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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the expression for canonical momentum ##\pi^\rho## of the electromagnetic field as presented in David Tong's QFT notes. Participants are examining the derivation and implications of the canonical momentum, particularly focusing on the differences in results based on the choice of parameters in the Lagrangian formulation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a discrepancy between their calculation of canonical momentum ##\pi^\rho=-\partial_0 A^\rho## and Tong's expression ##\pi^0=-\partial_\rho A^\rho##.
  • Another participant suggests that the difference may arise from the choice of ##\alpha## in the Lagrangian, indicating that Tong uses ##\alpha=1##.
  • A request for clarification on the calculations is made, with one participant affirming they are also using ##\alpha=1##.
  • A detailed calculation of the canonical momentum is provided, leading to the conclusion that ##\pi^\mu = F^{\mu 0} - \eta^{\mu 0}\partial_\nu A^\nu##, which aligns with Tong's formulation.
  • There is uncertainty expressed about the initial participant's result, with a claim that their approach may be incorrect due to the properties of the electromagnetic field tensor ##F_{\mu\nu}##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are competing views regarding the correct expression for canonical momentum and the implications of the choice of ##\alpha## in the Lagrangian. Some participants challenge the correctness of the initial calculation without resolving the disagreement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the choice of parameters in the Lagrangian and the implications of antisymmetry in the electromagnetic field tensor, which may affect the calculations presented.

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
3K
  • · 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