Canonical momentum ##\pi^\rho## of the electromagnetic field

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the calculation of canonical momentum ##\pi^\rho## of the electromagnetic field as presented in David Tong's QFT notes. The expression for canonical momentum is confirmed as ##\pi^\mu = F^{\mu 0} - \eta^{\mu 0}\partial_\nu A^\nu##, aligning with Tong's formulation when using the Lagrangian with ##\alpha = 1##. The confusion arises from the choice of ##\alpha## and the antisymmetry of the field strength tensor ##F_{\mu\nu}##, which leads to ##F_{00} = 0##. The discussion emphasizes the importance of proper differentiation in obtaining the correct canonical momentum expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic field theory and the field strength tensor ##F_{\mu\nu}##
  • Knowledge of canonical momentum and its derivation from the Lagrangian
  • Proficiency in tensor calculus and differentiation techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of canonical momenta in quantum field theory using the Lagrangian formalism
  • Explore the properties and applications of the field strength tensor ##F_{\mu\nu}## in electromagnetic theory
  • Learn about the implications of different choices of gauge parameters, such as ##\alpha## in Lagrangians
  • Investigate the role of antisymmetry in tensor equations and its effects on physical interpretations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, graduate students studying electromagnetism, and researchers focusing on canonical formulations in theoretical physics will benefit from this discussion.

Riotto
Messages
23
Reaction score
3
In David Tong's QFT notes (see http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf , page 131, Eq. 6.38) the expression for canonical momentum ##\pi^0## is given by ##\pi^0=-\partial_\rho A^\rho## while my calculation gives ##\pi^\rho=-\partial_0 A^\rho## so that ##\pi^0=-\partial_0 A^0##. Is it wrong in Tong's note?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on the choice of ##\alpha## in (6.37). Tong writes "We will use ##\alpha=1##." You might have been using ##\alpha=\infty##, but even then your result is wrong because ##F_{\mu\nu}## is antisymmetric so ##F_{00}=\partial_0A_0-\partial_0A_0=0##.
 
Can you show a few lines of computation because I cannot figure out how are you getting that result. No, I am using ##\alpha=1## .
 
Demystifier said:
It depends on the choice of ##\alpha## in (6.37). Tong writes "We will use ##\alpha=1##." You might have been using ##\alpha=\infty##, but even then your result is wrong because ##F_{\mu\nu}## is antisymmetric so ##F_{00}=\partial_0A_0-\partial_0A_0=0##.

Can you show a few lines of computation because I cannot figure out how are you getting that result. No, I am using $\alpha=1.$
 
So you have Lagrangian of the form(##\alpha = 1##):
$$\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2$$
Calculation of canonical momenta is as follows:
$$\pi^\mu \equiv \frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{A}_\mu} = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial F_{\nu\rho}}{\partial\dot{A}_{\mu}}F^{\nu\rho} - \partial_\nu A^\nu\eta^{\mu 0}$$
The first term gives:
$$\frac{\partial F_{\nu\rho}}{\partial\dot{A}_{\mu}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial (\partial_0 A_{\mu})}(\partial_\nu A_{\rho} - \partial_\rho A_{\nu}) = \delta^0_\nu \delta^\mu_\rho - \delta^0_\rho \delta^\mu_\nu$$

Finally we obtain:
$$\pi^\mu = F^{\mu 0} - \eta^{\mu 0}\partial_\nu A^\nu$$

This agrees with Tong, so there you go, that's the calculation. It's just basic differentiation though, so I don't know what was the problem there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K