Sum Maxwell Lagrangian 1st Term: Use Minus Signs?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the first term of the Maxwell Lagrangian, specifically the expression involving the electromagnetic field tensor \( F_{\mu \nu} \) and its contraction \( F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \). Participants explore the implications of metric conventions on the signs of the components and the correct formulation of the term in the context of Lorentz invariance.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether minus signs should be used for certain components of \( F_{\mu \nu} \) when raising and lowering indices, indicating confusion over the cancellation of terms.
  • Another participant notes that \( F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \) should yield an expression like \( \frac{E^2}{c^2} - B^2 \), depending on the choice of units.
  • A participant emphasizes that the product involves more than simple matrix multiplication, suggesting a specific summation structure for the components of \( F_{\mu \nu} \).
  • There is a discussion about the antisymmetry of \( F \) and how it affects the formulation of the terms in the Lagrangian.
  • One participant expresses a desire to understand how to derive the specific expression \( F_{00}F^{00} + 2F_{0i}F^{i0} + F_{ij}F^{ij} \) from \( F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \).
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the indices used in one of the expressions, highlighting the importance of careful notation in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct treatment of the indices and the implications of the metric conventions. Multiple viewpoints and interpretations of the mathematical expressions remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the derivation of the terms and the treatment of indices, indicating that assumptions about the metric and the properties of \( F \) may influence their conclusions.

Gene Naden
Messages
320
Reaction score
64
So the first term of the Lagrangian is proportional to ##{F_{\mu \nu}}{F^{\mu \nu}}##. I wrote out the matrices for ##{F_{\mu \nu}}## and ##{F^{\mu \nu}}## and multiplied at the terms together and added them up, but some of the terms didn't cancel like they should have. Should I have used minus signs for the fourth (or the first three, depending on the metric convention) components, like when you are raising and lowering indices?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
F has the electric and magnetic fields in it and ##{F_{\mu \nu}}{F^{\mu \nu}}## is supposed to come out like, depending on the units conventions ##\frac{E^2}{c^2}-B^2##
 
The product is not a mere matrix multiplication. You need to add F_00 F^00 + 2 F_i0 F^i0 + F_ij F^ij, where upper indices are obtained by raising with the Minkowski metric.
 
(F is antisymmettric) So it is something like ##2F_{0i}F^{i0} + F_{ij}F^{ij}## where i runs from 1 to 3 and the metric is diag(-1,1,1,1)?
 
Yes, that works out, but how does one derive the expression ##F_{00}F^{00} + 2F_{0i}F^{i0} + F_{ij}F^{ij}##
 
Yes, F is antisymmetric, but I included the 00 components to be complete ;)

I don't understand your last question; the lagrangian is proposed based on the fact that it is a Lorentz invariant expression containing first order derivatives of A. Written out it spells the sum.
 
Thanks. My last question was not about how to derive the Lagrangian but rather about how to go from ##F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}## to ##
F_{00}F^{00} + 2F_{0i}F^{i0} + F_{ij}F^{ij}##. But maybe that is obvious.
 
I now see you switched the 0i indices on one of your F's. It should read F_i0 F^i0 or F_0i F^0i, differing a minus sign from your expression.

The way to obtain it is just perform the summation, splitting it into timelike and spacelike components.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gene Naden

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
824
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K