What is the action for E-M in terms of E & B?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ankerbrau
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Terms
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the action for electromagnetism, specifically the expression F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu \nu} and its implications when expressed in terms of electric and magnetic fields, leading to equations of motion suggesting E=0 and B=0. Participants clarify that the correct canonical variables for electrodynamics are the components of the 4-vector potential A_{\mu} and their derivatives, rather than E and B fields. It is emphasized that the Lagrangian density E^2 - B^2 is invalid due to the absence of derivatives, and the need for a valid Lagrangian in terms of E and B is questioned. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is referenced to highlight the importance of gauge-invariant quantities related to A_{\mu}. Ultimately, the consensus is that while E^2 - B^2 may seem appealing, the variational principle must incorporate the potentials A_{\mu} as canonical variables.
Ankerbrau
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Typically the action for E-M is

F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu \nu}
where
F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu
since the equations of motion for
A_{\mu}
are the inhomogenous Maxwell equations.

However, here comes my problem:
If one expresses this action in terms of the electric and magnetic
field E and B
F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu \nu}=B^2-E^2
the equations of motion for those fields
would be
E=0
and
B=0.

So, where is the trick and what is the correct action
for the fields E and B?

Thanks in advance for your ideas and comments!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The correct canonical variables for electrodynamics are the components of 4-vector potential and their derivatives. Perhaps the best way to see this is to include the Lagrangian for a test particle, which requires coupling the momentum of the particle to the 4-vector potential. It's therefore obvious that the E and B fields cannot be canonical variables. Landau and Lifschitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, is a good reference for this.
 
\mathcal{L} = E^2 - B^2 is not a valid Lagrangian density, because it contains no derivatives.
 
Thanks, obviously

E^2-B^2 is not the right Lagrangian.
My question was more:
Is there any Lagrangian at all in terms of E and B,
no matter how awkward it looks?

Today a colleague explained me that
experimentally the Aharonov-Bohm effect showed
that the real physical can only be A_\mu,
theory wise it is connected to gauge invariant quantities
that do not depend on E and B like
\int A_\mu dx^\mu
 
I would say that E^2-B^2 is the right Lagrangian (density), but the variational principle must involve the potentials A_\mu as canonical variables. As I said, if you couple electrodynamics to matter, this is more obviously forced on you.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top