Are Maxwell's equations linearly dependent?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the linear dependence of Maxwell's equations in their microscopic or vacuum formulation. Participants explore the implications of the equations in terms of the number of equations versus the number of unknowns, as well as the role of potentials in defining the electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the four Maxwell's equations lead to linear dependence given that there are eight equations derived from them and only six unknowns (the components of the electric and magnetic fields).
  • Others propose that the equations for the divergence and curl of the fields are necessary and sufficient to uniquely define the fields.
  • Some contributions mention the use of electromagnetic potentials, suggesting that the equations can be expressed in terms of a vector potential and a scalar potential, which may simplify the relationship between the fields.
  • A participant notes that the discussion appears limited to medium-free electromagnetics, implying that additional equations would be needed in the presence of matter.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of "microscopic" versus "macroscopic" formulations, with some asserting that the presence of constitutive relations introduces confusion.
  • One participant emphasizes that the potentials are defined to satisfy the homogeneous Maxwell's equations, and that solving for these potentials leads to the complete system of equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between the equations and the potentials, as well as the implications of including or excluding additional equations in the context of matter. There is no consensus on whether the equations are linearly dependent or how to interpret the microscopic versus macroscopic formulations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the terms "microscopic" and "macroscopic," as well as the implications of introducing constitutive relations in the discussion of Maxwell's equations.

cianfa72
Messages
2,964
Reaction score
311
TL;DR
About the linearly independence of Maxwell's
PDE equations
HI,
consider the 4 Maxwell's equations in microscopic/vacuum formulation as for example described here Maxwell's equations (in the following one assumes charge density ##\rho## and current density ##J## as assigned -- i.e. they are not unknowns but are given as functions of space and time coordinates).

Two of the equations are scalar (divergence based equations) while the other two give rise to 6 equations in 6 unknowns (curl based equations).

Therefore it seems there are 8 equations in 6 unknowns (##E## and ##B## field components).

Are the above partial differential equations (PDEs) actually linearly dependent ? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maxwell equations with EM potential is
\square A^\mu - \partial^\mu(\partial_\nu A^\nu)=-\mu_0 j^\mu
where ##\mu,\nu##=0,1,2,3. Four equations for Four variables. Does this meet your point ?
 
anuttarasammyak said:
Four equations for Four variables. Does this meet your point ?
Ok, from the solution of the above four PDEs one then get the EM fields.

BTW is the EM potential ##A^{\mu}## solution given in a specific gauge ?
 
Coming back to the original question, the 4 Maxwell equations give conditions on divergence and curl of fields ##E## and ##B##. Perhaps the point is that to uniquely define each field such two conditions are actually necessary and sufficient.
 
Last edited:
We can use the fact that ##\bf B## has zero divergence to introduce a vector potential ##\bf A##, in terms of which ##\bf B## is given by

$$\bf B=\nabla\times A.$$



Now, the ##\nabla\times{\bf E}## equation can be written as

$$\nabla\times\left({\bf E}+\frac{1}{c}\partial_t{\bf A}\right)=0.$$

The vanishing of this curl, permits us to relate ##\bf E## to the vector potential ##\bf A## and
a scalar potential ##\phi## by
$${\bf E}=-\nabla\phi-\frac{1}{c}\partial_t{\bf A}.$$

So ##\bf E## and ##\bf B## are determined by 4 variables.
 
Last edited:
What about the other two equations one for the divergence of ##E## and the other for the curl of ##B## ?
 
They led to the two equations I wrote for B and E.
 
Ok, I see. You started from ##\nabla \cdot B = 0## that enable us to introduce the vector potential ##A## such that ##B=\nabla\times A##.

Then exchancing ##\nabla## operator with derivative operator ##\partial / \partial_t## you get from ##\nabla \times E = - \partial B /\partial_t##
Meir Achuz said:
$$\nabla\times\left({\bf E}+\frac{1}{c}\partial_t{\bf A}\right)=0.$$

Vanishing of this curl enable us to write it as the gradient of a smooth function ##\phi## (the scalar potential).
Meir Achuz said:
The vanishing of this curl, permits us to relate ##\bf E## to the vector potential ##\bf A## and
a scalar potential ##\phi## by
$${\bf E}=-\nabla\phi-\frac{1}{c}\partial_t{\bf A}.$$
What about the last Maxwell equation for the divergence of ##E##, namely ##\nabla \cdot E = \rho## ?
 
Just a quick note- this whole discussion seems limited to medium-free electromagnetics. If matter is present, 2 additional equations (constitutive relations) are required to, for example, connect E with D and B with H.
 
  • #10
D and H do not enter the two homogeneous Maxwell's equations.
 
  • #11
Meir Achuz said:
D and H do not enter the two homogeneous Maxwell's equations.
To be sure, I'm somewhat confused by the OP's relating 'microscopic' and 'vacuum', since they seem to refer to very different physical situations (Wiki notwithstanding).

If I understand your comment in the context of the OP's use of "microscopic/vacuum formulation", then I could argue that the constitutive relations D = ε0E and B = μ0H were snuck in without explanation.

My go-to reference for this stuff is Post's "Formal structure of electromagnetics"- for example, he states that the decomposition of the second order d'Alembertian wave equation into four first-order Maxwell field equations is not unique.
 
  • #12
Are you confusing microscopic with macroscopic?
There is no D or H for microscopic.
##\epsilon_0## and ##\mu_0## are just put there to confuse things.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72
  • #13
Coming back to post #8 I believe the point is as follows: potential vector ##A## and scalar potential ##\phi## are defined so that the homogenous Maxwell's equations are automatically satisfied (it is actually an iff condition).

Then the expressions obtained for ##E## and ##B## using those potentials are replaced into non-homogenous Maxwell's equations (i.e. equations involving the sources ##\rho## and ##J##).

By solving those 4 equations for the 3 unknowns components of vector potential + scalar potential, one is actually solving the complete system of 4 Maxwell's equations.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Meir Achuz said:
Are you confusing microscopic with macroscopic?
There is no D or H for microscopic.
##\epsilon_0## and ##\mu_0## are just put there to confuse things.
Yes, the microscopic Maxwell's equations (as in the OP) do not involve D or H.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
762
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
689
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K