Why is the Lorenz gauge chosen for causality in EM potentials?

bakshi
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Choosing the Lorenz gauge implies that sources of the EM potentials at a given point are the charge density (for scalar potential) and current density (for vector potential) that cross a collecting sphere converging at the speed of light toward that point. It is often said that the retarded potentials thus obtained satisfy causality.

My question is the following: Why is the collecting sphere converging at exactly the speed of light? Couldn't it converge at a lower speed?

What is the justification for assuming that an information that is not light must travel at the speed of light? Does some equation require it, is it empirical knowledge or is it just a postulate?


Thank you for your help,

Bakshi
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I found the answer to my own question. You can choose any gauge you want for the potentials: no matter what the speed of the collecting sphere (which is even infinite for the scalar potential in the Coulomb gauge), they will all lead to the same equations for the fields, and these equations are causal at speed c. Therefore if potentials are not considered real in classical physics it should not be mentioned that the Lorenz gauge has to be chosen for causality reasons.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top