Gauge transformation has no effect on equation of motion

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of gauge transformations on the equations of motion in electromagnetism, particularly focusing on the invariance of these equations under such transformations. The original poster is analyzing the electric field components derived from scalar and vector potentials and is questioning the presence of additional terms in their final expression.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile their derived expression for the electric field with established forms, questioning the implications of gauge transformations and the role of partial derivatives. Some participants discuss the significance of unit systems in electromagnetism and how they affect the formulation of equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the relationship between gauge transformations and the equations of motion, with some providing insights into the implications of different unit systems. There is an ongoing examination of the mathematical expressions involved, but no consensus has been reached regarding the original poster's specific concerns.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of different unit systems, such as Gaussian and Heaviside-Lorentz units, and how they influence the appearance of factors like 1/c in equations. The original poster's confusion may stem from the differences in these systems and their application in theoretical analysis.

KleZMeR
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
I have a question about this classical invariance problem I'm working on. I'm almost done, and I understand the theory I think, so my question may seem a bit more math-oriented (it's been a few years since crunching equations). I have found that under a gauge transformation for a single particle in an electric (magnetic) field, the equation of motion is not affected. However, in my final step I have been left with these two extra terms in each component, i.e. these two terms are in my x component: [(1/c)*(d/dx)*(dψ/dt)]-[(d/dx)*(dψ/dt)] , which should equal zero?

So my result for the electric field x component is:

Ex = [-∇ø-(dAx/dt)]+[(1/c)*(d/dx)*(dψ/dt)]-[(d/dx)*(dψ/dt)]

Where I think it should just result in: Ex = [-∇ø-(dAx/dt)]

Is there something with the partial differential that I am not recognizing? Or I'm thinking the state change has no impact on the motion?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Gauss or Heaviside-Lorentz units, there's always a factor 1/c in time derivatives. That's what makes these units so much better suited for electromagnetism than the SI units! So the correct expression for the electric field in terms of the scalar and vector potential (in any gauge) is
[tex]\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{A} -\vec{\nabla} \phi,[/tex]
and the magnetic field reads
[tex]\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}.[/tex]
Then it's easy to see that the electromagnetic field components don't change under the gauge transformation
[tex]\phi'=\phi+ \frac{1}{c} \partial_t \chi, \quad \vec{A}'=\vec{A}-\vec{\nabla} \chi,[/tex]
for any scalar field [itex]\chi[/itex].
 
Thanks vanhees71! Yes, it is surprising that the literature I am using does not indicate that information. So at this level of electromagnetism it is universal that the time derivatives get the 1/c factor?
 
It depends on the system of units you use. The Gaussian or even better the Heaviside Lorentz units are most natural and best suited for theoretical analysis, because it makes a relativistically covariant notation easy and quantities which belong together have the same dimension (units) as the electric and the the magnetic field [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] (where the naming of [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] as the "magnetic field" is already deviating from the traditional scheme, where it was called magnetic induction). In fact nowadays we know that [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] are just the six components of one antisymmetric Minkowski tensor in fourdimensional spacetime.

Also that in the system of units a "conversion factor" [itex]c[/itex] of the dimension of a speed occurs is just due to our choice of units. We decided to measure times and lengths in different units although with relativity we know they should be measured only in one unit. Indeed, if you look at the modern definition, the conversion factor [itex]c[/itex], the universal limit speed of Minkowski spacetime, is fixed by defining the meter (unit of length) in terms of the travel time of light, which is with a very high accuracy identical with this universal limit speed (in modern language photons are with a very high acccuracy measured to be massless).

In Heaviside-Lorentz units, you also get rid of factors [itex]4 \pi[/itex] in Maxwell's equations compared to the older Gaussian units. These factors then occur where they belong, namely in Coulomb's Law. In these units the microscopic Maxwell equations read
[tex]\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} +\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{B}=0,[/tex]
[tex]\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho, \quad \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}-\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{E} = \frac{1}{c} \vec{j}.[/tex]
The factor [itex]1/c[/itex] occurs, because we still like to measure times in seconds and lengths in metres, because in everyday life light seconds are a bit inconvenient units of length.

In high-energy physics one is more lazy and sets the speed of light in a vacuum to 1 and also the modified Planck constant [itex]\hbar[/itex] to one. Then only one unit is left, namely an energy unit. Usually one uses GeV (Giga electron volts). Sometimes it's also convenient to measure lengths in fm (Fermi or femto metres=[itex]10^{-15} \; \mathrm{m}[/itex]) and times in [itex]\mathrm{fm}/c[/itex]. To convert between these units you just have to remember that [itex]\hbar c \simeq 0.197 \; \mathrm{fm} \, \mathrm{GeV}[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K