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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the Faraday Tensor and the 4-potential in the context of electromagnetism. Participants explore definitions, mathematical expressions, and implications of these concepts, touching on both electrostatics and electrodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Faraday Tensor in terms of the 4-potential, suggesting a specific mathematical relationship.
  • Another participant questions how to derive the relationship between the electric field and the 4-potential, indicating a need for clarification.
  • Some participants assert that definitions of scalar and vector potentials are accepted as true by definition, without the need for proof.
  • There is a distinction made between electrostatics and electrodynamics, with a focus on how changing magnetic fields produce electric fields, introducing the time derivative of the vector potential.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the definition of the electric field in electrodynamics cannot simply be the gradient of the scalar potential due to implications from Faraday's law.
  • Participants discuss the implications of defining the magnetic field in terms of the vector potential and the consequences for the electric field definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions being accepted as true by definition, but there are competing views regarding the derivation of relationships between the electric field and potentials, particularly in the context of electrostatics versus electrodynamics. The discussion remains unresolved on how to formally derive certain relationships.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the necessity of derivations for definitions, while others highlight the limitations of definitions in different contexts (electrostatics vs. electrodynamics). There are also unresolved questions regarding the mathematical treatment of the potentials and fields.

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   Reactions: unscientific

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
944
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
968
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K