vanhees71 said:
As
@Vanadium 50 says, you need quite a while in the university curriculum to get there.
At the undergrad level I have always found the following a good starting point:
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node296.html
This shows how the vector potential comes about and gives the first two of Maxwell's Equations which is the divergence of B and the curl of E. But we would also like the curl of B and the divergence of E. Let p, by definition, be the divergence of E. We then define the electromagnetic field tensor Fuv:
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node451.html
We define Ju = ∂v Fuv as per the above link, (easier to do if we use units where c, the speed of light, is 1) and note the zero component is p as defined above. Hence Ju is the 4 current of p, if p is a density of something, that something we call charge, q. This gives the curl of E and the divergence of B. These are known as Maxwell's equations. To get the Lorentz Force Law we have to delve into the Lagrangian Formulation of Maxwell's Equations, which is done by Lenny Susskind here:
Added Later: I could have been sneakier. When adding the counter-term to the Schrodinger equation, associated the q introduced there to ensure local global invariance, with the charge defined above, and you get the Hamiltonian of the equations of motion and hence the Lorentz Force Law. But I think it is a bit too sneaky and assumption laden.
An even simpler 'derivation', not using gauge invariance, can be found here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06393.pdf
Then there is the one that uses Coulomb's Law and Relativity:
http://cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special Relativity and Maxwells Equations.pdf.
Interesting question for further investigation - why does it fail for Gravity? Part of the answer is of relevance to your question. Hint - the source of Maxwell's Equations is charge. EM Fields do not have charge. But gravitational fields have energy - which is a source of gravity.
Personally, as Schwinger does in his textbook on EM, the above, or something similar, (Schwinger uses something similar) is IMHO the way to begin EM:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0738200565/?tag=pfamazon01-20
When you have read a few of these 'derivations' or 'justifications' it is fun and instructive coming up with your own. But Jackson in his standard textbook on EM thinks they are silly. I disagree.
Thanks
Bill