I Why is there a freedom to choose gauge in gauge transformation?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter m_prakash02
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauge transformation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of gauge freedom in electromagnetism, highlighting that the addition of the gradient of a scalar to the electromagnetic potential does not alter the physical outcomes described by Maxwell's equations. This gauge symmetry allows for multiple potential representations that yield the same electromagnetic fields, specifically through gauge transformations. The choice of gauge, or "gauge fixing," is arbitrary and can be tailored to simplify mathematical calculations without affecting observable quantities. The Lorenz and Coulomb gauge conditions are examples of such constraints that lead to different forms of equations while ultimately resulting in the same physical predictions. The key takeaway is that only gauge-invariant quantities are relevant as observables in electrodynamics.
m_prakash02
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
I understand that adding gradient of a scalar to the electromagnetic field potential keeps the evolution equation of the four potential invariant. But how does that give us the freedom to choose the gauge?
I understand that adding gradient of a scalar to the electromagnetic field potential keeps the evolution equation of the four potential invariant. But how does that give us the freedom to choose the gauge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The important point of any "gauge symmetry" is that it describes a situation, where the equations of motion do not completely determine the quantities to be calculated, but this "incompleteness" has no consequences for the physics described.

In the case of classical electromagnetism, what uniquely describes the physical situation is the solution of Maxwell's equations together with the equations of motion for the charged matter, and this set of equations has unique solutions.

Of course, usually you consider a somewhat simpler situation, and we'll stick to that to begin with, that you want to find the electromagnetic field ##(\vec{E},\vec{B})## for a given distribution of charges and current densities, ##(\rho,\vec{j})##.

Now to find such solutions one introduces the electromagnetic potentials ##(\Phi,\vec{A})##. The reason is to simplify the math. The idea is that mathematically the two homogeneous Maxwell equations are constraint equations for the electromagnetic field (in SI units):
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}+\partial_t \vec{B}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0,$$
i.e., these equations have nothing to do with the charge-current distribution but relate the fields to each other. So the idea is to exploit these constraints to introduce the potentials. Starting with the 2nd equation (Gauss's Law for the magnetic field), we see that there's a vector potential, ##\vec{A}## such that
$$\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}.$$
Already at this very first step, it's clear that ##\vec{A}## is not unique, i.e., if you consider ##\vec{B}## known for a moment it's clear that any other vector potential
$$\vec{A}'=\vec{A}-\vec{\nabla} \chi,$$
where ##\chi## is an arbitrary (!) scalar field, leads to the same ##\vec{B}##, because ##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{\nabla} \chi=0## for any field ##\chi##.

But just let's go on. Pluggin this to the first homogeneous Maxwell equation (Faraday's law) leads to
$$\vec{\nabla} \times (\vec{E}+\partial_t \vec{A})=0.$$
Now if the curl of vector field vanishes, it's clear that you can find a scalar potential for this field:
$$\vec{E}+\partial_t \vec{A}=-\vec{\nabla} \Phi \; \Rightarrow \; \vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \Phi-\partial_t \vec{A}.$$
The same calculation we can do with ##\vec{A}'##, but since ##\Phi## depends on ##\vec{A}## there must also be a different ##\Phi'##:
$$\vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \Phi' -\partial_t \vec{A}'=-\vec{\nabla} \Phi' - \partial_t (\vec{A}-\vec{\nabla} \chi) = -\vec{\nabla} \Phi-\partial_t \vec{A}$$
From this you get
$$\Phi'=\Phi+\partial_t \chi.$$
This implies that the potentials are only determined up to a gauge transformation,
$$\vec{A}'=\vec{A}-\vec{\nabla} \chi, \quad \Phi'=\Phi+\partial_t \chi,$$
i.e., in introducing the potentials the Maxwell equations can determine them up to an arbitrary choice of a scalar field ##\chi##.

