Comparison of covariant form of Maxwell equations with Einstein's GR












1














We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
begin{align}
vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
end{align}



The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
begin{align}
vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
end{align}

which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.



All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as



begin{align}
partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
end{align}



And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
begin{equation}
Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
end{equation}



Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
begin{equation}
R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}



Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
begin{equation}
partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
end{equation}



We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
begin{equation}
Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
end{equation}



Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?










share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
    begin{align}
    vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
    vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
    vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
    vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
    end{align}



    The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
    begin{align}
    vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
    vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
    end{align}

    which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.



    All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as



    begin{align}
    partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
    partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
    end{align}



    And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
    begin{equation}
    Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
    end{equation}



    Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
    begin{equation}
    R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
    end{equation}



    Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
    begin{equation}
    partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
    end{equation}



    We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
    begin{equation}
    Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
    end{equation}



    Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1


      0





      We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
      begin{align}
      vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
      vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
      vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
      vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
      end{align}



      The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
      begin{align}
      vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
      vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
      end{align}

      which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.



      All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as



      begin{align}
      partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
      partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
      end{align}



      And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
      begin{equation}
      Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
      end{equation}



      Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
      begin{equation}
      R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
      end{equation}



      Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
      begin{equation}
      partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
      end{equation}



      We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
      begin{equation}
      Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
      end{equation}



      Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?










      share|cite|improve this question















      We know, the the vector form of Maxwell equations
      begin{align}
      vecnablacdotvec{E} &= 4pirho label{Diff I}\
      vecnablatimesvec{B} &= dfrac{4pi}{c} vec{j}+dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{E}}{partial t} label{Diff IV}\
      vecnablatimesvec{E} &= -dfrac{1}{c}dfrac{partialvec{B}}{partial t} label{Diff III}\
      vecnablacdotvec{B} &= 0 label{Diff II}
      end{align}



      The last two of them allow us to introduce the potentials:
      begin{align}
      vec{E} &= -frac1c frac{partial vec{A}}{partial t} - vecnablaphi\
      vec{B} &= vecnablatimesvec A
      end{align}

      which tells us about gauge invariance of equations.



      All four of Maxwell's equations can be written compactly as



      begin{align}
      partial_{mu}F^{munu} &= frac{4pi}{c}j^{nu} tag{1}\
      partial_{[mu}F_{alphabeta]} &= 0;. tag{2}
      end{align}



      And according to the last one equation, the first one we can rewrite (use preferred gauge) in form:
      begin{equation}
      Box A^{mu} = -frac{4pi}{c} j^{mu}
      end{equation}



      Now we consider the Einstein GR equations:
      begin{equation}
      R_{munu} = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
      end{equation}



      Or in "$Gamma-$field" form (indexes are omitted):
      begin{equation}
      partial Gamma - partial Gamma + GammaGamma - GammaGamma = 8pi G (T_{munu} - frac12g_{munu}T).
      end{equation}



      We know, in weak field limit the equations get simply form externally similar to Maxwell ones (so called gravitomagnetism) in 3-vector form, or in covariant form:
      begin{equation}
      Box h_{munu} = -16pi G (T_{munu} - frac12eta_{munu}T)
      end{equation}



      Thus, the question: Why for covariant form of Maxwell equations we need two different entities of equations, but for the GR the only one? Or another words, can we write the Einstein GR equations for weak field limit similar to Maxwell equations in field form, not via potentials?







      general-relativity maxwell-equations gauge-invariance






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago

























      asked 5 hours ago









      Sergio

      887823




      887823






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
            – Sergio
            4 hours ago



















          2















          1. The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.


          2. If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.


          3. For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.







          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
            – Sergio
            1 hour ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450139%2fcomparison-of-covariant-form-of-maxwell-equations-with-einsteins-gr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
            – Sergio
            4 hours ago
















          2














          If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
            – Sergio
            4 hours ago














          2












          2








          2






          If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          If you want to compare Maxwell's EM with GR, note they're respectively obtainable from extending a global $U(1)$ variance to a local one and Lorentz invariance to invariance under general coordinate transformations. Thus the equivalent of introducing $A_mu$ in the gauge covariant derivative is introducing Christoffel symbols in the connection, while the commutator $F_{munu}$ of gauge covariant derivatives is analogous to the commutator $R_{munurhosigma}$ of connections acting on a vector field. So the equivalent of (1) is Einstein's usual equations, while the equivalent of (2) is $R_{mu[nurhosigma]}=0$. In neither case do we need the second equation; a Lagrangian formulation obtains the first, but the second is just a tautology.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          J.G.

          9,11921528




          9,11921528












          • Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
            – Sergio
            4 hours ago


















          • Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
            – Sergio
            4 hours ago
















          Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
          – Sergio
          4 hours ago




          Ok, as I understand, the answer, the Bianchi relation is the GR analog to the (2).
          – Sergio
          4 hours ago











          2















          1. The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.


          2. If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.


          3. For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.







          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
            – Sergio
            1 hour ago
















          2















          1. The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.


          2. If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.


          3. For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.







          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
            – Sergio
            1 hour ago














          2












          2








          2







          1. The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.


          2. If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.


          3. For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.







          share|cite|improve this answer













          1. The counterpart to $(g,R)$ in GR is $(A,F)$ in E&M.


          2. If you write $F=F(A)$ in E&M, then the Bianchi relation (2) is not needed/a tautology, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.


          3. For how GEM appears as a limit of GR, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.








          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          Qmechanic

          101k121821140




          101k121821140












          • Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
            – Sergio
            1 hour ago


















          • Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
            – Sergio
            1 hour ago
















          Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
          – Sergio
          1 hour ago




          Thank you for reply. Did you know the some articles, where Bianchi relation are violate in manner of existing of graviromagnetic monopole?
          – Sergio
          1 hour ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450139%2fcomparison-of-covariant-form-of-maxwell-equations-with-einsteins-gr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

          Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

          Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt