Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 20 May 1999 07:09:15 +0300 (EET DST)
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Matti,
> > Dear Hitoshi,
> > thank you very much for seing the trouble of explaining: I will
> > read your comments carefully.
> > There is still one question! Frieden considers also
> > Maxwell action with action density B^2-E^2.
> He considers vector potential (A,phi) as the parameter and defines B and E
> by using the vector.
> My guess
> > was that this decomposition corresponds to I-J decomposition
> > of action and would be thus noncovariant.
> This procedure in Frieden is complicated and I do not feel any justification
> for what Frieden is doing. It looks just an ad hoc procedure so that Frieden
> gets the Maxwell equation. He assumes several types of axioms that give the
> wanted equations, and I do not find any reasons for the axioms.
> I might well be
> > wrong. The example of scalar field suggests that I am.
> > Perhaps you could tell whether my interpretation is
> > correct or not: if not, does this mean that the term J
> > is totally absent for Maxwell action?
> Frieden considers J, but I cannot understand why such a messy treatment of J
> is necessary.
What I thought was that integral of B^2 might correspond to
I and integral of E^2 might correspond J. But it seems that this
kind of interpretation is not possible. Thank You in any case.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST