EM Field strength and plane waves

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top