**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Fri, 21 May 1999 00:55:12 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 336] Re: [time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 334] Re: [time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 338] Re: [time 335] Re: [time 331] Re: [time 327] Re: [time 326] Re: [time 325] Re: Fisherinformation andrelativity"

Dear Matti,

I found time to see Frieden's book more closely. I will try to explain the

derivation of Maxwell's equations.

----- Original Message -----

From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>

To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>

Cc: Time List <time@kitada.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 1:09 PM

Subject: [time 331] Re: [time 327] Re: [time 326] Re: [time 325] Re:

Fisherinformation andrelativity

[snip]

*> > 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.
*

Frieden's construction of Fisher information I for classical electrodynamics

is

I = 4c \int dr dt \sum_{n=1}^4 [\nabla q_n \cdot \nabla q_n -c^{-2}

(\partial q_n / \partial t)^2],

where

(q_1,q_2,q_3)=(A_1,A_2,A_3) = A is the vector potential

and q_4 = \phi is a scalar potential. This I has the same form as that for

QM in [time 321].

J is

J=4c \int dr dt \sum_{n=1}^4 E_n J_n(q, j, \rho),

where J_n are functions (of q, j, \rho) determined by using Frieden's

axioms, j is the current, and \rho is the charge density.

His variational axiom (which is equivalent with the principle of the least

action except for that the action is replaced by I-J) is

\delta (I - J) = 0.

By the above definitions of I and J, the Euler-Lagrange equation for this

case is

( \nabla^2 - c^{-2} (\partial / \partial t)^2 ) q_n = - 2^{-1}\sum_m

(\partial J_m / \partial q_n).

*>From this and some other considerations by the use of his axioms Frieden
*

derives the equation

( \nabla^2 - c^{-2} (\partial / \partial t)^2 ) q_n = - (4 \pi / c) J_s,

where J_s = (j, c\rho).

The fields E and B are then defined by

B = \nabla x A,

and

E = - \nabla \phi - c^{-1} (\partial A / \partial t).

Maxwell's equations follows from these.

Fundamentally J should be equal to I as information, but in classical case,

this is not the case according to Frieden, but

I= J/2.

Frieden considers this as an expression of the incompleteness of classical

mechanics. In QM, J is obtained as the Fourier transform of I, thus I=J with

J being expressed in momentum-energy space. The treatment of J is clear in

this case, and I think this tells some truth. The classical case looks

different and complicated, which let me write "messy" in the former post.

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 336] Re: [time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 334] Re: [time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 338] Re: [time 335] Re: [time 331] Re: [time 327] Re: [time 326] Re: [time 325] Re: Fisherinformation andrelativity"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST
*