The fate of the vector potential in the case of the existence of a mag

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of magnetic monopoles for the vector potential in classical electrodynamics. It highlights that while the vector potential is derived from the magnetic field being a vortex, the existence of monopoles alters this relationship. Participants debate how Maxwell's equations should be reformulated in four-dimensional terms when considering monopoles and whether the vector potential should be discarded entirely. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in representing Maxwell's equations, particularly in terms of fields rather than potentials. Ultimately, the fate of the vector potential remains a complex topic in the context of magnetic monopoles.
sergiokapone
Messages
306
Reaction score
17
The vector potential in classical electrodynamics can be introduced due to the fact that the magnetic field is the vortex:
div \vec B = 0 → \vec B = rot \vec A
In the four-dimensional form (including gauge) Maxwell's equations look particularly beautiful:
\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu} A^{\nu} = j ^{\nu}
where A^{\nu} - 4-potential.

Given the existence of a monopole, the magnetic field is no longer a vortex. Then, how to change the form of Maxwell's equations in 4-dimensional form (via potentials)? Whether to reject the concept of the vector potential?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wiemster said:

Thank you. But there representing the equations of Maxwell, expressed in terms of the field, and not in terms of the potentials.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top