Solving Electromagnetic Tensor & B-Field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the electromagnetic tensor \( F \) and the magnetic field \( B \), specifically how to express \( F \) in terms of \( B \) using the Levi-Civita symbol and related identities. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations relevant to electromagnetism.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks help in deriving \( F \) from the equation \( B_i = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} F^{jk} \), suggesting the use of another Levi-Civita symbol.
  • Another participant confirms the approach of using Levi-Civita symbols and discusses the antisymmetry of \( F \), leading to the expression \( \epsilon^{ijk} B_i = F^{jk} \).
  • A different participant points out an error in the use of indices, emphasizing that three identical indices cannot be used in the Einstein summation convention and suggests a different computation method involving the standard epsilon-delta relation.
  • One participant acknowledges their mistake regarding the index usage and expresses a desire to correct their earlier claim.
  • Another participant provides an identity involving Levi-Civita symbols and discusses the implications of the Hodge dual in three-dimensional Cartesian notation, while cautioning about the differences in conventions across textbooks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of indices in the context of the Einstein summation convention, with some agreeing on the use of Levi-Civita symbols while others challenge the correctness of specific steps. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to derive \( F \) from \( B \).

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the indices and the conventions used in different textbooks, which may affect the interpretation of the results. The discussion also highlights the complexity of working with tensor notation in electromagnetism.

StuartY
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello, first off, I'm not sure if I put this question in the right place so sorry about that.
Given Bi = 1/2 εijk Fjk how would you find F in terms of B? I think you multiply through by another Levi-Civita, but then I don't know what to do after that. Any help would much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's correct. When you multiple two levi-civitas, and end up with delta functions. Then you take advantage of F being antisymmetric.

B_i = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} F^{jk}
\epsilon^{imn} B_i = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{imn} \epsilon_{ijk} F^{jk}
\epsilon^{imn} B_i = \frac{1}{2} (\delta^m_j \delta^n_k - \delta^n_j \delta^m_k) F^{jk}
\epsilon^{imn} B_i = \frac{1}{2} (F^{mn} - F^{nm})
F^{nm} = - F^{mn}

after some relabeling:
\epsilon^{ijk} B_i = F^{jk}
 
Last edited:
DuckAmuck said:
That's correct. When you multiple two levi-civitas, you end up with a variety of results depending on how many indices are shared. In the case you want here, 2 are shared: \epsilon^{jkl} \epsilon_{ijk} = 2 \delta^{l}_i

B_i = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} F^{jk}
\epsilon^{jkl} B_i = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{jkl} \epsilon_{ijk} F^{jk}
\epsilon^{jkl} B_i = \frac{1}{2} 2 \delta^{l}_i F^{jk}
This is wrong, you can never have three of the same index when using the Einstein summation convention. You are using the same letter for some free indices as for some summation indices and then you confuse which is what. The thing to use is the standard epsilon-delta relation with only one index summed over and compute ##\epsilon_{mni} B_i##. I will leave the actual computation for the OP.
 
Orodruin said:
This is wrong, you can never have three of the same index when using the Einstein summation convention. You are using the same letter for some free indices as for some summation indices and then you confuse which is what. The thing to use is the standard epsilon-delta relation with only one index summed over and compute ##\epsilon_{mni} B_i##. I will leave the actual computation for the OP.

My bad. I guess I just remember the answer, and forgot how to do math. I fixed it.
 
Just use the identity
$$\epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{ilm}=\delta_{jl} \delta_{km} - \delta_{jm} \delta_{kl}.$$
The Hodge dual of a Hodge dual leads back to the original (up to signs), e.g.,
$$B_j=\epsilon_{jkl} F_{kl}=2(^{\dagger} F)_{j}$$
leads to
$$\epsilon_{abj}B_j=\epsilon_{jab} B_j=\epsilon_{jab} \epsilon_{jkl} F_{kl}=(\delta_{ak} \delta_{bl}-\delta_{al} \delta_{bk})) F_{kl}=F_{ab}-F_{ba}=2F_{ab}.$$
So indeed you have
$$^{\dagger \dagger} F=F.$$
Note that all this is in usual 3D Carrtesian notation. If you want to have this covariantly in Minkowski space you must be careful with the signs of the 4D Levi-Civita tensor. It also differs from one textbook to the other. So make sure you know the convention used in your textbook!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
987
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K