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

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 vanhees71 and Demystifier
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top