10

When we introduce electromagnetic field in Special Relativity, we add a term of $$-\frac e c A_idx^i$$ into Lagrangian. When we then derive equations of motion, we get the magnetic field that is defined as $$\vec H=\nabla\times\vec A.$$

If we now take divergence of both sides of this definition, we automatically get

$$\nabla\cdot\vec H=0,$$

which is equivalent to inexistence of magnetic charges.

But suppose we've found a magnetic charge. What will change in our Lagrangian or in definition of electric and magnetic fields in this case to make $\nabla\cdot\vec H=\sigma$?

In this Phys.SE answer it's asserted that magnetic field would get an additional term "gradient of a scalar potential". Is this "a" scalar potential instead "the" $A^0$ potential?

Ruslan
  • 28,862
  • I think your first expression is wrong - shouldn't it be $A_\mu J^\nu \to q A_\mu U^\mu = q \gamma ({\bf A} \cdot {\bf v} - \phi)$ for point-particle sources? – tparker Jul 05 '17 at 18:09
  • @tparker it's not wrong, but yours is neither. Mine is just in ${}+{}-{}-{}-{}$ metric signature, unlike yours. – Ruslan Jul 05 '17 at 18:39
  • What? No, I wasn't talking about the sign. $\gamma({\bf A} \cdot {\bf v} - \phi)$ is not the same thing as ${\bf A} \cdot d\bf{x}$. What does "$d{\bf x}$" even mean in a Lagrangian? – tparker Jul 05 '17 at 18:42
  • @tparker $x^i$ is the point on the world line of a particle. The expression $A_i dx^i$ expands as $A^0dt-\mathbf Ad\mathbf r$, where $d\mathbf r\equiv \mathbf v dt$. After you expand $dt$ in terms of $ds$ you'll get the $\gamma$. My notation is from Landau&Lifshitz vol. II $\S16$. – Ruslan Jul 05 '17 at 18:51
  • Ah, got it. I was assuming the convention that Roman letters only run over spatial indices. Except I think in your notation it should be $$-\frac{e}{c} A_i \frac{dx^i}{d\tau},$$ where $\tau$ is the particle's proper time. Your expression doesn't have the units of a Lagrangian density. – tparker Jul 05 '17 at 19:28

1 Answers1

13

In the absence of magnetic monopoles, Maxwell's equations are

$$ \begin{align} \text d F &= 0 ,\\ \text d{\star F} &= J_e , \end{align} $$

where $J$ is the 4-current 3-form due to electric charges (assuming a metric with signature $(-,+,+,+)$). For cohomological reasons, from the first equation one can asserts that there exists a 1-form $A$ such that $F = \text d A$, and $A$ is the interpreted as the 4-potential $(\phi,\mathbf A)$ (up to the musical isomorphism between tangent and cotangent bundle to Minkowski spacetime). In the presence of magnetic monopoles (or charge, to even symmetrise terminology) the above equations would become

$$ \begin{align} \text d F &= J_m ,\\ \text d{\star F} &= J_e , \end{align} $$

where $J_m$ is the 4-current for magnetic charges. Therefore in this extended theory of electrodynamics both the Faraday tensor $F$ and its Hodge dual $\star F$ (sometimes also denoted by $G$) figure in constitutive equations.

Since $F$ is no longer a closed form, its expression must be modified by the introduction of a non-exact part, say $C$, so that

$$F = \text d A + C.$$

Since the equations are symmetric in $F$ and $\star F$ we can postulate there exist 1-forms $B$ and $D$ such that

$$\star F = \text d B + D,$$

and assume that $C$ depends on $B$, while $D$ depends on $A$. But since $\star\star = -1$ in special relativity, we conclude that

$$F = \text dA - \star\text dB,$$

which can be related to the Helmholtz decomposition into polar and axial part for twice differentiable vector fields.

The Lorentz force for a particle with electric charge $q_e$ and magnetic charge $q_m$ would be $$K = \iota_u(q_e F + q_m G),$$ where $u$ is the particle's 4-velocity vector and $\iota$ denotes the interior product. The extra term can then be reproduced with a Lagrangian containing the extra term $B_\mu u^\mu$.


