We show that if Maxwell’s equations are expressed in a form independent of specific units, at least three Galilean limits can be extracted. The electric and magnetic limits can be regarded as nonrelativistic limits because they are obtained using the condition and restrictions on the magnitudes of the sources and fields. The third limit is called the instantaneous limit and is introduced by letting . The electric and instantaneous limits have the same form, but their interpretation is different because the instantaneous limit cannot be considered as a nonrelativistic limit. We emphasize the double role that the speed of light plays in Maxwell’s equations.
REFERENCES
1.
M.
Le Bellac
and J. M.
Lévy-Leblond
, “Galilean electromagnetism
,” Nuovo Cimento B
14
, 217
–233
(1973
).2.
P.
Holland
and H. R.
Brown
, “The non-relativistic limits of the Maxwell and Dirac equations: the role of Galilean and gauge invariance
,” Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys.
34
, 161
–187
(2003
).3.
J. M.
Lévy-Leblond
, “Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du groupe de Poincaré
,” Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, Sect A
3
, 1
–12
(1965
).4.
The nonrelativistic limit has been improperly identified with the instantaneous limit . For example, in
B.
Thaller
, Advanced Visual Quantum Mechanics
(Springer-Verlag
, New York
, 2004
), p. 402
, we read, “In a nonrelativistic theory, all velocities of the system are small in magnitude compared to , the speed of light. Mathematically, the nonrelativistic limit of a relativistic theory is therefore described by the limit , which removes the relativistic bound on the propagation of signals.”We also mention that has been improperly called “the nonrelativistic limit” in, for example,
M. P.
Hobson
, G. P.
Efstathiou
, and A. N.
Lasenby
, General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists
(Cambridge U. P.
, Cambridge
, 2006
), p. 214
.5.
Strictly, the ultratimelike and ultraspacelike limits are approximate limits. In contrast, the instantaneous limit is an exact limit. The ultratimelike limit should be written as and and the instantaneous limit as and .
6.
H. R.
Brown
and P. R.
Holland
, “The Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics in the case of external fields
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 204
–214
(1999
);G.
Rousseaux
, “Lorenz or Coulomb in Galilean electromagnetism?
,” Europhys. Lett.
71
, 15
–20
(2005
);M.
de Montigny
and G.
Rousseaux
, “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies at low velocities
,” Eur. J. Phys.
27
, 755
–768
(2006
);M.
de Montigny
and G.
Rousseaux
,“On some applications of Galilean electrodynamics of moving bodies
,” Am. J. Phys.
75
, 984
–992
(2007
);V.
Colussi
and S.
Wickramasekara
, “Galilean and gauge symmetry of the Schrodinger field
,” Ann. Phys.
323
, 3020
–3036
(2008
);G.
Rousseaux
, “On the electrodynamics of Minkowski at low velocities
,” Europhys. Lett.
84
, 20002
–1
(2008
).7.
J. A.
Heras
, “Can Maxwell’s equations be obtained from the continuity equation?
,” Am. J. Phys.
75
, 652
–656
(2007
);J. A.
Heras
and G.
Báez
, “The covariant formulation of Maxwell’s equations expressed in a form independent of specific units
,” Eur. J. Phys.
30
, 23
–33
(2009
).8.
H.
Palmer
, “Maxwell commutator bridge for permittivity and speed of light
,” Am. J. Phys.
23
, 40
–45
(1955
). Palmer reported the experimental value .9.
If is assumed, the electric limit becomes too restrictive because we would have magnetic fields constant in time, , and electric fields linear in time, , where is a fixed time and the dot means time differentiation.
10.
Equations (23) imply the continuity equation , which is also Galilean invariant because of the relation , where we have used .
11.
Herman A.
Haus
and James R.
Melcher
, Electromagnetic Fields and Energy
(Prentice-Hall
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
, 1989
).12.
J.
Larsson
, “Electromagnetics from a quasistatic perspective
,” Am. J. Phys.
75
, 230
–239
(2007
).13.
R.
Moreau
, in Electrohydrodynamique, Dynamique des Fluids
, edited by R.
Balian
and J. L.
Peube
(Gordon
, Les Houches
, 1973
).14.
If is assumed in the magnetic limit, we would have electric fields constant in time, , and magnetic fields linear in time, . The magnetic limit would be too restrictive.
15.
Equation (29d) implies that , which is Galilean invariant because . Note that and are not related by the continuity equation in the magnetic limit. Consider, for example, the charge density and the current density , where and are the polarization and magnetization vectors ( does not include the polarization term because in the magnetic limit). In this case we have and .
16.
17.
See, for example,
D. J.
Griffiths
, Introduction to Electrodynamics
, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
, 1999
), p. 321
.18.
The electric and magnetic limits are approximate limits. The former should be written as , , , and , and the latter as , , , and . In contrast, the instantaneous limit is exact: , , , and . Thus there exists a subtle difference between the electric and instantaneous limits.
19.
M.
Jammer
and J.
Stachel
, “If Maxwell had worked between Ampere and Faraday: An historical fable with a pedagogical moral
,” Am. J. Phys.
48
, 5
–7
(1980
).20.
J. A.
Heras
, “Instantaneous fields in classical electrodynamics
,” Europhys. Lett.
69
, 1
–7
(2005
).21.
G.
Preti
, F.
de Felice
, and L.
Masiero
, “On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism
,” Eur. J. Phys.
30
, 381
–391
(2009
).© 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2010
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
