Maxwell's Equations in Curved Space-time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Maxwell's equations in curved space-time, specifically focusing on charge conservation and the behavior of killing vector fields as solutions to these equations. Participants explore mathematical derivations, related concepts, and the application of these equations in different contexts, including Gauss's law for electricity and magnetism.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether strict charge conservation can be derived from the equation ##\nabla_{a}F^{ab} = 4\pi J^{b}##.
  • Another participant asserts that it is straightforward to show that ##\nabla_{a}J^{a} = 0## follows from the aforementioned equation, providing a detailed mathematical derivation.
  • A related question is posed about why a killing vector field always solves Maxwell's equations in vacuum space-time, leading to a discussion on the properties of killing vector fields and their implications for Maxwell's equations.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the derivation of Gauss's law for electricity and magnetism in the context of curved space-time, including the necessary conditions and mathematical steps involved.
  • One participant requests additional details on the calculations involved in proving the relationships discussed, indicating a desire for more examples related to tensor calculus and electromagnetism in curved space-time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the ease or complexity of deriving the relationships discussed, as participants express differing levels of familiarity and comfort with the mathematical manipulations involved. Multiple viewpoints on the implications of killing vector fields and their solutions to Maxwell's equations are presented, indicating an ongoing exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical identities and theorems, such as the first Bianchi identity and Stokes' theorem, which are crucial for the derivations but may depend on specific assumptions about the space-time geometry and the properties of the fields involved.

Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
658
Can one show that strict charge conservation ##\nabla_{a}J^{a} = 0## follows directly from ##\nabla_{a}F^{ab} = 4\pi J^{b}## alone?

Also, how does ##d^{\star}F = 4\pi ^{\star}J## follow directly from that same equation where ##\star## is the Hodge dual operator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes and it is extremely easy to show (almost trivial in fact). Starting with ##\nabla^{a}F_{ab} = 4\pi j_{b}##, we have ##\nabla^{b}\nabla^{a}F_{ab} = \nabla^{a}\nabla^{b}F_{ba} = -\nabla^{a}\nabla^{b}F_{ab}= 4\pi \nabla^{b}j_{b}## i.e. ##\nabla^{b}\nabla^{a}F_{ab} -\nabla^{a}\nabla^{b}F_{ab}= 8\pi \nabla^{b}j_{b}##. Now ##\nabla_{b}\nabla_{a}F^{ab} -\nabla_{a}\nabla_{b}F^{ab}= -R_{bae}{}{}^{a}F^{eb} - R_{bae}{}{}^{b}F^{ae} = -R_{be}F^{eb} + R_{ae}F^{ae} = 0## hence ##\nabla^{a}j_{a} = 0##.

It is also very easy to show that ##d(^{\star }F) = 4\pi(^{\star }j)##. We have ##(^{\star}F)_{ab} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{abcd}F^{cd}## so ##\epsilon^{abef}\nabla_{e}(^{\star}F)_{ab} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{abef}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla_{e}F^{cd} = -2\nabla_{e}F^{ef} = -8\pi j^{f}##. Hence ##\epsilon_{fjki}\epsilon^{feab}\nabla_{e}(^{\star}F)_{ab} = -6\nabla_{[j}(^{\star}F)_{ki]}= -8\pi\epsilon_{fjki} j^{f} = -8\pi(^{\star}j)_{jki}## therefore ##3\nabla_{[a}(^{\star}F)_{bc]} = d(^{\star}F)_{abc} = 4\pi(^{\star}j)_{abc}## i.e. ##d(^{\star}F) = 4\pi(^{\star}j)##.

Note the implications of this. Because ##\nabla^{a}j_{a} = 0## in any space-time, we can apply Stokes' theorem to a space-time region ##\Omega \subseteq M## bounded by two space-like hypersurfaces ##\Sigma, \Sigma'## from a single foliation and find that ##\int _{\Omega}\nabla^{a}j_{a} = 0 = \int _{\Sigma}j_{a}n^{a} -\int _{\Sigma'}j_{a}n^{a}## i.e. the total charge ##Q = -\int _{\Sigma}j_{a}n^{a} ## is conserved (here ##n^{a}## is the outward unit normal field to the space-like foliation that ##\Sigma,\Sigma'## belong to; the negative sign is to compensate for the negative sign that comes out of the inner product in the integral).
 
Thanks WannabeNewton! Your answer helps me a lot. I also have a related question. I read that a killing vector field always solves Maxwell's equations in curved (vacuum) space-time. Can you explain why this is the case?
 
Last edited:
Well let's say we have a killing vector field ##\xi^{a}## and use it as a 4-potential so that ##F_{ab} = 2\nabla_{[a}\xi_{b]} = 2\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}##. Then ##\nabla^{a}F_{ab} =2\nabla^{a}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}##.
Since ##R_{abcd}\xi^{d} = \nabla_{a}\nabla_{b}\xi_{c} - \nabla_{b}\nabla_{a}\xi_{c} = -\nabla_{a}\nabla_{c}\xi_{b} + \nabla_{b}\nabla_{c}\xi_{a}\\ = R_{cabd}\xi^{d} - \nabla_{c}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b} + R_{bcad}\xi^{d} + \nabla_{c}\nabla_{b}\xi_{a} = 2\nabla_{c}\nabla_{b}\xi_{a} + R_{cabd}\xi^{d} + R_{bcad}\xi^{d}##
we have ##2\nabla_{c}\nabla_{b}\xi_{a}=(R_{abcd} - R_{cabd} - R_{bcad})\xi^{d} ##. Using the first Bianchi identity, we find that ##R_{abcd} + R_{bcad} + R_{cabd} = 0\Rightarrow R_{abcd} =- R_{cabd} -R_{bcad} ## i.e. ##\nabla_{c}\nabla_{b}\xi_{a} = R_{abcd}\xi^{d}##.

