What is the Mistake in Deriving the EM Hamiltonian?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian for the electromagnetic (E&M) field using the (+---) metric. The initial formulation of the Hamiltonian, \(\mathcal H\), was incorrect due to a missing term, which was later corrected to include the contribution from the gauge choice. The final expression for the Hamiltonian is \(\mathcal H = \frac{1}{2}(E_{i}^2 + B_{i}^2) + E_i (\partial_i A_0)\), where the last term vanishes under certain conditions. The correct canonical momentum expression is \(\Pi^\mu = \frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\partial_0 A_\mu}\) for consistency with the chosen metric.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic field tensors, specifically \(F_{\mu\nu}\)
  • Knowledge of canonical momentum and commutation relations in field theory
  • Proficiency in gauge theory and constraints in classical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Hamiltonian for electromagnetic fields in detail
  • Explore gauge choices and their implications in field theory
  • Learn about primary and secondary constraints in constrained Hamiltonian systems
  • Investigate the differences between metrics in general relativity and their effects on canonical formulations
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in classical field theory, electromagnetism, and Hamiltonian mechanics. It is also relevant for graduate students seeking to deepen their understanding of gauge theories and canonical quantization.

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
For some reason I can't derive the Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian for the E&M field. Here's what I have (using +--- metric):

[tex] \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \mathcal L=\frac{-1}{4}F_{ \mu \nu}F^{ \mu \nu}<br /> <br /> \\<br /> <br /> \Pi^\mu=\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \dot{A_\mu}}=-F^{0 \mu}<br /> <br /> \\<br /> <br /> \mathcal H=\Pi^\mu \dot{A}_\mu -\mathcal L=-F^{0 \mu}\dot{A}_\mu +\frac{1}{4}F_{ \mu \nu}F^{ \mu \nu}<br /> =-F^{0 \mu}\dot{A}_\mu+\frac{1}{4}(2F_{0i}F^{0i}+F_{ij}F^{ij})<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}[/tex]

But F0i=Ei, and Fij=-Bk, so this is equal to:

[tex] \mathcal H=-F^{0 \mu}\dot{A}_\mu+\frac{1}{2}(-E_{i}^2+B_{i}^2)[/tex]


The Hamiltonian however should be one half the sum of the squares of the electric and magnetic fields. But I can't figure out what I did wrong. I almost have it, as the first term almost adds to the 2nd term to give that, but not quite.

Also, I'm not quite sure when using the (+---) metric whether the canonical momenta is:

[tex] \Pi^\mu=\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\partial^0 A_\mu}[/tex]
or

[tex] \Pi^\mu=\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\partial_0 A_\mu}[/tex]

I don't think it matters in the derivation of the Hamiltonian, but which one do you use in the canonical commutation relations for example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, I missed a term the first time around. We can write

[tex] -F^{0 \mu}\dot{A}_\mu = -F^{0 i}\partial_0{A}_i = - F^{0i}( F_{0i} + \partial_i A_0 ) = E_i^2 + E_i (\partial_i A_0)[/tex]

Then

[tex] \mathcal H=-F^{0 \mu}\dot{A}_\mu+\frac{1}{2}(-E_{i}^2+B_{i}^2) =\frac{1}{2}(E_{i}^2+B_{i}^2) + E_i (\partial_i A_0).[/tex]

The last term can be written as

[tex]\partial_i ( A_0 E_i) - A_0 ( \partial_i E_i) .[/tex]

The total derivative will vanish in the volume integral, while the second term vanishes by Gauss' law in the absence of sources.I believe that there's a cleaner way of doing things by treating the choice of gauge as either a 1st or 2nd class constraint, but I don't remember the details.
 
Last edited:
RedX said:
Also, I'm not quite sure when using the (+---) metric whether the canonical momenta is:

[tex] \Pi^\mu=\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\partial^0 A_\mu}[/tex]
or

[tex] \Pi^\mu=\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\partial_0 A_\mu}[/tex]

It doesn't matter whether the 0 is upstairs or downstairs, if you're using the (+---) metric. It would have mattered however if you were using the (-+++) metric, of course. However, for consistency and esthetical reasons, the 0 should be downstairs when it's the time derivative of the vector potential. So the second formula in my quote is the right one to use.

And the canonical hamiltonian for a constrained system is always computed on the hypersurface of primary constraints. In your case, it's the hypersurface [itex]\Pi_{0} = \Pi^{0} = 0[/itex].

To find the hamiltonian in terms of the classical fields E and B, first compute wrt the potentials and the canonical momenta.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K