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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top