# Proof of Jacobi identity for electromagnetic field strength tensor [closed]

The dual field strength tensor is defined as $$\hat{F}^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta},$$ where $F_{\alpha\beta} = \partial_\alpha A_\beta-\partial_\beta A_\alpha$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor and $A_\gamma$ is the four-potential. We know that $\partial_\mu\hat{F}^{\mu\nu} = 0$. I now want to rewrite the expression to get $$\partial_\sigma F_{\mu\nu}+\partial_\mu F_{\nu\sigma}+\partial_\nu F_{\sigma\mu} = 0.$$

Unfortunately, I don't quite know how to do this. My first thought was to multiply $\partial_\mu\hat{F}^{\mu\nu} = 0$ by $\epsilon_{\mu\rho\sigma\gamma}$ which yields \begin{align}\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \epsilon_{\mu\rho\sigma\gamma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta} &= \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\left(\delta_\rho^\nu\delta_\sigma^\alpha\delta_\gamma^\beta+\delta_\rho^\alpha\delta_\sigma^\beta\delta_\gamma^\nu+\delta_\rho^\beta\delta_\sigma^\nu\delta_\gamma^\alpha\right)F_{\alpha\beta}\\ &= \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\left(\delta_\rho^\nu F_{\sigma\gamma}+\delta_\gamma^\nu F_{\rho\sigma}+\delta_\sigma^\nu F_{\sigma\rho} \right) \\ &= 0.\end{align}

I don't really see what to do next. So any help is appreciated.

## closed as off-topic by AccidentalFourierTransform, John Rennie, heather, Gert, JamalSNov 11 '16 at 10:52

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – AccidentalFourierTransform, John Rennie, heather, Gert, JamalS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• $\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\color{red}{\mu}} \epsilon_{{\color{red}{\mu}}\rho\sigma\gamma}\epsilon^{{\color{red}{\mu}}\nu\alpha\beta}$ makes no sense (three $\mu$'s) – AccidentalFourierTransform Nov 7 '16 at 19:33
• I think that's exactly my problem. I'm not really familiar with tensor notation yet, so maybe you could explain to me how to do it better. – MeMeansMe Nov 7 '16 at 19:49
• Maybe you should do a review of Einstein summation notation before tackling this. Not to be mean, but "does $\partial_\mu A_\mu^\mu$ make sense?" will be chapter 1 problem 1 of any book on tensors. – user12029 Nov 7 '16 at 20:16
• I do see now that $\partial_\mu\epsilon_{\mu\rho\sigma\gamma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ does not make sense, but I don't know how to get rid of that problem. – MeMeansMe Nov 7 '16 at 20:20

## 1 Answer

The expression that you want to get automatically follows from the definition of the electromagnetic tensor as $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}- \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$. In particular one has $$\partial_{\sigma}F_{\mu\nu} + \partial_{\mu}F_{\nu\sigma} + \partial_{\nu}F_{\sigma\mu} =\partial_{\sigma}\left(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}- \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}\right) + \partial_{\mu}\left(\partial_{\nu}A_{\sigma}- \partial_{\sigma}A_{\mu}\right) + \partial_{\nu}\left(\partial_{\sigma}A_{\mu}- \partial_{\mu}A_{\sigma}\right) = 0$$ under the assumptions that $A\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^4)$.

The result is nothing but the Bianchi identity: since $F= \textrm{d}\,A$, then $\mathcal{D}F=\mathcal{D}\,\textrm{d}\,A=0$.

• Yes, this is another possibility of proving the identity, but I would like to prove it by rewriting the expression in my first post. – MeMeansMe Nov 7 '16 at 19:57
• @MeMeansMe More than applying the derivatives on both sides of your initial expression there's not really much to do (bring the derivatives inside the $\epsilon$ symbol and you're done). – gented Nov 7 '16 at 20:02