To make contact with the usual vector notation, observe that the Faraday tensor has the covariant matrix representation $$F = \begin{bmatrix}0&-~\mathbf E^T\\\mathbf E&\star\mathbf H\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\star\mathbf H$ is the Hodge dual of the magnetic field $\mathbf H$, and can be thought as the linear map $(\star\mathbf H)\mathbf v = \mathbf v\times\mathbf H$ for any $\mathbf v\in\mathbb R^3$. Skew-symmetric tensors as the one above are then represented by a polar vector $\mathbf E$ and an axial vector $\mathbf H$, and can be denoted as $F=(\mathbf E,\mathbf H)$. Having defined this notation, the action of the Hodge dual is then $\star(\mathbf E,\mathbf H) = (\mathbf H,-\mathbf E)$ (up to a sign which I can't be bothered remembering). The exterior derivative of the 4-current $A$ is a tensor of the form above, and it turns out that $$\text dA = \left(\nabla A^0+\frac{\partial\mathbf A}{\partial t},\nabla\times\mathbf A\right),$$ where the first component is the polar part and the second one is the axial part. Hence with no magnetic charges we recover the electric and magnetic fields. Now for the extra potential $B=(B^0,\mathbf B)$ we have, using the rule for the Hodge dual discussed a few lines above, $$\star\text dB = \left(\nabla\times\mathbf B, - \nabla B^0 - \frac{\partial\mathbf B}{\partial t}\right)$$ Remark Here $\mathbf B$ is an extra vector potential, not to be confused with the magnetic induction.

Reconstructing the Faraday tensor according to the prescription $F=\text dA - \star\text dB$ given above we then have, in terms of polar and axial parts $$F = \left(\nabla A^0 + \frac{\partial\mathbf A}{\partial t} - \nabla\times\mathbf B, \nabla\times\mathbf A + \nabla B^0+\frac{\partial\mathbf B}{\partial t}\right),$$ whence $$\mathbf E = \nabla A^0 + \frac{\partial\mathbf A}{\partial t} - \nabla\times\mathbf B$$ and $$\mathbf H = \nabla\times\mathbf A + \nabla B^0 + \frac{\partial\mathbf B}{\partial t}.$$

Phoenix87
  • 9,549
  • 1
    Hmm, can I ask you to rewrite this in simpler terms, namely in components and without these scary stars, of which I have no idea (I've not studied differential geometry)?.. – Ruslan Feb 09 '15 at 12:52
  • Thanks, this is much better. But how would the $-\frac e c A_i dx^i$ term in the Lagrangian change with this extra $B$ potential? – Ruslan Feb 09 '15 at 14:36
  • Shouldn't your matrix have $\star \mathbf H$ not $\star\mathbf B$? – Ryan Unger Feb 09 '15 at 14:37
  • @Ruslan please see the edits – Phoenix87 Feb 09 '15 at 15:02
  • This is a great, concise summary. Could you please state the metric signature you use and contravariance/covariance for your matrix representation of $F$ in your appendix. I understand you're preferring to answer in as co-ordinate free way as you can, but your appendix is to help make contact with "usual vector notation". You seem to be using $(-,+,+,+)$ and contravariant $F$ components, no? There are three things I never seem to get right - and reassigning signatures is one of them!! (FYI The other two are converting from natural units and rewriting software for different units!) – Selene Routley Jul 22 '17 at 07:25
  • @oceloñe7 A $\star B$ instead of $\star H$ is quite common, e.g. in Misner Thorne and Wheeler. I generally don't care which convention is used as long as it is stated clearly but I'm kind of curious: which texts do you see this convention in? If you put $\star H$ there, would it not seem a bit incompatible or awkward with the exterior derivative notation? I know that it doesn't make any difference in free space with the right choice of units, but the exterior derivative clearly calls for $E$ to be paired with $B$ and $H$ with $D$ to reproduce Maxwell's equations in a way that can be .... – Selene Routley Jul 22 '17 at 07:41
  • ... properly broadened to optical materials (i.e. the Bianchi identity unites Faraday and magnetic Gauss laws, the starred equation the other two) (I'm curious and also being a bit pedantic here because I am currently struggling with some concepts about anisotropic optical materials here so I'm being particularly wary of the $D,vs.,E$ and $H,vs. B$ difference at the moment). – Selene Routley Jul 22 '17 at 07:45
  • .... and also, for completeness, you could consider writing out the exterior derivative for two forms in your contact making appendix ($\star,d F = \star,d,(E,,B) = (\nabla\cdot B,,\partial_t,B + \nabla\times E)$). – Selene Routley Jul 22 '17 at 08:08
  • 1
    @WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance I think you are right about the signature. Although I usually prefer the other convention, I think the equation $dG = J$ is correct in the (-,+,+,+) signature. With this in mind, the matrix representation of F is the covariant one, i.e. that of $F_{\mu\nu}$. – Phoenix87 Jul 22 '17 at 08:26