/sci/ - Science & Math

In that representation in a shitty way.

You could just as well ask in the QFT thread,
>>6396308
thx.

>>6398557
>>6398557
yes, but how can I prove that maxwell's equations are still valid in the rocket frame

Why don't you write down the fucking Lagrangian?

>>6398664
what's a Lagrangian

>>6398674
Jesus Christ.
Ok, here:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.html
Start from there. If you're going to do physics, you'd better make damn sure you know Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations, functional calculus, Noether's theorem, etc.

tfw graduating soon with a degree in physics but still couldn't tell you what a hamiltonian or lagrangian is

>>6399049
must be "Engineering Physics"

>>6399079
im an engineer and even I know what those are.

must be biological phisics

>>6398536
>>6398557
>>6398660
>>6398664
>>6398674
>>6398820
you're being a fucking douchebag. He doesn't need to understand the goddamn variational approach for fields. He doesn't need to ask in the QFT thread. He just need the explicit proof of covariance of Maxwell's Equation in vector form.

Here, OP, check any text on special relativity or classical electrodynamics, I suggest Prof Bo Thid?'s book (It's a draft and should be on his site) and you will find a clear proof.

The idea is finding how derivatives in time and space transform under a lorentz boost (invariance under translation and rotations is evident) and then trying to find how E and B should trasform to make the new equation look like the old but with E' and B'.

Note that Maxwell's equations in matter are NOT covariant because of the preferential frame given by the material itself.

>>6399123
If you know both Maxwell's equations and Special Relativity, then you should at least know basic Lagrangian mechanics.
It's not like he can't pick up the basics in less than a couple of days.

just write down dF=0, d*F=J and youre done

>>6399132
not necessarily. Also, field lagrangian mechanics is definitely more advanced than CED and special relativity, and might be at most included at the end of such a course.

This thing can be done without the ion cannon, like some people did a while ago when coming up with the theory of relativity.

>>6399123
>you're being a fucking douchebag.
you didn't quote just one person

>>6399169
you're being multiple variously large douchebags

>>6399115
im an biologist and even I know what those are.

must be sociological physics

>>6399182
>you're being multiple variously large douchebags
No. I'm the one who answered your Higgs mechanism question here
>>6397768
yesterday. I posted in this thread exactly once, namely the answer in the first post where I state the transformation rules OP asks for and suggest to him that he could just ask in my related thread - because without critical mass bumping it, a technical thread is gone if I stay away for 24h.
Then someone writes
>Why don't you write down the fucking Lagrangian?
then in return you call me
>a fucking douchebag
And that's what you get for putting in some effort on /sci/.

>Please stop avatarfagging
fuck that shit

>>6398674
Why don't you fucking google it?

>>6399123
How am I a douchebag? OP is the douchebag. He made an unnecessary thread for something he could of easily googled. And if he doesn't even know what a Lagrangian is, then he's wrong in physics.

>>6399401
Why the fuck would you redirect him to your pleb pop sci tier Zeidler circlejerk? He's not even asking a QFT question.

>>6399401
Hey avatarfag, why are you constantly lying about your age, your education and your profession?

>>6399123
I dunno, learning about field strengths seems like a pretty good idea anyway, and it immediately trivializs the question.

>>6399421
>to your pleb pop sci tier Zeidler circlejerk
You're funny.
And I've explicitly stated the reason.

>>6399426
wat.

sage

>>6399401
Actually, it was at least 3 different people

>>6399123
I even gave him a link so he could learn the Lagrangian formulation. Unlike the previous person, who just said to use "the fucking Lagrangian."
It's not like I just left OP hanging.

>>6399233
I'm a sociologist and even I know what those are.

must be contempory art crituiqe physics

>>6398820
2 points: 1. This guy is being a dick, OP's clearly in the first (maybe second if it's really shitty) year of a physics course. He probably hasn't seen this stuff yet.

2. David Tong's notes are awesome and everyone should read them.

>>6399765
I said "everyone" but these are aimed at guys in the third year of a pretty tough maths course (though toward the applied end).

>>6399776
Well, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian stuff isn't difficult. A bright high school student could learn it.
Not bragging or anything, but I know cuz I did it.

>>6399765
>OP's clearly in the first (maybe second if it's really shitty) year of a physics course. He probably hasn't seen this stuff yet.
That's why he was told to look into it. He's supposed to learn something.

>David Tong's notes are awesome and everyone should read them.
David Tong's lectures are shit tier.

>>6401824
If Tong's lectures are as you say "shit tier," how about you suggest some better lecture notes available online instead of just insulting them.
I think Tong's lecture notes are awesome, personally, but if you've found something better online, please, share.