Since any ##\chi## will do, you can impose an arbitrary additional equation constraining the potentials. This can be used to simplify the task of solving also for the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations, which are the equations that relate the em. field to the sources, ##\rho## and ##\vec{j}##:
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}-\epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t \vec{E}=\mu_0 \vec{j}, \quad \epsilon_0 \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho.$$
Expressing ##\vec{E}## and ##\vec{B}## in terms of the potentials, leads to
$$\vec{\nabla} \times (\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}) - \epsilon_0 \mu_0 (-\partial_t^2 \vec{A} -\partial_t \vec{\nabla} \Phi)=\mu_0 \vec{j}$$
and
$$-\vec{\nabla} \cdot (\partial_t \vec{A} + \vec{\nabla} \Phi)=\rho/\epsilon_0.$$
The first equation can be rewritten as
$$(\epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t^2-\Delta) \vec{A} + \vec{\nabla} \cdot (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A} + \epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t \Phi)=\mu_0 \vec{j}.$$
Now we remember that we can impose one arbitrary condition on the potentials. It's obvious that we get the most simple equations for ##\vec{A}## by demanding
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}+\epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t \Phi=0,$$
which is known as the "Lorenz-gauge condition". In general one calls it a "gauge fixing" when imposing an arbitrary constraint on the potentials. The physics won't change although of course the potentials depen choosing the gauge-fixing condition, because the observable fields, ##\vec{E}## and ##\vec{B}## don't depend on this "choice of gauge".

The equation for ##\Phi## also simplifies in choosing the Lorenz-gauge condition by substituting ##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}=-\epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t \Phi## into that equation:
$$(\epsilon_0 \mu_0 \partial_t^2-\Delta) \Phi=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \rho.$$
It's clear that ##\epsilon_0 \mu_0=1/c^2## has the dimension of ##1/\text{velocity}^2##, and the values of ##\epsilon_0## and ##\mu_0## show that ##c## is the speed of light, which lead Maxwell to the conclusion that light is an electromagnetic wave since what we derived, choosing the Lorenz-gauge fixing, are wave equations for ##\vec{A}## and ##\Phi##.

There are also other popular gauge conditions. One also commonly used is the Coulomb-gauge condition,
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}=0.$$
Then the equation for ##\Phi## simply looks as in electrostatics,
$$\Delta \Phi=-\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \rho,$$
and you get another somewhat more complicated equation for ##\vec{A}##. At the end you get again the same solution for the electromagnetic field, because one can explicitly show, that there's a gauge field ##\chi## such that the potentials from the Lorenz-gauge and from the Coulomb-gauge fixing are gauge transformations of each other. For details, see

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11598
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/abc137
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes m_prakash02, topsquark, Ibix and 2 others
m_prakash02 said:
But how does that give us the freedom to choose the gauge?
Just to emphasise this sentence in vanhees71's post:
vanhees71 said:
In general one calls it a "gauge fixing" when imposing an arbitrary constraint on the potentials.
"Choosing the gauge" is just a name for setting a condition on the potential that (together with your boundary conditions) implicitly defines the scalar whose gradient you are adding to the potential, and hence specifies the potential uniquely. So the direct answer to your question is that the existence of a degree of freedom gives you the freedom to constrain it. You usually want to pick a constraint that will make the maths easier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark, Dale and vanhees71
In addition this degree of freedom is irrelevant for the physics, and thus its choice is arbitrary, i.e., you can impose any "gauge-fixing condition" you like for any given problem, it won't change the final result for the observable quantities. Note that this implies that in electrodynamics only gauge-invariant quantities can be observables by definition!
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, Ibix and Dale
Thread 'Inducing EMF Through a Coil: Understanding Flux'
Thank you for reading my post. I can understand why a change in magnetic flux through a conducting surface would induce an emf, but how does this work when inducing an emf through a coil? How does the flux through the empty space between the wires have an effect on the electrons in the wire itself? In the image below is a coil with a magnetic field going through the space between the wires but not necessarily through the wires themselves. Thank you.
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top