Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,873 answers , 20,701 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Physical Interpretation of EM Field Lagrangian

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
175 views

Using differential forms and their picture interpretations, I wonder if it's possible to give a nice geometric & physical motivation for the form of the Electromagnetic Lagrangian density?

The Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field without current sources in terms of differential forms is $F \wedge * F$, where $F$ is the exterior derivative of a 4-potential $A$. Another way to say this is that $F$ is the four-dimensional curl of a 4-potential $A$, i.e. the anti-symmetric part of the flow of the determinant of the Jacobian of a vector field $A$, and since we can physically interpret the curl of a vector field as the instantaneous rotation of the elements of volume that $A$ acts on, it seems as though we can interpret varying $F \wedge * F$ as saying that we are trying to minimize the instantaneous four-dimensional volume of rotation of the electromagnetic field (since the Hodge dual on 2-forms gives 2-forms 'perpendicular' to our original ones, wedging a form with it's dual gives us a 4-d volume, so here we are getting the rotation of a volume element in spacetime).

Is that correct?

There is also the issue of defining the same action just in different spaces, using $F_{ij}F^{ij}$ and so a similar interpretation must exist... If I interpret $F_{ab}$ as I've interpreted $F$ above, i.e. a 4-d curl, and $F^{cd}$ similarly just in the dual space, then in order to get a scalar from these I have to take the trace of the matrix product $F_{ab}F^{cd}$, which seems to me as though it can be interpreted as the divergence of the volume of rotation, thus minimizing the action seems to be saying that we are minimizing the flow of rotation per unit volume.

Is this correct?

If these interpretations are in any way valid, can anyone suggest a similar interpretation for the $A_idx^i$ term in the Lagrangian, either when we're getting the Lorentz force law or the other Maxwell equations? Vaguely thinking about interpreting this term in terms of current and getting Maxwell's equations hints at what I've written above to have at least some validity!

Interestingly, if correct I would imagine all of this has a fantastic global interpretation in terms of fiber bundles, if anybody sees a relationship that would be interesting.

(Page 9 of this pdf are where I'm getting this interpretation of divergence and curl via the Jacobian, and I'm mixing it with the geometric interpretation of differential forms ala MTW's Gravitation)

I understand Landau's mathematical derivation of the $F_{ij}$ field tensor, Lorentz invariant scalar w.r.t. to the Minkowski inner product, linearity of the EOM, and eliminating direct dependence on the potentials, but physical motivation for it's form is lacking. Since one can loosely interpret minimizing $\mathcal{L} = T - V$ as minimizing the excess of kinetic over potential energy over the path of a particle, and for a free particle as simply minimizing the energy, I don't see why a loose interpretation of the EM Lagrangian can't be given. Any thoughts are welcome.

References:

  1. Math 733: Vector Fields, Differential Forms, and Cohomology, Lecture notes, R. Jason Parsley
  2. Warnick, Selfridge, Arnold - Teaching Electromagnetic Field Theory Using Differential Forms
This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-03 20:45 (UCT), posted by SE-user bolbteppa
asked May 3, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by bolbteppa (110 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$low
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...