Four Tensor Derivatives -- EM Field Lagrangian Density

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the inhomogeneous, manifestly covariant field equations from a given Lagrangian density related to electromagnetism. The participants are examining the Euler-Lagrange equation and the associated tensor manipulations involving the electromagnetic field tensor.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the correct application of the product rule in the context of tensor derivatives. There is an exploration of how to express the electromagnetic field tensor in terms of the vector potential and the implications for the derivatives involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation has progressed through various attempts to clarify the equations and tensor manipulations. Some participants have provided guidance on the correct handling of indices and the application of the product rule, while others are questioning assumptions about the symmetry of the tensors involved.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the proper notation and the handling of indices in tensor calculus. Participants are also navigating the constraints of the problem as presented in the homework statement.

teroenza
Messages
190
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Given the Lagrangian density

\Lambda = -\frac{1}{c}j^lA_l - \frac{1}{16 \pi} F^{lm}F_{lm}

and the Euler-Lagrange equation for it

\frac{\partial }{\partial x^k}\left ( \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial A_{i,k}} \right )- \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial A_{i}} =0

derive the inhomogeneous, manifestly covariant, field equations.

Homework Equations


In class we were told

\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial A_{i,k}} = -\frac{1}{4 \pi} F^{kl}

as a starting point, and I am trying to show this.

The Attempt at a Solution


I have that

F_{lm}=\frac{\partial A_m}{\partial x^l}-\frac{\partial A_l}{\partial x^m}

and

F^{lm}=\frac{\partial A^m}{\partial x_l}-\frac{\partial A^l}{\partial x_m}

I think I can see how inseting these into the above, possibly taking one of the field tensors to be constant, and taking derivatives (I think the first term does not depend on A_{i,k}) leads to the correct form or we were shown in class. I'm not great at four-tensor manipulation or keeping my indices straight, however.

I am trying to understand how to correctly take these derivatives.

\frac{\partial }{\partial A_{i,k}} \left ( F^{lm}F_{lm} \right )=0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, to start your equation does not make sense, you need to have the same indices on both sides of the equation.

Did you try simply applying the product rule?
 
I copied the equation incorrectly, it should be:
<br /> \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial A_{l,m}} = -\frac{1}{4 \pi} F^{ml}<br />

Using the product rule, I get:
\left (\frac{\partial A^m}{\partial x_l}-\frac{\partial A^l}{\partial x_m}\right ) +<br /> \left( \frac{\partial A_m}{\partial x^l}-\frac{\partial A_l}{\partial x^m} \right)\frac{\partial }{\partial A_{m,l}}<br /> \left(\frac{\partial A^m}{\partial x_l}-\frac{\partial A^l}{\partial x_m} \right )<br />

But am not sure what to do with the derivatives in the second term.
 
teroenza said:
I copied the equation incorrectly, it should be:
<br /> \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial A_{l,m}} = -\frac{1}{4 \pi} F^{ml}<br />

Using the product rule, I get:
\left (\frac{\partial A^m}{\partial x_l}-\frac{\partial A^l}{\partial x_m}\right ) +<br /> \left( \frac{\partial A_m}{\partial x^l}-\frac{\partial A_l}{\partial x^m} \right)\frac{\partial }{\partial A_{m,l}}<br /> \left(\frac{\partial A^m}{\partial x_l}-\frac{\partial A^l}{\partial x_m} \right )<br />

But am not sure what to do with the derivatives in the second term.

I suggest taking this one step at a time. Without rewriting F in terms of A, what does the product rule give you? (Note that your expression contains too many m and l to make sense. Each should appear twice or not at all in your result. Your free indices are i and k.)
 
So the first step is:
F^{lm} \frac{\partial F_{lm}}{\partial A_{i,k}} + F_{lm}\frac{\partial F^{lm}}{\partial A_{i,k}}
 
Correct. Now, both terms are equal, so that gives a factor of two (just raise/lower the indices using the metric). This leaves you with the task of computing ##\partial F_{lm}/\partial A_{i,k}##. How do you express ##F_{lm}## in terms of ##A##? (Note that ##A_{i,k} \equiv \partial_k A_i##)
 
Like this:

F_{lm}=\frac{\partial A_m}{\partial x^l}-\frac{\partial A_l}{\partial x^m}=A_{m,l}-A_{l,m}
 
Yes, so what is the derivative of this with respect to ##A_{i,k}##?
 
Is A_{l,m} antisymmetric? Then I could switch the indices on the second term, add them for the extra factor of 2, and use

\frac{\partial A_{m,l}}{\partial A_{i,k}}=\delta^{i}_{m}\delta^{l}_{k}=1
 
  • #10
No, it is not antisymmetric, but what makes you think you cannot use this relation separately on each term?
 
  • #11
I can use it on each term. I can only see that leaving me with zero instead of adding for the necessary factor of two.
 
  • #12
How would it leave you with zero? The terms are also not equal. What do you get if you do the computation?
 
  • #13
It must be simple, but I'm not making the connection. I think the derivative reduces to:

<br /> \delta^{i}_{m}\delta^{l}_{k}-\delta^{m}_{l}\delta^{i}_{k}

Which can only be 0 or 1.
 
  • #14
The second term is incorrect, check the indices. The same indices must be up/down in both terms!

What happens when you contract this expression with the F that was outside?
 
  • #15
I see. The resulting difference ends up as -4F^{ik} after swapping the indices on the (antisym.) field tensor.
 
  • #16
Yes, this is correct. So what are the resulting equations of motion?
 
  • #17
They would then be \partial_kF^{kl} = -\frac{4 \pi}{c}j^l
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K