0

I am having trouble reconciling the retarded potentials, with a possibility for a background homogenous solution to the EM field to exist.

In the Lorenz gauge $$\nabla \cdot \vec{A} = - \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t},$$

Maxwell eqs. become

$$\nabla^2 \phi - \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2}= -\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}$$

$$\nabla^2 \vec{A} - \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \vec{A}}{\partial t^2}= -\mu_0 \vec{J}.$$

A set of potentials that satisfy these conditions are the retarded potentials.

$A(r,t)= \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}\iiint \frac{\vec{J}(r',t_{r})}{|\vec{r}- \vec{r}'|} d^3 r'$

$\phi(r,t)= \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\iiint \frac{\rho(r',t_{r})}{|\vec{r}- \vec{r}'|} d^3 r'$

Now as far as I'm aware, when $r = \infty$ $(\phi,\vec{A} = 0)$

Now, because

$\vec{E} = -\nabla \phi - \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}$

$\vec{B} = \nabla × \vec{A}$

Now correct me if I'm wrong :

When $r =\infty$,

I would expect $\vec{E} = 0$, $\vec{B} = 0$

(This part is probably where I'm getting confused, as there probably is a non zero gradient and derivative,) ***

However I am aware that the electric and magnetic fields satisfy the inhomogenous wave equation, and thus any homogenous solution can be added. Meaning if one were to exist, E and B would not be zero near infinity?

But the retarded potentials seem to imply otherwise ( provided my conclusions are correct)

I remember asking a similar question before, and was told that jefimenkos equations are a PARTICULAR solution to maxwells equations, which is why there is no homogenous solution.

However I cannot find any particular solution to this problem in this 'derivation', as although YES, the retarded potentials are particular solutions to the inhomogenous wave equation, it shouldn't matter as any potential will leave the field invariant.

And if my *** Statement is correct, where do I input my homogenous solution? Or set the derivatives when solving for the electric and magnetic fields?

Edit:

For clarification, I am fully aware that I can add the homogenous solution to the retarded potential, and will still satisfy the inhomogenous wave equation.

My assertion isn't that we can't. I am stating that, adding the homogenous solution to the potentials doesn't change the fields. Remembering that when we add the homogenous solution onto $\vec{A}$, we also have to add a homogenous solution onto $\phi$, in order to satisfy the lorenz gauge condition. Maintaining the lorenz gauge condition, even adding the homogenous solution onto the potentials, does NOT give the electric and magnetic fields a homogenous wave equation solution. As the homogenous solution given to $\phi$ in order to maintain the lorenz gauge, cancels out with the homogenous solution added to $\vec{A}$, and I can prove it with a counter example. All potentials in the lorenz gauge when $\rho = 0$, give 0 fields, which YES is technically a solution to the homogenous wave equation, but it is not the full Solution.

The lorenz gauge In freespace,

$\nabla^2 \vec{A} = \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \vec{A}}{\partial t^2}$

Now when $\vec{A}$ is chosen to be 0, this represents a 0 homogenous solution added to the retarded potentials, for when we are not in freespace.

Let's add a homogenous solution onto the retarded potentials, aka, by choosing A to be non zero whilst also satisfying the homogenous wave equation.

A potential that satisfies the homogenous wave equation is -

$\vec{A} = cos(kx-\omega t)\hat i$

$\nabla \cdot \vec{A} = -k sin(kx-\omega t)$

In order to maintain the lorenz gauge condition.

$-k sin(kx-\omega t) = -\mu_0 \epsilon_{0} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}$

$\phi = \frac{k}{\omega \mu_0 \epsilon_{0}}cos(kx-\omega t)$

$-\nabla \phi = \frac{k^2}{\omega \mu_0 \epsilon_0}sin(kx-\omega t) \hat i$

$-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t} = -\omega sin(kx-\omega t)\hat i$

So let's find the field!

The coefficient in question is $\frac{k^2}{\omega \mu_0 \epsilon_0} - \omega$

$$\frac{k^2}{\omega \mu_0 \epsilon_0} - \omega = 0 $$

When the potential is chosen to be non zero in free space, there is still no EM wave, the lorenz gauge inheretly sets the homogenous E field to 0.

