Maxwell Tensor Symmetries Problem - Federico

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the symmetries of the Electromagnetic Field Tensor in the context of a specific metric with static and spherical symmetry. Participants explore the relationship between the tensor and the metric, focusing on the use of tetrads and the implications of antisymmetry in the tensor's formulation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Federico presents the Electromagnetic Field Tensor and seeks to demonstrate its symmetries in relation to a given metric.
  • Some participants inquire about the notation used, specifically the meaning of square brackets indicating antisymmetry.
  • Federico clarifies that the square brackets denote antisymmetry in the tensor components.
  • One participant suggests considering a tensor that converts between tetrad and coordinate bases, proposing that a specific form may yield the desired properties.
  • Another participant agrees that while there are multiple gauge choices, a diagonal tensor based on the metric is a valid and straightforward option.
  • There is a suggestion to apply a rotation matrix to verify that spherical symmetry is preserved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of using a diagonal tensor based on the metric, but there is no consensus on the best approach to demonstrate the symmetries of the Electromagnetic Field Tensor. Multiple viewpoints on gauge choices and methods remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of the tensor and the metric, and there are unresolved aspects regarding the algebraic complexity of the Lie Derivative approach.

Federico
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi community:

I'm Federico and I'm new user here!

I'm trying to show that the Electromegnetic Field Tensor

[itex]F_{ab}[/itex] = 2A(r) [itex](e_{0})_{[a}(e_{1})_{b]}[/itex] + 2B(r) [itex](e_{2})_{[a}(e_{3})_{b]}[/itex]

where [itex](e_{0},e_{1},e_{2},e_{3})[/itex] is the tetrad basis associated with the metric

[itex]ds^2= -f(r)dt^2+h(r)dr^2+r^2dθ^2+r^2sin^2(θ)d\varphi^2[/itex]

has the same symmetries that this metric (static and spherical symmetry).

I`ve tried using the Lie Derivative in the direction of the Killing fields of this metric, but the algebra becomes a little complicated.

Any ideas on this issue?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Federico, I'm familiar with tetrads, but could you elaborate in the meaning of the square brackets you used in your expression for the EM tensor?
 
Yes, no problem: the square brackets means antisymmetric

[itex](e_{0})_{[a}(e_{1})_{b]}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{1}{2}[(e_{0})_{a}(e_{1})_{b} - (e_{0})_{b}(e_{1})_{a}][/itex]

thanks!
 
All right, that makes sense. U can't give an in-depth analysis right this moment, but do you have an idea of the tensor that converts between the tetrad and coordinate bases? I suspect if you choose this to be have a specific form, the properties you want will hold.
 
yes, looking the metric, it let me know that a good choice is:

[itex](e_{0})_{a}=\sqrt{f}(dt)_{a}[/itex]
[itex](e_{1})_{a}=\sqrt{h}(dr)_{a}[/itex]
[itex](e_{2})_{a}=r(d\theta)_{a}[/itex]
[itex](e_{3})_{a}=rsin(\theta)(d\varphi)_{a}[/itex]

I mean, the tensor is diagonal.
 
Yeah, I mean, I know that's not the only gauge choice that gives the metric, but it's easy and it works. Nothing is a function of time, so I think you're okay there. How about applying a rotation matrix in theta or phi and verifying by hand that spherical symmetry is still manifest?
 
Ok, I'll try with that and let you know later. Thanks a lot for the idea!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K