Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have the following homework problem in theoretical electrodynamics:

Show that the gauge invariant Lagrange density $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} F^{\mu\nu} F^{\alpha\beta}$ can be written as a total divergence of a four-vector.

This total divergence should be something like $\partial_\mu G^\mu$, right?

With $$ \hat F^{\mu\nu} = \frac 12 \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} F_{\alpha\beta} $$ I figured that I write this Lagrange density (I'll refer to it as $L_2$) could be written as: $$ L_2 = 2 \hat F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu} $$

I simplified this by using the matrix representations of each $F$ and got it down to: $$ L_2 = -\frac 4c B_i E^i $$

$B$ and $E$ can be expressed in Terms of $A$ like so: $$ B_i = \epsilon_{ijk} \partial_j A^j ,\quad E_i = -\partial_i A^0 -\partial_0 A^i $$

How would I continue to find that four-vector $G$?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If you write $$F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{[\mu}A_{\nu ]} $$ Then your Lagrange density is $${ \mathcal{L}} = \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_{[\mu}A_{\nu ]}\partial_{[\alpha}A_{\beta ]}$$

Now we want a vector whose divergence is ${ \mathcal{L}}$. The $\partial_{\mu}$ looks promising, so we ask if we can bring that outside so it acts on the remaining vector, i.e. $${ \mathcal{L}} = \partial_{\mu}(\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}A_{\nu }\partial_{[\alpha}A_{\beta ]}) \ \ (1)$$ We don't need to worry that we've lost the antisymmetrization brackets on $\mu$ and $\nu$ because the epsilon symbol forces this.

As you pointed out, this isn't quite what we started with because we have an additional term of the form $$(\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}A_{\nu }\partial_{\mu}\partial_{[\alpha}A_{\beta ]}) $$ However the total antisymmetry of the epsilon symbol means we can treat the $\mu$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ contribution as $$\partial_{[\mu}F_{\alpha\beta]} $$ which vanishes due to the Maxwell equations. Hence the anzatz (1) holds. (The vector whose divergence we take looks like the abelian Chern Simons current).

share|improve this answer
    
You mean $\partial_\mu G^\mu = \partial_{[\mu} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} A_{\nu]} \partial_{[\alpha} A_{\beta]}$ and that is it? But then that $\partial_\mu$ acts onto the $A_\beta$ as well. Don't I need to write $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} (\partial_{[\mu} A_{\nu]}) (\partial_{[\alpha}A_{\beta]})$ which then prevents this pulling out? –  queueoverflow Jan 20 '13 at 12:44
1  
If you write $G^{\mu} = \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}A_{\nu}\partial_{[\alpha}A_{\beta]}$ then $\partial_{\mu}G^{\mu}$ is what you want. The epsilon automatically antisymmetrizes $\mu$ and $\nu$ for you. –  twistor59 Jan 20 '13 at 12:52
    
In your definition of $F$, the $\partial$ only acts on $A$. But with that $G$, the $\partial_\mu$ will act on both $A_\nu$ and $A\beta$ with the product rule. Or does some (anti-)symmetry remove that part? –  queueoverflow Jan 20 '13 at 12:55
3  
Right, so you will get some terms like $\partial_{[\mu}F_{\alpha]\beta}$, but the epsilon will fully antisymmetrize over $\mu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and this vanishes by Maxwell equations. –  twistor59 Jan 20 '13 at 13:03
2  
@EmilioPisanty OK as it was a homework question I was trying to keep the answer as lean as possible, but now it's pretty much there I should maybe beef it up a bit... –  twistor59 Jan 20 '13 at 17:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.