In particular, ##\nabla^{a}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b} = - R_{ab}{}{}^{a}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d} = -R_{bd}\xi^{d}##. If we are in vacuum space-time then ##R_{ab} = 0## so ##\nabla^{a}F_{ab} = \nabla^{a}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b} = 0##.

Now ##\nabla_{[a}F_{bc]} = 2\nabla_{[a}\nabla_{b}\xi_{c]} = 2R_{[abc]d}\xi^{d} = 0## by virtue of the first Bianchi identity. Hence ##F_{ab} = 2\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}## solves Maxwell's equations in vacuum.

Such solutions aren't always of physical interest but here is a paper that gives an example of a killing vector field solution to Maxwell's equations that is of physical interest: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v10/i6/p1680_1
 
Thanks. As always very helpful. You say in another thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4359286&postcount=1)

"I will spare you the details of the calculations involved in showing these two relations hold; you can, for now, take my word that I have indeed shown them to be true." Could you please show the details of that calculation? I am still new to these kind of tensor calculus manipulations and seeing more examples would be nice, especially another related to EM in curved space-time.
 
Sure! Let's first show that Gauss's law for electricity holds on the space-like Cauchy surface. Keep in mind that ##n^{a}n_{a} = -1##, which implies that ##n^{a}\nabla_{b}n_{a} = 0##, and that ##n_{[a}\nabla_{b}n_{c]} = 0## since the unit normal field is hypersurface orthogonal to the space-like foliation. I will denote the derivative operator associated with the spatial metric ##h_{ab}## by ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}##.

We have ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}E^{a} = h_{a}{}{}^{b}h^{a}{}{}_{c}\nabla_{b}(F^{c}{}{}_{d}n^{d})\\ = (\delta^{bc} + n^{b}n^{c})(n^{d}\nabla_{b}F_{cd} + F_{cd}\nabla_{b}n^{d})\\ = n^{d}\nabla^{c}F_{cd} + F_{cd}\nabla^{c}n^{d} + n^{b}n^{c}n^{d}\nabla_{b}F_{cd} + n^{b}n^{c}F_{cd}\nabla_{b}n^{d}##.

Now ##n^{c}n^{d}\nabla_{b}F_{cd} = n^{d}n^{c}\nabla_{b}F_{dc} = -n^{c}n^{d}\nabla_{b}F_{cd}\Rightarrow n^{c}n^{d}\nabla_{b}F_{cd} = 0##

and ##n_{[a}\nabla_{b}n_{c]} = 0\Rightarrow n^{b}n^{c}F_{cd}\nabla_{b}n^{d} - n^{b}n^{d}F_{cd}\nabla_{b}n^{c}= 2n^{b}n^{c}F_{cd}\nabla_{b}n^{d}\\ = F_{cd}\nabla^{d}n^{c} - F_{cd}\nabla^{c}n^{d} = - 2F_{cd}\nabla^{c}n^{d}##

thus ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}E^{a}= n^{d}\nabla^{c}F_{cd} = -4\pi j_{d}n^{d} = 4\pi\rho## by virtue of the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations.

Showing Gauss's law for magnetism holds on the spacelike Cauchy surface is very similar.

We have ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}B^{a} =-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{cdef} h_{a}{}{}^{b}h^{a}{}{}_{c}\nabla_{b}(F_{de}n_{f})\\ = -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{cdef} (n_{f}\nabla_{c}F_{de} + F_{de}\nabla_{c}n_{f} + n^{b}n_{c}n_{f}\nabla_{b}F_{de} + n^{b}n_{c}F_{de}\nabla_{b}n_{f})##.

Now ##\epsilon^{cdef}n_{c}n_{f} = 0## because the volume form is totally antisymmetric and just as before we have ##n_{[a}\nabla_{b}n_{c]} = 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon^{cdef} n^{b}n_{c}F_{de}\nabla_{b}n_{f} - \epsilon^{cdef} n^{b}n_{f}F_{de}\nabla_{b}n_{c}= 2\epsilon^{cdef} n^{b}n_{c}F_{de}\nabla_{b}n_{f}\\ = \epsilon^{cdef} F_{de}\nabla_{f}n_{c} - \epsilon^{cdef}F_{de}\nabla_{c}n_{f} = -2 \epsilon^{cdef}F_{de}\nabla_{c}n_{f}##

so we are left with ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}B^{a} = -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{cdef} n_{f}\nabla_{c}F_{de}##. But ##\epsilon^{cdef}\nabla_{c}F_{de} = -\epsilon^{cdef}\nabla_{d}F_{ce} = \epsilon^{cdef}\nabla_{e}F_{cd}## hence ##3\epsilon^{cdef}\nabla_{c}F_{de} = 3\epsilon^{cdef}\nabla_{[c}F_{de]} = 0 ## by virtue of the homogeneous Maxwell equations thus we have the desired result ##\tilde{\nabla}_{a}B^{a} = 0##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K