EM Field strength and plane waves

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the Lagrangian density \(-\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}\) and plane waves represented by \(\vec{\varepsilon} e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}} / \sqrt{V}\). The factor of \(-\frac{1}{4}\) in the Lagrangian arises from the derivation of the canonical Hamiltonian, which includes terms like \(\int dx \left(\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{E}^2 + \frac{1}{2} |\nabla \mathbf{A}|^2\right)\). The discussion also highlights the Fourier expansion of the vector potential \(\mathbf{A}\) and its implications for harmonic oscillators. Additionally, the factor of 4 is explained in terms of dimensional analysis related to the Lagrangian formulation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics and the Euler-Lagrange equations
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic field theory, specifically the tensor \(F_{\mu \nu}\)
  • Knowledge of Fourier analysis and its application in physics
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, particularly harmonic oscillators
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the canonical Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian density in electromagnetic theory
  • Explore the implications of gauge fixing, particularly the Lorenz gauge, in electromagnetic wave equations
  • Investigate the relationship between plane waves and harmonic oscillators in quantum field theory
  • Learn about dimensional analysis in the context of field theories to understand factors in Lagrangians
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and anyone studying electromagnetic theory and quantum field theory will benefit from this discussion.

parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
Hi !

I've a question. Where is the connection between the (kinetic) Lagrangian - \dfrac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} and a plane wave of the form \vec{\varepsilon} exp(i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}) / \sqrt{V} (the epsilon is a polarization vector) confined in a box with a finite volume V ? I should somehow "motivate" the factor - \dfrac{1}{4} occurring in the Lagrangian by such plane waves. But I absolutely dont't have a clue how to do that. Does anyone have an idea? I hope somebody could help me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Blegh. It's a helluva long road. Quickest thing to do is to fix a gauge like the Lorenz gauge, and then find out what the Hamiltonian is. The factor of -1/4 will give you a canonical Hamiltonian that is something like \int\!dx\, \left(\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{E}^2 + \frac{1}{2}|\boldsymbol\nabla \mathbf{A}|^2\right) where E \sim \dot{A}. The Laplacian is a vector Laplacian, in case you're wondering. I have also dropped factors of c and \epsilon_0, since I can work in units in which they are 1.

Ok, where were we? You can Fourier expand your vector potential as follows:
\mathbf{A} = \sum_\lambda \int\!\frac{dk}{(2\pi)^3} a_\lambda(\mathbf{k}) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\lambda)e^{i \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x} },
where the polarization vectors are chosen such that the gauge fixing condition is satisfied (i.e., only two transverse polarizations). If you're doing this inside a box, it's a plain Fourier series, instead of an integral. If you write your Hamiltonian in terms of these, you'll obtain something like
H = \int\!dk\, \left(\frac{1}{2} p_\lambda^2 + \frac{1}{2} k^2 a_\lambda^2\right),
where p is the momentum conjugate to a i.e., in the Lagrangian terminology, p = \dot{a}. Now you get a bunch of simple harmonic oscillators.

The factors of two are just convention, really, and keep the equations nice. The original factor of 4 comes about because when you obtain the Euler Lagrange equations, you take a derivative of a square. So to "motivate" all this, you could say that each plane wave is a separate harmonic oscillator. But you'll have to do some math =)
 
Thank you! But is it somehow possible to explain the 1/4 factor by considering the dimensions?

I've seen something like \left[ F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \right] = 4, but I don't really understand why it is equal to 4.
But if one use this, isn't it possible to somehow justify the 1/4 factor? I need a simple explanation without (much) calculations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
958
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K