Lagrangian for electromagnetic field

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Lagrangian formulation for the electromagnetic field, specifically addressing the expression L = F_{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu} versus L = F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}. The latter is confirmed as the correct form to ensure Lorentz invariance. The conversation also delves into the full density of the Lagrangian, represented as \mathfrak{L} = -\frac{1}{16\pi}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{c}J_{\mu}A^{\mu}, and raises the challenge of incorporating the mechanical term L = -\frac{mc^2}{\gamma} into this framework. The ultimate goal is to derive the complete Hamiltonian for a point charge interacting with an electromagnetic field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic field tensors (F_{\mu\nu})
  • Knowledge of Lorentz invariance principles
  • Basic concepts of Hamiltonian mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the electromagnetic Lagrangian in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the relationship between Lagrangian density and Hamiltonian formulation
  • Learn about the role of covariant and contravariant vectors in physics
  • Investigate the interaction of charged particles with electromagnetic fields
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in classical field theory and the dynamics of charged particles in electromagnetic fields.

eoghan
Messages
201
Reaction score
7
Hi!
In some texts (Sakurai - advanced qm and others) I found this expression for the lagrangian of an em field:
[tex] L=F_{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu}[/tex]
but I'm a bit confused... L must be a Lorentz invariant, so I would write instead:
[tex] L=F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} \;\;[/tex]
Which form is the correct one? Or are they both correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second one. Some texts are overly casual about their use of the summation convention. Generally they also use an imaginary fourth component, so there's no need for an explicit Lorentz metric or a minus sign in the summation.
 
Ok, so Sakurai uses an imaginary component with an euclidean metric and so there is no difference between covariant and contravariant vectors.
Another question, the full density of Lagrangian is
[tex] \mathfrak{L}=-\frac{1}{16\pi}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{c}J_{\mu}A^{\mu}[/tex]
But now, how can I incorporate the mechanical term of the particles? I mean, how can I add to the density of Lagrangian the mechanical term
[tex] L=-\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}[/tex]
The problem is that the latter is a Lagrangian, while the former is a density of Lagrangian.
My goal is to get the full Hamiltonian of a point charge interacting with an em field:
[tex] H=\left[ \int d^3 x \frac{1}{2}(E^2+B^2)\right]+c\sqrt{m^2c^2+(\vec p - q\vec A)^2}+q\phi[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
993
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K