Meaning EVEN AFTER adding the homogenous solution to the retarded potentials, we STILL get DO NOT get a homogenous E field added to the fields produced by charges.

jensen paull
  • 6,624
  • 1
    "I remember asking a similar question before, and was told that jefimenkos equations are a PARTICULAR solution to maxwells equations, which is why there is no homogenous solution." - I don't really understand what the question is if you know this already. The $E$ and $B$ derived from the retarded potentials are exactly the $E$ and $B$ in Jefimenko's equations, so how is this a different question? What exactly about "this is a particular solution, you can add homogeneous solutions" do you think fails here? – ACuriousMind Apr 20 '22 at 21:48
  • In the lorenz gauge, the retarded potentials satisfy maxwells equations, the fact that the retarded potentials are particular solutions at this point, should be irrelevant since all potentials give the same fields. Using the retarded potentials, derives jefimenkos equations, which is a particular solution to maxwells equations. What is the link between the retarded potentials, and the GENERAL solution to maxwells equations? As finding the fields, you take the time derivative and the gradient, which allow for no freedom for allowing a homogenous solution. -- – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 21:54
  • I know that at the end we can "add" the homogenous E and B field into it. But strictly speaking, the retarded potentials should already give us this homogenous solution included. So what is the linl between the retarded potentials and the fields, that discard the homogenous solution – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 21:56
  • What potentials are needed that when solving for the fields, it ALREADY gives us the homogenous solution when solving. It should be possible, and since all potentials are all equally valid, the retarded potentials should work. – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 21:58
  • "since all potentials give the same fields" - no, what? All potentials related by a gauge transformation give the same fields, but the potentials of e.g. an electromagnetic wave (the typical homogeneous solution) certainly are different from zero potentials (and not related by a gauge transformation), and you can add them to the retarded potentials and the result still solves the equations for the potential (exactly like with adding the homogeneous solutions for $E$ and $B$). Again, I don't understand why you think anything changes just because we're looking at potentials and not fields. – ACuriousMind Apr 20 '22 at 21:58
  • What I meant by that is that the fields are invariant to gauge choice, for the same $\rho$ and $\vec{J}$, all gauges gives the same fields? And I know we can add the homogenous solution onto the retarded potential as that is the general solution to the inhomogenous wave equation, but my confusion stems from the fact that when we solve the for the potentials, all potentials in that gauge leave the field invariant. The addition of the homogenous solution to the retarded potential (which is the most general solution to the lorenz gauges equations) shouldn't matter though? – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 22:14
  • As this "general solution" is a valid solution for the potential in the lorenz gauge, which I know shouldn't change the fields – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 22:15
  • The difference between adding the homogenous solution onto the fields, vs the potentials, is that I am under the impression that when adding the homogenous solution to the potential, it won't change the field, since we are in the same gauge, and the field is invariant to the potentials used – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 22:16
  • The fact that the inhomogenous wave equation shows up jn the lorenz gauge, shows that the homogenous solution is valid in a gauge transformation into the lorenz gauge? – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 22:18
  • "All potentials related by a gauge transformation give the same fields, but the potentials of e.g. an electromagnetic wave (the typical homogeneous solution) certainly are different from zero potentials (and not related by a gauge transformation)," is my confusion I think. Purely going through the potential formulation, how would you choose the homogenous solution? Would you add it onto the potential? And if so, how would that change the field? ( as I thought it was invariant) – jensen paull Apr 20 '22 at 22:20
  • My main concern is that when solving, we have no way to input an initial de/dt, d^2e/dt^2, there should be since this is an initial value problem , and maxwells equations are not uniquely determined without specifically entering derivatives. But when solving there is no way to input this. It seems that the retarded potentials are particular solutions. Where along the line do we ignore the homogenous solution? As we aren't e.g solving with substitution and therefore might just guess a particular solution, we are solving generally, so why doesn't it show up? – jensen paull Apr 21 '22 at 07:34
  • Not sure I completely understand your question, but the homogenous solution should not be ignored, and they do show up in the fields. A plane wave for example is a valid solution. The fields are only uniquely determined (see uniqueness theorem) if the field at the boundary is specified. – Cyrus Tirband Apr 22 '22 at 06:56
  • I know it shouldn't be ignored . But the key is that I cannot find the homogenous solution in the potential formulation. The potential formulation seems to have an inherit need for the homogenous solution to be 0. – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 09:33
  • @ACuriousMind can you elaborate on what you mean by the fact that the typical homogenous solution is not related by a gauge transformation? I can kind of see how if that were true a homogenous solution might not show up in the lorenz gauge. But surely there is atleast A gauge that allows for the homogenous solution to be present. If what you said is true, then picking a specific gauge is somewhat finding particular solutions to the system of equations, as if there's a gauge that cannot be transformed to e.g lorenz gauge, then I get that there would be a difference in fields between the two – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 11:00
  • Can you elaborate on what we can do to ensure we aren't missing solutions? As consider the lorenz gauge in freespace. Any 2 potentials must satisfy the homogenous wave equation, whilst satisfying the lorenz gauge which can show that It always give E,B=0. Which is obviously a specific solution to maxwells equations in freespace. What can we do to find a gauge ( that cannot be transformed to lorenz gauge) that allows for non zero homogenous solution to exist. – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 11:03
  • For a gauge to exist and cannot be transformed into the lorenz gauge $\nabla^2 f -\mu_0\epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2} = -(\nabla \cdot \vec{A} + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t})$ – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 11:07
  • ^must have no solutions for f, Not sure If what I'm saying is correct, but it makes sense I think – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 11:07

