|
|
|
|
|
by jerf
1742 days ago
|
|
Yes, if you add relativity to Maxwell's equations, you get relativistic Maxwell's equations. Ultimately not particularly relevant here anyhow since it's QM describing what's going on here, not relativity. I don't deal in automotive metaphors because they rarely enlighten, so I'll just stick with, yes, they are broken in those places, and are not suitable for unqualified claims about the nature of reality. This isn't about what would be nice if it were true or slight exaggerations, it's about the models being broken by being applied outside of their domain in an unqualified manner. That's exactly not how they are wrong. They are wrong in a much stronger manner. And what's more, their strong brokenness is scientific consensus, not some sort of whacky theory. Whack theorization is what you're doing when you take these models, apply them in a domain they are known to be broken in, then claim this is the absolute truth about what is going on. |
|
Maxwell's equations imply (special) relativity, so there's nothing to be added. Maxwell's equations imply the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, which is all you need to derive special relativity.
That is why people of the time were trying to understand how this can ben so, why the did things like Michaelson-Morely to look for invariance/ether, and why so many of the terms used in relativity predate relativity, since they were invented to handle that Maxwell's Equations had this invariance.
Basically, Maxwell's equations, as written were relativistically invariant, thus compatible.