Derivation of Lagrangian for Classical Electrodynamics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Lagrangian for classical electrodynamics, particularly focusing on the Lagrangian from current and charge sources. Participants explore the application of a non-relativistic Lagrangian density and the inclusion of contributions from fictitious magnetic charges and currents.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire for a derivation of the classical electrodynamic Lagrangian, noting that existing textbooks do not provide sufficient reasoning.
  • Another participant suggests that the Lagrangian for a charged particle can be adapted for an extended charge/current distribution by treating infinitesimal pieces as point charges.
  • A participant questions whether the non-relativistic Lagrangian density presented is equivalent to the relativistic form, indicating a potential connection between the two.
  • A reference is made to a book, "Quantum Field Theory" by Claude Itzykson and Jean-Bernard Zuber, which is said to contain a derivation of the Lagrangian.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation of the Lagrangian, and multiple viewpoints regarding the approach and equivalence of Lagrangian forms remain present.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in adapting the Lagrangian for extended charge distributions and the implications of adding terms for fictitious magnetic charges and currents.

Born2bwire
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
24
Is there a derivation for the classical electrodynamic Lagrangian? I have taken a look at a few textbooks that I have on hand but all of them just state the Lagrangian (in the voodoo four-vector talk, \glares) without explaining the reasoning behind it. I know that the Lagrangian for a charged particle can be found by working it out but I am interesed in the Lagrangian from current and charge sources. What I want to do is apply the non-relativistic Lagrangian density,

[tex]\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon E^2-\frac{1}{\mu}B^2\right) - \phi\rho + \mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{A}[/tex]

and add in the contribution due to fictious magnetic charges and currents. We often use magnetic currents in our work to simplify the solution process and increase robustness and though I am tempted to just add in the analogue terms from the dual I do not want to just haphazardly cram in terms that look like they are correct without knowing that the principles are sound.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you know how to work out the Lagrangian for a charged particle, you can just use that! Treat each infinitesimal piece of your extended charge/current distribution as a point charge [itex]dq=\rho dV[/itex] with current density [itex]\textbf{J}=\rho\textbf{v}[/itex].
 
gabbagabbahey said:
If you know how to work out the Lagrangian for a charged particle, you can just use that! Treat each infinitesimal piece of your extended charge/current distribution as a point charge [itex]dq=\rho dV[/itex] with current density [itex]\textbf{J}=\rho\textbf{v}[/itex].

Ok, I was figuring that was going to be it, I got as far as that in Jackson before I saw something shiny and then before I knew it's bedtime. I'll give this a go when I reboot in the morning. Unfortunately this isn't looking like it's going to set itself up the way I would like it to unless I can play around with the gauges... Eh screw it, I'm going to bed.
 
Born2bwire said:
...What I want to do is apply the non-relativistic Lagrangian density,

[tex]\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon E^2-\frac{1}{\mu}B^2\right) - \phi\rho + \mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{A}[/tex]

and add in the contribution due to fictious magnetic charges and currents.

This looks like the relativistic Lagrangian density to me, just not in four vector and tensor form?
 
A derivation is given in the book "Quantum Field Theory" by Claude Itzykson and Jean-Bernard Zuber, page 7 and further.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
998
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
949
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K