1 Answers1

3

Let's set $c=1$. There really isn't anything special about retarded potentials - they are particular solutions of Maxwell's equations for the potential in the Lorenz gauge $$ \partial_\mu\partial^\mu A^\nu = J^\nu\tag{1}$$ (where $A^0 = \phi$ and $J^0=\rho$ - since the Lorenz gauge conditions is Lorentz-invariant, we can use covariant language here). Since eq. (1) is the inhomogeneous version of $$\partial_\mu\partial^\mu A^\nu = 0,\tag{2}$$ the general theory of inhomogeneous equations applies - if $A_\text{ret}^\mu$ is a particular of eq. (1) (for instance the usual retarded potentials) and $A_\text{hom}$ is any solution of eq. (2), then $A_\text{ret}^\mu + A_\text{hom}^\mu$ is a solution of eq. (1), too. The Lorenz gauge condition is linear as well: If $\partial_\mu A_\text{ret}^\mu = 0$ and $\partial_\mu A_\text{hom}^\mu = 0$, then $\partial_\mu(A_\text{ret}^\mu + A_\text{hom}^\mu) = 0$, too. In particular you can choose $A_\text{hom}^\mu$ to be the usual plane waves for EM waves in all of space that don't vanish at infinity.

This is exactly analogous to us solving the equations in terms of $\vec E$ and $\vec B$ and being able to add homogeneous solutions to one particular inhomogeneous solution - it's the same mathematical principle, and it's completely irrelevant that the equations are in terms of potentials and not fields now.

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
  • Can you please read my edit where I instead focused on pure freespace solutions to be more clear, thanks. – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 13:01
  • @jensenpaull Have you tried choosing the potential $\vec{A} = \cos (kx-wt)\hat{y}$ (oriented in the $\hat{y}$-direction instead of the $\hat{x}$-direction). It satisfies the equations, leads to the correct fields for me and the calculations are easy if I did them right. – Cyrus Tirband Apr 22 '22 at 13:46
  • @jensenpaull 1. Please do not let posts look like revision histories 2. I have no idea what's happening in your edit. It sounds like you think that the Lorenz gauge somehow forces all homogeneous solutions to have 0 fields, but that's simply not true - that would mean that there is no potential formulation of EM waves in the Lorenz gauge, which is simply not how gauges are supposed to work: If it was impossible to describe certain situations in certain gauges, then gauges would not be an arbitrary choice! – ACuriousMind Apr 22 '22 at 13:46
  • All you seem to have done in your edit is show that one particular hom. solution yields zero fields, which may be true but is entirely irrelevant. – ACuriousMind Apr 22 '22 at 13:47
  • @ACuriousMind yes, you are correct. It seems like I have alot to learn about gauge theory. My confusion is that I thought all potentials in the lorenz gauge gives the same fields, but my example + cyrus example gives different fields. Could you please briefly go over your point about "all potentials related by a gauge transformation gives the same fields" and that the 'homogenous solution' is not related by a gauge transformation? As my example for a potential, does follow the lorenz gauge condition, + Cyprus example does, but gives different fields. Wouldn't my example + his example --- – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 20:54
  • Be related by a gauge transformation? As because they both satisfy the lorenz gauge they can be related by transformation satisfying the homogenous wave equation ( like you pointed out earlier). I have no formal education on gauge theory, but I assumed as both satisfy the gauge, they are also related by a corresponding gauge transformation and thus should be field invariant. – jensen paull Apr 22 '22 at 20:56
  • @jensenpaull Comments are not the correct place to ask entirely new questions. However, it sounds like you are confused about the difference between a gauge transformation and a gauge choice. See e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/146585/50583, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/129819/50583. – ACuriousMind Apr 23 '22 at 00:38
  • @ACuriousMind thanks for your comments about the homogenous solution not related by a gauge transformation. My confusion in this is that I misinterpreted the proof that a set of potentials in a random gauge, has an equivelant class of potentials in the lorenz gauge, to mean " all potentials satisfying the same gauge fixing condition, are related by a gauge transformation", thanks. I understand now! – jensen paull Apr 23 '22 at 19:05