What is the electrodynamic action and its energy-momentum tensor?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the inconsistencies in the electrodynamic action S = S_f + S_m + S_{mf} as presented in textbooks by Jackson, Landau, and Barut. The author highlights the ambiguity of the free-field term S_f and the ad-hoc nature of deriving energy-momentum tensors, particularly noting the requirement to ignore the S_{mf} term. Alternative actions proposed by Feynman & Wheeler and Chubykalo & Smirnov-Rueda are acknowledged, but the author expresses ongoing difficulties in deriving systematic energy-momentum tensors from these alternatives. The core inquiry is whether a well-defined and consistent action exists that leads to a physically correct energy-momentum tensor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical electrodynamics principles
  • Familiarity with the action principle in physics
  • Knowledge of energy-momentum tensor derivation
  • Proficiency in tensor calculus and general relativity concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Feynman & Wheeler action for electrodynamics
  • Study the derivation of energy-momentum tensors from alternative actions
  • Examine the implications of the Landau & Lifgarbagez approach to electrodynamics
  • Explore systematic methods for deriving energy-momentum tensors in field theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers focused on electrodynamics and field theory seeking clarity on action formulations and energy-momentum tensor derivations.

juanrga
Messages
476
Reaction score
0
I have studied Jackson, Landau, and Barut textbooks on electrodynamics, together with Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmology textbook, and I find that the usual action

[itex]S = S_f + S_m + S_{mf}[/itex]

is inconsistent and not well-defined. For instance, what is the meaning of [itex]S_f[/itex]? A free-field term? Or an interacting-field term that diverges?

Moreover, the derivations of the energy-momentum tensors from the above action seem ad-hoc. For instance, Landau & Lifgarbagez just claim that during the derivation one must assume that the particles are non-interacting! That is, one must ignore the [itex]S_{mf}[/itex] term.

All of this mess is confirmed by papers as that by Feynman & Wheeler [1] and by Chubykalo & Smirnov-Rueda [2] where alternative actions are proposed to correct the deficiencies. However, I find still difficulties with those actions and no systematic procedure to get the corresponding energy-momentum tensors.

Does exist some well-defined and consistent action for electrodynamics leading to a well-defined and physically correct energy-momentum tensor?


[1] Rev. Mod. Phys. 1949: 21(3), 425.
[2] Phys. Rev. E 1996: 53(5), 5373. [Erratum] Phys. Rev. E 1997: 55(3), 3793.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure if I completely understand your confusion (or your notation) but the EM (no matter) action is [itex]S = \int d^4x\sqrt{|g|}\mathcal{L}=\int d^4x\sqrt{|g|}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}=\int d^4x\sqrt{|g|}g^{\alpha\mu}g^{\beta\nu}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}[/itex] This is the correct action because you can show that by varying it with respect to the EM vector potential you get the free EM field equations.
To get the stress-energy tensor you just vary the action with respect to the metric tensor. This is the general procedure for finding the stress-energy tensor.

I hope this answered your question!
 
Thanks. I am using the notation in Landau & Lifgarbagez textbook on electrodynamics (see also [2]).

It is easy to obtain the stress-energy tensor for a free field from the action [itex]S_f[/itex] for a free field. The problems start when considering the whole action [itex]S = S_f + S_m + S_{mf}[/itex] on my first message.

No strange that several authors [1,2] substitute the classical electrodynamics action [itex]S = S_f + S_m + S_{mf}[/itex] by other actions. For example, the field term that you wrote does not exist in the Feynman & Wheeler action [1].

However, as said above, I find still difficulties with those actions and no systematic procedure to get the corresponding energy-momentum tensors.

For instance, the variations of the actions in [1,2] with respect to the metric tensor do not give stress-energy tensors compatible with the equations of motion.

My question remains open!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K