                I thought G. Smith's answer was fine in terms of explaining the physics involved, but the OP says:




                Thank you G.Smith. I know about the electromagnetic tensor and its properties, but i was wondering if there is a formal proof about the imposibility of building that $E^alpha$ tensor, based on the allowed transformations, as I've tried. What's wrong with my deduction?




                Your deduction is of the form X => Y, where X seems to be the proposition that one can make a four-vector of the form $(E^0,textbf{E})$. What is not totally clear to me about your X is what other data you think should be allowed to be encoded in $E^0$, but anyway I think it's possible to give a nonexistence proof without needing to clarify that point.



                You've proved some equations involving $E^0$ which vanish when the electric field is zero. Therefore when the field is zero, your 4-vector vanishes. But a Lorentz transformation on a zero vector always gives a zero vector, so you've proved that if an electric field is zero in one frame of reference, it's zero in all other frames. This is false, so we have a proof by contradiction that X is false.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 6 hours ago









                Ben CrowellBen Crowell

                49.1k4153294




                49.1k4153294























                    0














                    Maybe I could say that my derivation is not possible because the time coordinate $E^0$ depends on another coordinate ($E_parallel$) and it is not allowed because coordinates in a 4-vector must be independent? Is this a factible answer that proofs what I want to?






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                    • The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago
















                    0














                    Maybe I could say that my derivation is not possible because the time coordinate $E^0$ depends on another coordinate ($E_parallel$) and it is not allowed because coordinates in a 4-vector must be independent? Is this a factible answer that proofs what I want to?






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                    • The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago














                    0












                    0








                    0







                    Maybe I could say that my derivation is not possible because the time coordinate $E^0$ depends on another coordinate ($E_parallel$) and it is not allowed because coordinates in a 4-vector must be independent? Is this a factible answer that proofs what I want to?






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                    Maybe I could say that my derivation is not possible because the time coordinate $E^0$ depends on another coordinate ($E_parallel$) and it is not allowed because coordinates in a 4-vector must be independent? Is this a factible answer that proofs what I want to?







                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 6 hours ago









                    DaniDani

                    61




                    61




                    New contributor




                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Dani is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.













                    • The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago



















                    • The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago

















                    The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                    – Jahan Claes
                    1 hour ago





                    The problem is your time coordinate depends on $beta$. It's perfectly fine to have it depend on spacial stuff.

                    – Jahan Claes
                    1 hour ago











                    0














                    As observed by an inertial observer,
                    the Electric Field is a spatial vector,
                    which means that its time-component in that frame is always zero.



                    In addition, the Magnetic Field is also a spatial vector... and thus has zero time-component.



                    As @G. Smith notes, the electric and magnetic fields transform by mixing components (because the electric and magnetic fields are components of a two-index tensor).. and remain spatial,

                    which are not like 4-vectors (since the time-component of a 4-vector won't generally stay zero after transformation).



                    update:

                    Up to sign conventions, $$E_b=F_{ab}u^a$$
                    is the electric-field according to the observer with 4-velocity $u^a$.
                    (It is an observer-dependent four-vector.)

                    But since $F_{ab}=F_{[ab]}$, it follows that
                    $$E_bu^b=F_{ab}u^a u^b=0,$$
                    that is, the observer with 4-velocity $u^b$ measures the time-component of $E_b$ to be zero. Thus, $E_b$ has only spatial-components for that observer.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                    • This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                      – Ben Crowell
                      2 hours ago











                    • This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                      – robphy
                      1 hour ago


















                    0














                    As observed by an inertial observer,
                    the Electric Field is a spatial vector,
                    which means that its time-component in that frame is always zero.



                    In addition, the Magnetic Field is also a spatial vector... and thus has zero time-component.



                    As @G. Smith notes, the electric and magnetic fields transform by mixing components (because the electric and magnetic fields are components of a two-index tensor).. and remain spatial,

                    which are not like 4-vectors (since the time-component of a 4-vector won't generally stay zero after transformation).



                    update:

                    Up to sign conventions, $$E_b=F_{ab}u^a$$
                    is the electric-field according to the observer with 4-velocity $u^a$.
                    (It is an observer-dependent four-vector.)

                    But since $F_{ab}=F_{[ab]}$, it follows that
                    $$E_bu^b=F_{ab}u^a u^b=0,$$
                    that is, the observer with 4-velocity $u^b$ measures the time-component of $E_b$ to be zero. Thus, $E_b$ has only spatial-components for that observer.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                    • This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                      – Ben Crowell
                      2 hours ago











                    • This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                      – robphy
                      1 hour ago
















                    0












                    0








                    0







                    As observed by an inertial observer,
                    the Electric Field is a spatial vector,
                    which means that its time-component in that frame is always zero.



                    In addition, the Magnetic Field is also a spatial vector... and thus has zero time-component.



