How is the Faraday Tensor related to the 4-potential?

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
The Faraday Tensor is given by:

qwcQd.png


Consider the following outer product with the 4-potential:

Y1mIy.png


The Faraday Tensor is related to the 4-potential:

F^{mn} = \Box^{m} A^n - \Box^n A^m

For example, ## F^{01} = -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial A^x}{\partial t} - \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} ##

How do I show that ## \frac{E_x}{c} = -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial A^x}{\partial t} - \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} ##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How are the scalar and vector potentials defined?
 
DaleSpam said:
How are the scalar and vector potentials defined?
E = -\nabla \phi - \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}

How do I prove this?
 
You don't prove it. All definitions are true by definition.
 
Also, in einstein summation, why does the ##\mu## go to the bottom on the first term:

X \dot X = X_{\mu} X^{\mu}
 
DaleSpam said:
You don't prove it. All definitions are true by definition.

I thought usually electric field is simply the grad of potential? ## E = -\nabla \phi##
 
unscientific said:
I thought usually electric field is simply the grad of potential? ## E = -\nabla \phi##

This is true in electro-statics, but not true in electro-dynamics. In electro-dynamics Faraday's law tells you that a changing magnetic field will produce an electric field. That is where the ##\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}## term comes from.
 
Matterwave said:
This is true in electro-statics, but not true in electro-dynamics. In electro-dynamics Faraday's law tells you that a changing magnetic field will produce an electric field. That is where the ##\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}## term comes from.

Is there a derivation for this?
 
unscientific said:
Is there a derivation for this?

It is basically a definition, not so much a derivation. By Gauss's law for magnetism we know ##\nabla\cdot\vec{B}=0## so that we can define ##\vec{B}\equiv\nabla\times\vec{A}## for some vector potential ##\vec{A}##, Faraday's law tells us ##\nabla\times\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}=-\frac{1}{c}\nabla\times\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}## so we know that if we define ##\vec{E}\equiv -\nabla\phi-\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}## everything will work out (the first term will go away when you take the curl of it). Notice that because of Faraday's law, we can not simply define ##\vec{E}\equiv\nabla\phi## since this will imply ##\nabla\times\vec{E}=0## which is not true.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes unscientific
Back
Top