Given the facts that (E2−B2) and (E⋅B) are Lorentz invariants of the EM field, and that the energy density (E2+B2) is not invariant, it seems that at each point in an EM field there should be unique inertial frame in which the field energy is minimum. Can that minimum value, and that inertial frame, be considered Lorentz invariants?
Answer
Since E2−B2 is invariant under boosts, any boost must change both E2 and B2 by the same increment ϵ, if it changes them at all. In other words, a boost either increases both E2 and B2 by the same amount or decreases them both by the same amount, if it changes them at all.
There are two cases two consider: E⋅B=0 and E⋅B≠0. Throughout this answer, only a single point is considered, and "energy density" means the energy density at that point.
First suppose E⋅B=0. In this case, there is a frame in which either E or B is zero. (See the appendix for an outline of a proof.) This must be the frame in which the energy density is a minimum, because any boost away from that frame will increase both E2 and B2. (It can't decrease them, because then one of them would end up being negative, but E2 and B2 cannot be negative.)
Now consider the case E⋅B≠0. In this case, there is a frame in which the electric and magnetic field vectors are parallel to each other. (See the appendix for an outline of a proof.) Denote these fields by E0 and B0. In such a frame, we have |E0⋅B0|=√E20B20.
The frame that minimizes the energy density is not unique. For example, if we start in a frame where E and B are parallel to each other (or if one of them is zero) and then apply a parallel boost, the fields E and B are unchanged.
Summary: There is always a frame in which (at the given point) either E and B are parallel to each other or one of them is zero. The frame that does this is not unique. Any such frame minimizes the energy density (at that point).
Appendix
The claim is that if E⋅B=0, then there is a frame in which either E or B is zero; and if E⋅B≠0, then there is a frame in which they are parallel. Here's an outline of the proof, using the Clifford-algebra approach that was described in my answer to
Wigner Rotation of static E & M fields is dizzying
Let γ0, γ1, γ2, γ3 be mutually orthogonal basis vectors, with γ0 being timelike and the others being spacelike. In Clifford algebra, vectors can be multiplied, and the product is associative. I'll use I to denote the identity element of the algebra, and I'll use Γ to denote the special element Γ≡γ0γ1γ2γ3.
The electric and magnetic fields are components of the Faraday tensor Fab, which are the components of a bivector $$ F = \sum_{a In the frame defined by the given basis, the electric and magnetic parts of F, which I'll denote FE and FB (so F=FE+FB), are the parts that do and do not involve a factor of the timelike basis vector γ0, respectively. The quantity F satisfies F2=(F2)I+(F2)Γ
The starting point for the proof is that in four-dimensional spacetime, any bivector may be written in the form F=(α+βΓ)uv
If one of the coefficients α,β in (7) is zero (so that E⋅B=0), then this proves the existence of a frame in which one of them is zero. If both coefficients α,β are non-zero (so that E⋅B≠0), then then this proves the existence of a frame in which they are parallel.
Finally, if one of the vectors u,v in (7) is null, then E and B are already parallel to each other and have the same magnitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment