D'Alembertian question again (sorry)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter neu
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the transition between equations 32 and 33 in the context of 4-vector potentials in relativistic transformations. The participants clarify that the term i*psi/c is necessary for the new 4-vector potential, which combines the electric potential (φ) and magnetic potential (A). The confusion arises from the absence of A_4 in equation 29, as well as the relationship between the combined vector and scalar potential 4-vector a and the equations presented. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding 4-vectors and their role in unifying the equations of electromagnetism.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of 4-vectors in physics
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic potentials (φ and A)
  • Knowledge of relativistic transformations
  • Basic grasp of differential equations and their applications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of 4-vectors in electromagnetism
  • Learn about the implications of the Lorentz transformation on electric and magnetic fields
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of the wave equation in relativistic contexts
  • Investigate the relationship between scalar and vector potentials in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism and relativistic physics, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of 4-vector potentials and their applications.

neu
Messages
228
Reaction score
3
Sorry to cluter forum with previous thread. I cannot work out the letex code

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~drb/Teaching/PHAS3201_RelativisticTransformationsFull.pdf

in above pdf i do not understand the transition from eq 32 to 33.

That is, I don't understand the presence of the last i*psi/c term in the new 4-vector potential. SHouldn't it just be a= (A1,A2,A3,A4) to get eq29?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You understand 4 vectors? \phi is the electric potential & A is the magnetic potential. They're trying to combine the two.
 
neu said:
Sorry to cluter forum with previous thread. I cannot work out the letex code

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~drb/Teaching/PHAS3201_RelativisticTransformationsFull.pdf

in above pdf i do not understand the transition from eq 32 to 33.

That is, I don't understand the presence of the last i*psi/c term in the new 4-vector potential. SHouldn't it just be a= (A1,A2,A3,A4) to get eq29?

But there is no "A_4" in equation 29 so what do you mean?

No, their equation 33 contains both eqs 29 AND 30! (with the four-vector j_\mu defined in eq 27)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thrice said:
You understand 4 vectors? \phi is the electric potential & A is the magnetic potential. They're trying to combine the two.


I understand the intention not the method. so I guess I don't understand 4-vectors!

my problem is this:

if square=(d2/dx1,d2/dx2,d2/dx3,-1/c^2 d2/dx4) (eqn 31)

& the combined vector & scalar potential 4-vector a:

a=(A1,A2,A3,i*psi/c) (eqn 32)

Then surely:

square*a=laplacian A - i/c^3 d^2 (scalar)/dt^2

but instead they have (correctly) square*a = mu*j = mu(J1,J2,J3,icp)

why? I can't see how that relates to eq 29 & 30?
 
As nrqed said, you're combining eqs 29 & 30 to form a 4 vector. J and A in eq 29 range as {1,2,3} & eq 30 becomes {4}.

Compare 29 and 30 with 33. Factor out \mu_0 from 30 & you have -\rho c^2 .. which is why you need to divide by c in 32 to make the 4D j_\mu that you see in 27.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Graduate Possible explanation for a Bell experiment?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K