Tensor of electromagnetic field

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 3K views
Petar Mali
Messages
283
Reaction score
0
[tex]F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/tex]

[tex]F_{\mu\nu}=-F_{\nu\mu}[/tex]

[tex]F_{ii}\equiv 0[/tex]

[tex]F_{11}=F_{22}=F_{33}=F_{44}=0[/tex]
where

[tex]A_{\mu}=(-\vec{A},\frac{1}{c}\varphi)[/tex][tex](F_{\mu\nu})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}<br /> 0& -B_z&B_y& -\frac{1}{c}E_x\\<br /> B_z&0&-B_x& -\frac{1}{c}E_y \\<br /> -B_y&B_x&0&-\frac{1}{c}E_z\\<br /> \frac{1}{c}E_x& \frac{1}{c}E_y & \frac{1}{c}E_z & 0\\<br /> \end{array} \right)[/tex][tex]F^{\mu\nu}=g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}[/tex][tex](F^{\mu\nu})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}<br /> 0& -B_z&B_y& \frac{1}{c}E_x\\<br /> B_z&0&-B_x& \frac{1}{c}E_y \\<br /> -B_y&B_x&0&\frac{1}{c}E_z\\<br /> -\frac{1}{c}E_x& -\frac{1}{c}E_y & -\frac{1}{c}E_z & 0\\<br /> \end{array} \right)[/tex]

How do I know that [tex]rotA_{\mu}=\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/tex] is electromagnetic field tensor?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Petar! :smile:
Petar Mali said:
How do I know that [tex]rotA_{\mu}=\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/tex] is electromagnetic field tensor?

I don't understand your question :redface:

isn't Aµ defined as the potential of the electromagnetic field tensor (in which case that has to be rotA)?
 
Well its all ok for me except why I say that [tex] F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/tex]

is EM field tensor. Why not

[tex] F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}[/tex]

for example?

Or some other functions?

It's like a postulate. EM field tensor is [tex] F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/tex]

Let's form a matrix. No problem. Components of that matrix are electric field components and magnetic field components. Ok. That have sence. But how I know to start with [tex]F_{\mu\nu}[/tex]. Do you know perhaps history of this problem.
 
Petar Mali said:
Why not

[tex] F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}-\frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}[/tex]

for example?

That's minus the electromagnetic field tensor, so yes, it'll also be an electromagnetic field tensor.
Let's form a matrix. No problem. Components of that matrix are electric field components and magnetic field components. Ok. That have sence. But how I know to start with [tex]F_{\mu\nu}[/tex]. Do you know perhaps history of this problem.

As you say, E and B are the 6 components of F.

F has to be a tensor because experiment tells us that is the way E and B transform in different frames. :smile: