Friday, March 18, 2016

field theory - Is it enough to assume Fmunuto0 at infinity but not Amu to derive the equation of motion?


Suppose the the Lagrangian L of the free electromagnetic field is augmented with the term Fμν˜Fμν=μ(ϵννλρAνFλρ).

Since this term is a total divergence it can be converted to a surface integral over AνFλρ.


Now, if Fμν is assumed to vanish at the boundary (at infinity) it is sufficient to argue that such a term drops out in the equation of motion (EOM) this abelian theory even if Aμ is nonzero.


Questions





  1. Is Fμν0 at infinity sufficient to derive the EOM in absence of the F˜F term? Did anywhere in the derivation of the EOM we need to use that Aμ itself have to vanish at infinity/boundary?




  2. As a related question, physically, why do we need Fμν to vanish at infinity?




Next, if we augment the Lagrangian of a nonabelian Yang-Mills (YM) theory with a F˜F term, unlike the previous case, it does affect the EOM unless Aaμ itself are assumed to vanish at infinity.




  1. Do we assume Aaμ=0 at infinity only for a nonabelian YM theory or do we always have to assume Aμ=0 irrespective of whether the theory is abelian or nonabelian?




No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...