                    As @G. Smith notes, the electric and magnetic fields transform by mixing components (because the electric and magnetic fields are components of a two-index tensor).. and remain spatial,

                    which are not like 4-vectors (since the time-component of a 4-vector won't generally stay zero after transformation).



                    update:

                    Up to sign conventions, $$E_b=F_{ab}u^a$$
                    is the electric-field according to the observer with 4-velocity $u^a$.
                    (It is an observer-dependent four-vector.)

                    But since $F_{ab}=F_{[ab]}$, it follows that
                    $$E_bu^b=F_{ab}u^a u^b=0,$$
                    that is, the observer with 4-velocity $u^b$ measures the time-component of $E_b$ to be zero. Thus, $E_b$ has only spatial-components for that observer.






                    share|cite|improve this answer















                    As observed by an inertial observer,
                    the Electric Field is a spatial vector,
                    which means that its time-component in that frame is always zero.



                    In addition, the Magnetic Field is also a spatial vector... and thus has zero time-component.



                    As @G. Smith notes, the electric and magnetic fields transform by mixing components (because the electric and magnetic fields are components of a two-index tensor).. and remain spatial,

                    which are not like 4-vectors (since the time-component of a 4-vector won't generally stay zero after transformation).



                    update:

                    Up to sign conventions, $$E_b=F_{ab}u^a$$
                    is the electric-field according to the observer with 4-velocity $u^a$.
                    (It is an observer-dependent four-vector.)

                    But since $F_{ab}=F_{[ab]}$, it follows that
                    $$E_bu^b=F_{ab}u^a u^b=0,$$
                    that is, the observer with 4-velocity $u^b$ measures the time-component of $E_b$ to be zero. Thus, $E_b$ has only spatial-components for that observer.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 5 hours ago

























                    answered 6 hours ago









                    robphyrobphy

                    1,872238




                    1,872238













                    • This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                      – Ben Crowell
                      2 hours ago











                    • This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                      – robphy
                      1 hour ago





















                    • This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                      – Ben Crowell
                      2 hours ago











                    • This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                      – robphy
                      1 hour ago



















                    This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                    – Ben Crowell
                    2 hours ago





                    This reasoning seems a little circular. Of course if you assume that the putative electric field four-vector is equal to the first row of the electromagnetic field tensor, then it's trivially true that has a zero timelike component and has the wrong transformation properties.

                    – Ben Crowell
                    2 hours ago













                    This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                    – robphy
                    1 hour ago







                    This formulation is based on a tensorial development of the field tensor and Maxwell Equations, as found in Misner-Thorne-Wheeler [Ch 3.1] and in Wald [Ch 4.2], which is more geometrical and elegant compared to matrix representations and clumsy 3-vector formulations. The magnetic field is defined analogously with the Hodge-dual *F. (In other words, is there a more elegant way to describe the clumsier coordinate-based calculations and transformation formulas to demonstrate Lorentz invariance? Yes, use tensors through out.)

                    – robphy
                    1 hour ago













                    0














                    Your formula for $E_0$ depends on $beta$. If there WERE a legal four-vector for the electric field, it's components can't depend on the Lorentz transformation you do. Your formula for $E_0$ should be independent of $beta$. But as you show with your algebra above, this is not possible.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                    • (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago
















                    0














                    Your formula for $E_0$ depends on $beta$. If there WERE a legal four-vector for the electric field, it's components can't depend on the Lorentz transformation you do. Your formula for $E_0$ should be independent of $beta$. But as you show with your algebra above, this is not possible.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                    • (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago














                    0












                    0








                    0







                    Your formula for $E_0$ depends on $beta$. If there WERE a legal four-vector for the electric field, it's components can't depend on the Lorentz transformation you do. Your formula for $E_0$ should be independent of $beta$. But as you show with your algebra above, this is not possible.






                    share|cite|improve this answer













                    Your formula for $E_0$ depends on $beta$. If there WERE a legal four-vector for the electric field, it's components can't depend on the Lorentz transformation you do. Your formula for $E_0$ should be independent of $beta$. But as you show with your algebra above, this is not possible.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Jahan ClaesJahan Claes

                    5,0131032




                    5,0131032













                    • (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago



















                    • (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                      – Jahan Claes
                      1 hour ago

















                    (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                    – Jahan Claes
                    1 hour ago





                    (I'll add that you also can't solve your second equation at all if you allow arbitrary magnetic fields. You can easily see this by taking the derivative with respect to any components of the magnetic field on both sides of that equation. One side with have the derivative be zero, the other will not. So it simply can't be solved)

                    – Jahan Claes
                    1 hour ago










                    Dani is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Dani is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    Dani is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Dani is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453980%2fcould-be-possible-to-build-a-4-vector-in-special-relativity-whose-spatial-compon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to make a Squid Proxy server?

                    第一次世界大戦

                    Touch on Surface Book