How do I use bivectors to find the electric field in a weak magnetic field?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
2 replies · 2K views
darida
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
Geodesic equation:

[itex]m_{0}\frac{du^{\alpha}}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}= qF^{\alpha\beta}u_{\beta}[/itex]

Weak-field:

[itex]ds^{2}= - (1+2\phi)dt^{2}+(1-2\phi)(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2})[/itex]

Magnetic field, [itex]B[/itex] is set to be zero.

I want to find electric field, [itex]E[/itex], but don't know where to start, so could someone give me a procedure to find it?

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
##F_{\mu\nu}## is a covariant object but ##E^{\mu}## and ##B^{\mu}## are not i.e. they are frame dependent quantities. They only have meaning if you have a background observer with 4-velocity ##u^{\mu}## who can decompose ##F_{\mu\nu}## into ##E^{\mu}## and ##B^{\mu}## relative to ##u^{\mu}##.

Once you have such a ##u^{\mu}##, then ##E^{\mu} = F^{\mu}{}{}_{\nu}u^{\nu}## and ##B^{\mu} = -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}u_{\nu}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
That's not entirely true. You can build a formalism of classical electromagnetics with socalled bivectors by representing the electromagnetic field with [itex]\mathbb{C}^3[/itex] vector fields,
[tex]\vec{\mathfrak{E}}=\vec{E} + \mathrm{i} \vec{B}.[/tex]
This makes use of the group-isomorphism [itex]\mathrm{SO}(1,3)^{\uparrow} \simeq \mathrm{SO}(3,\mathbb{C}).[/itex]

Thus the product
[tex]\vec{\mathfrak{E}}^2=\vec{E}^2-\vec{B}^2 + 2\mathrm{i} \vec{E} \cdot \vec{B}[/tex]
is Lorentz invariant wrt. to proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations, and indeed also the four-vector formalism shows that the corresponding invariants given by the real and imaginary part of the bivector scalar product are proportional to the invariants [itex]F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}[/itex] and [itex]\epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} F^{\mu \nu} F^{\rho \sigma}=F^{\mu \nu} F^{\dagger}_{\mu \nu}[/itex].

A nice review on this funny bivector formalism can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1218
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person