Unifying Lagrangians in Electrodynamics: Fμν, Aμ Jμ, & Lorentz Force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unification of two Lagrangians in electrodynamics: the field Lagrangian and the particle Lagrangian. Participants explore the implications of combining these Lagrangians and the resulting equations of motion, particularly in relation to the Lorentz force. The scope includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a unified Lagrangian that combines the field and particle Lagrangians, suggesting that the terms -q Aμ vμ and -Aμ Jμ may account for the same physical phenomena.
  • Another participant emphasizes the complexity of treating point-particle mechanics and the electromagnetic field as a dynamical system, noting that the equations of motion can be problematic due to ill-defined evaluations at the particle's location.
  • A later reply seeks to clarify the full Lagrangian for a massive charged particle in an electromagnetic field, expressing concern that the inclusion of the field tensor F could introduce additional terms in the force equation.
  • One participant asserts that a specific term in the derived force equation is zero, claiming that it does not depend on the particle's position.
  • Another participant reiterates the assertion that the term is zero, leading to a discussion about the Lagrangian density and its dependence on mass density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of combining the Lagrangians and the behavior of specific terms in the equations of motion. There is no consensus on whether the additional term introduced by the field tensor F is always zero or under what conditions it may not be.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining the equations of motion for point particles in electromagnetic fields, as well as the potential for unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation of the unified Lagrangian.

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
How would you unify the two Lagrangians you see in electrodynamics?
Namely the field Lagrangian:
Lem = -1/4 Fμν Fμν - Aμ Jμ
and the particle Lagrangian:
Lp = -m/γ - q Aμ vμ
The latter here gives you the Lorentz force equation.
fμ = q Fμν vν

It seems the terms - q Aμ vμ and - Aμ Jμ account for the same thing. So if you were to add in the kinetic term from Lem to Lp, you get:
L+ = -m/γ - q Aμ vμ -1/4 Fμν Fμν
The subsequent Lorentz force equation is:
fμ = q Fμν vν + 1/4 ∂μ(Fαβ Fαβ)

This looks weird and makes me think I am missing something. What do you all think? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your last paragraph. Obviously you consider point-particle mechanics of charged particles and the electromagnetic field as a dynamical system, which is more complicated (and in a sense still ill-defined after more than 100 years of struggle since Lorentz) than you might think. Formally it's as follows:

Your Lagrangian consists of 3 parts: the free matter Lagrangian (where "matter" here means a single particle)
$$L_0^{(\text{matter})}=-m \sqrt{\dot{y}_{\mu} \dot{y}^{\mu}},$$
where the dot means the derivative wrt. an arbitrary world-line parameter (which can in this form of the Lagrangian NOT be proper time); ##y^{\mu}(\lambda)## is the parametrization of the point-particle worldline.

Then the Lagrangian of the free electromagnetic field,
$$L_0^{(\text{field})}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x [-\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}],$$
where
$$F_{\mu \nu} =\partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} -\partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}.$$

Finally you have the interaction Lagrangian
$$L_{\text{int}}=-q A_{\mu}(y) \dot{y}^{\mu}.$$
This you can formally write also in the other form you have in mind
$$L_{\text{int}}=-\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} A_{\mu}(x) J^{\mu},$$
where for a point particle
$$J^{\mu}=q \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} \lambda \dot{y}^{\mu} \delta^{(4)}[x-y(\lambda)].$$
The equations of motion are very problematic since for the equation of motion of the particle you evaluate the field due to this particle at the space-time point of this same particle, which is ill-defined.

For a discussion of this, see Sects. 4.7 and 4.8 (the former is about the Lagrangian in the continuum-theoretical case, which is well-defined, the latter about point particles and the radiation-reaction problem) in

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

For a discussion of the Landau-Lifshitz approximation of the LAD equation, see the paper by Nakleh quoted in my manuscript (which is still far from being in final form, particularly concerning this "poin-particle enigma").
 
The last paragraph is basically asking, how do I write the full Lagrangian of a massive charged particle in an electromagnetic field?

From what you've said, I gathered that it would be written like:
$$ L = -m\sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu} - q A_\mu (y) \dot{y}^\mu - \frac{1}{4} \int d^3 x F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} $$
You can derive the Lorentz force from this, but the term containing the field tensor F seems like it would add an extra term to the force equation due to its dependence on position.
Evaluate the Euler-Lagrange equation:
$$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{y}^\nu} = -\frac{m}{\sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu}}\dot{y}_\nu - q A_\nu (y) $$
$$\frac{d}{d\tau} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{y}^\nu} = - f_\nu - q A_{\nu,\mu} \dot{y}^\mu $$
$$ \frac{\partial L}{\partial y^\nu} = -q A_{\mu,\nu} \dot{y}^\mu - \frac{1}{4} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\nu} \int d^3 x F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma} $$
Put together to get the Lorentz force:
$$ f_\nu = q F_{\nu\mu} \dot{y}^\mu + \frac{1}{4} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\nu} \int d^3 x F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma} $$
I want to say the last term vanishes, but it seems like there could be a condition where it doesn't. For example, if the limits on the integral depend on y.
 
But the last term is 0, because nothing depends on ##y##!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DuckAmuck
vanhees71 said:
But the last term is 0, because nothing depends on ##y##!
Okay so the Lagrangian behavior is straightforward then. What about the Lagrangian density? Where rho is the mass density of a particle cloud.
$$ \mathcal{L} = -\rho(y) \sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu} - A_\mu J^\mu -\frac{1}{4} F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma}$$
$$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial y^\nu} = -\partial_\nu \rho \sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu} -\partial_\nu (A_\mu J^\mu)- \frac{1}{4} \partial_\nu (F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma}) $$
$$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{y}^\nu} = -\rho \frac{\dot{y}_\nu}{\sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu}} $$
Put together to get:
$$ \partial_\nu \rho \sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu} + \partial_\nu (A_\mu J^\mu) + \frac{1}{4} \partial_\nu (F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma}) = \frac{d}{d\tau} \left( \rho \frac{\dot{y}_\nu}{\sqrt{\dot{y}_\mu \dot{y}^\mu}} \right)$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
686
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K