Derivation Of The Faraday Two-Form

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ObsessiveMathsFreak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Faraday
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Faraday two-form in the context of electromagnetism, particularly focusing on its mathematical representation and properties. Participants explore the relationship between the electric and magnetic fields, the potential forms, and the implications of Stokes' Theorem in this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Faraday two-form and expresses uncertainty about its derivation and the proof that it is closed.
  • Another participant asserts that the Faraday two-form is exact and provides a mathematical justification for its closure using the properties of differential forms.
  • Several participants inquire about the nature of the electromagnetic potential, with one confirming that it is a 1-form with components representing electric and magnetic potentials.
  • A participant discusses the relationship between the Faraday two-form and Maxwell's equations, suggesting that the closure condition can be interpreted through these equations.
  • One participant elaborates on the definitions of the electromagnetic potentials and derives the Faraday two-form from these potentials, indicating that the validity of the form depends on the potentials remaining valid.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of varying spatial loops and their effect on the validity of the Faraday two-form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the foundational aspects of the Faraday two-form, particularly regarding whether to start with the electric and magnetic fields or the potentials. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the derivation and implications of the Faraday two-form.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the manifold and the conditions under which the Faraday two-form is considered closed. The discussion also highlights dependencies on the definitions of the potentials and the mathematical steps involved in the derivation.

ObsessiveMathsFreak
Messages
404
Reaction score
8
The Faraday two form is a two form on pairs of four dimensional vectors (3 space +1 time). It is given by(may I be forgiven for the notation):

F = E_x dx\wedge dt + E_y dy\wedge dt + E_z dz\wedge dt + B_z dx\wedge dy + B_x dy\wedge dz + B_y dz\wedge dx

Most books then go on to say that for any closed manifold in four space \partial \sigma(may I be forgiven for the notation):

\int_{\partial \sigma} F = 0
Or equivilently
dF = 0

Thus far, I have been unable to find either a derivation of the quantity, or instead, a proof that the form is closed. I'm actually seriously doubting the latter, but I digress.

Does anyone know of any good treatments of the topic?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to start with the fact that F is exact:
<br /> \underrightarrow{\underrightarrow{F}}<br /> = \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{A}<br /> = \underrightarrow{dx^i} \underrightarrow{dx^j} \partial_i A_j<br />
Then it's closed,
<br /> 0 = \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{F}<br /> = \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{A}<br /> = \underrightarrow{dx^k} \underrightarrow{dx^i} \underrightarrow{dx^j} \partial_k \partial_i A_j<br />
because the basis 1-forms anticommute and the corresponding partial derivatives commute:
<br /> \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{d} = 0<br />

If you insist on starting with E and B as fundamental, instead of A, then you have to impose
<br /> \underrightarrow{d} \underrightarrow{F} = 0<br />
as some of Maxwell's equations. Then you can get that F is exact over most (but not all!) manifolds, F=dA.
 
Last edited:
What's A? The magnetic potential?
 
ObsessiveMathsFreak said:
What's A? The magnetic potential?

I believe so. Since you're integrating F over it, the submanifold \partial \sigma needs to be a surface in (3,1)-space. The result you are quoting seems to be assuming that this submanifold is the boundary of a 3-diml. submanifold of the ambient space, i.e. \sigma. The result then is an application of Stokes' Theorem: The integral of F on the boundary of \sigma is equal to the integral of dF (=0) on \sigma.

Actually, I just looked this up in Ward and Wells' Twistor Geometry and Field Theory, and discovered that dF=0 is just a nifty way of writing the Maxwell Equations.
 
Last edited:
ObsessiveMathsFreak said:
What's A? The magnetic potential?

Electromagnetic potential -- it's a 1-form, with four components. The time component is the electric potential, and the spatial components are the magnetic potential.
 
Right that makes sense. Electro dynamic potential fields:

\mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}
\mathbf{E} = -\nabla \phi - \partial_t \mathbf{A}

Define the one form:

\acute{A} = A_x d\acute{x} + A_y d\acute{y} + A_z d\acute{z} - \phi d\acute{t}

d \equiv \acute{\nabla} = \partial_x d\acute{x} + \partial_y d\acute{y} + \partial_z d\acute{z} + \partial_t d\acute{t}

Then
\acute{F} = d\acute{A} = \acute{\nabla}\wedge \acute{A}
Which comes out to be
\begin{multline*}<br /> \acute{F} = (-\partial_x \phi -\partial_t A_x )d\acute{x} \wedge d\acute{t} + (-\partial_y \phi -\partial_t A_y )d\acute{y} \wedge d\acute{t} + (-\partial_z \phi -\partial_t A_z )d\acute{z} \wedge d\acute{t} \\<br /> + (\partial_y A_z -\partial_z A_y )d\acute{y} \wedge d\acute{z} + (\partial_z A_x -\partial_x A_z )d\acute{z} \wedge d\acute{x} + (\partial_x A_y -\partial_y A_x )d\acute{x} \wedge d\acute{y}<br /> \end{multline*}

Which is simply
\begin{multline*}<br /> \acute{F} = E_x d\acute{x} \wedge d\acute{t} + E_y d\acute{y} \wedge d\acute{t} + E_z d\acute{z} \wedge d\acute{t} \\<br /> + B_x d\acute{y} \wedge d\acute{z} + B_y d\acute{z} \wedge d\acute{x} + B_z d\acute{x} \wedge d\acute{y}<br /> \end{multline*}

That makes things clearer, and at least the Faraday doesn't have to be very awkwardly inferred from handwaving about Faraday's Law. I was having serious doubts about its validity in the case of allowing the spatial loops to vary in size or position, but I suppose as long as the potentials remain valid, so will the Faraday. I suppose the one form \acute{A} when integrated represents some kind of 4-d potential difference between two points in space and time. Dimensional analysis time.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K