Comparison of covariant form of Maxwell equations with Einstein's GR
We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
begin{align}
vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
end{align}
The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
begin{align}
vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
end{align}
which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.
All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as
begin{align}
partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
end{align}
And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
begin{equation}
Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
end{equation}
Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
begin{equation}
R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
begin{equation}
partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
begin{equation}
Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
end{equation}
Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?
general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance
add a comment |
We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
begin{align}
vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
end{align}
The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
begin{align}
vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
end{align}
which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.
All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as
begin{align}
partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
end{align}
And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
begin{equation}
Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
end{equation}
Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
begin{equation}
R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
begin{equation}
partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
begin{equation}
Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
end{equation}
Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?
general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance
add a comment |
We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
begin{align}
vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
end{align}
The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
begin{align}
vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
end{align}
which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.
All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as
begin{align}
partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
end{align}
And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
begin{equation}
Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
end{equation}
Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
begin{equation}
R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
begin{equation}
partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
begin{equation}
Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
end{equation}
Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?
general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance
We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
begin{align}
vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
end{align}
The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
begin{align}
vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
end{align}
which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.
All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as
begin{align}
partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
end{align}
And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
begin{equation}
Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
end{equation}
Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
begin{equation}
R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
begin{equation}
partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}
We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
begin{equation}
Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
end{equation}
Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?
general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance
general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance
edited 4 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
Sergio
887823
887823
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.
If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450139%2fcomparison-of-covariant-form-of-maxwell-equations-with-einsteins-gr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.
If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.
answered 4 hours ago
J.G.
9,11921528
9,11921528
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
– Sergio
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.
If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
add a comment |
The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.
If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
add a comment |
The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.
If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.
The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.
If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.
answered 4 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
101k121821140
101k121821140
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
– Sergio
43 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450139%2fcomparison-of-covariant-form-of-maxwell-equations-with-einsteins-gr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown