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.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top