If $A^mu$ is not determined uniquely by Maxwell's equations, what happens if we solve for it numerically?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












Given a solution $A^mu(x)$ to Maxwell's equations
beginequation
Box A^mu(x)-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0tag1
endequation

which also satisfies some specified initial conditions at time $t_0$
beginequation
A^mu(vecx,t_0)=f^mu(vecx),quad dotA^mu(vecx,t_0)=g^mu(vecx)tag2
endequation

we have that the function
beginequation
A^'mu(x)=A^mu(x)+partial^mualpha(x)tag3
endequation

also satisfies the equations of motion, and if we arrange that the scalar function $alpha$ also satisfy that
beginequation
partial^mualpha(vecx,t_0)=0,quad partial^mudotalpha(vecx,t_0)=0 tag4
endequation

at the initial time $t_0$, then the new solution $A^'mu$ also satisfies the initial conditions. For example, the function
beginequation
alpha(vecx,t)=(t-t_0)^5h(vecx)e^-(t-t_0)^2
endequation

satisfies the conditions Eq.$(4)$ and also vanishes at $trightarrow pm infty$. Therefore, the solution to Eq.$(1)$ is not uniquely determined by the initial data Eq.$(2)$.



Question: If one simulates Eq.$(1)$ numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.$(2)$?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3




    Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 0:04






  • 2




    @AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:49











  • @tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:53






  • 2




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 17 at 3:37






  • 1




    If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
    – jinawee
    2 days ago















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












Given a solution $A^mu(x)$ to Maxwell's equations
beginequation
Box A^mu(x)-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0tag1
endequation

which also satisfies some specified initial conditions at time $t_0$
beginequation
A^mu(vecx,t_0)=f^mu(vecx),quad dotA^mu(vecx,t_0)=g^mu(vecx)tag2
endequation

we have that the function
beginequation
A^'mu(x)=A^mu(x)+partial^mualpha(x)tag3
endequation

also satisfies the equations of motion, and if we arrange that the scalar function $alpha$ also satisfy that
beginequation
partial^mualpha(vecx,t_0)=0,quad partial^mudotalpha(vecx,t_0)=0 tag4
endequation

at the initial time $t_0$, then the new solution $A^'mu$ also satisfies the initial conditions. For example, the function
beginequation
alpha(vecx,t)=(t-t_0)^5h(vecx)e^-(t-t_0)^2
endequation

satisfies the conditions Eq.$(4)$ and also vanishes at $trightarrow pm infty$. Therefore, the solution to Eq.$(1)$ is not uniquely determined by the initial data Eq.$(2)$.



Question: If one simulates Eq.$(1)$ numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.$(2)$?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3




    Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 0:04






  • 2




    @AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:49











  • @tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:53






  • 2




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 17 at 3:37






  • 1




    If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
    – jinawee
    2 days ago













up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1






1





Given a solution $A^mu(x)$ to Maxwell's equations
beginequation
Box A^mu(x)-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0tag1
endequation

which also satisfies some specified initial conditions at time $t_0$
beginequation
A^mu(vecx,t_0)=f^mu(vecx),quad dotA^mu(vecx,t_0)=g^mu(vecx)tag2
endequation

we have that the function
beginequation
A^'mu(x)=A^mu(x)+partial^mualpha(x)tag3
endequation

also satisfies the equations of motion, and if we arrange that the scalar function $alpha$ also satisfy that
beginequation
partial^mualpha(vecx,t_0)=0,quad partial^mudotalpha(vecx,t_0)=0 tag4
endequation

at the initial time $t_0$, then the new solution $A^'mu$ also satisfies the initial conditions. For example, the function
beginequation
alpha(vecx,t)=(t-t_0)^5h(vecx)e^-(t-t_0)^2
endequation

satisfies the conditions Eq.$(4)$ and also vanishes at $trightarrow pm infty$. Therefore, the solution to Eq.$(1)$ is not uniquely determined by the initial data Eq.$(2)$.



Question: If one simulates Eq.$(1)$ numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.$(2)$?










share|cite|improve this question















Given a solution $A^mu(x)$ to Maxwell's equations
beginequation
Box A^mu(x)-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0tag1
endequation

which also satisfies some specified initial conditions at time $t_0$
beginequation
A^mu(vecx,t_0)=f^mu(vecx),quad dotA^mu(vecx,t_0)=g^mu(vecx)tag2
endequation

we have that the function
beginequation
A^'mu(x)=A^mu(x)+partial^mualpha(x)tag3
endequation

also satisfies the equations of motion, and if we arrange that the scalar function $alpha$ also satisfy that
beginequation
partial^mualpha(vecx,t_0)=0,quad partial^mudotalpha(vecx,t_0)=0 tag4
endequation

at the initial time $t_0$, then the new solution $A^'mu$ also satisfies the initial conditions. For example, the function
beginequation
alpha(vecx,t)=(t-t_0)^5h(vecx)e^-(t-t_0)^2
endequation

satisfies the conditions Eq.$(4)$ and also vanishes at $trightarrow pm infty$. Therefore, the solution to Eq.$(1)$ is not uniquely determined by the initial data Eq.$(2)$.



Question: If one simulates Eq.$(1)$ numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.$(2)$?







electromagnetism gauge-theory maxwell-equations boundary-conditions determinism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









knzhou

37.5k9104182




37.5k9104182










asked Nov 16 at 23:54









Luke

530411




530411







  • 3




    Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 0:04






  • 2




    @AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:49











  • @tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:53






  • 2




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 17 at 3:37






  • 1




    If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
    – jinawee
    2 days ago













  • 3




    Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 0:04






  • 2




    @AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:49











  • @tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:53






  • 2




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 17 at 3:37






  • 1




    If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
    – jinawee
    2 days ago








3




3




Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 0:04




Try and simulate it yourself. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, at least not without fixing the gauge first. Numerically solving a PDE requires, for example, inverting a matrix/solving a linear system. This doesn't work when you have gauge invariance, because the matrix is singular.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 0:04




2




2




@AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 2:49





@AccidentalFourierTransform This isn't quite true. Your numerics may or not converge to a solution, depending on the algorithm. Some techniques involve solving a linear system, and they'll fail, but many techniques will e.g. trivially converge to the solution $alpha equiv 0$. The issue is non-uniqueness, not non-existence.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 2:49













@tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 2:53




@tparker I never said anything about non-existence. A linear system with singular matrix has an infinite number of solutions. So we agree the issue is about non-uniqueness, not about non-existence.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 2:53




2




2




Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
– Qmechanic
Nov 17 at 3:37




Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/20071/2451
– Qmechanic
Nov 17 at 3:37




1




1




If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
– jinawee
2 days ago





If one simulates Eq.(1) numerically on a computer, why is the field configuration at a later time not uniquely determined by the data in Eq.(2)? I don't think the assumption is true. Even though the solution is non-unique, your algorithm can converge to a particular solution. Take the ordinary equation $x^ 2=1$. If you apply the bisection method in the interval $[0,2]$, you find the solution $x=1$, although you miss $x=-1$. Other methods might not converge. So I think that without specifying a particular numerical method, answers are going to be very vague.
– jinawee
2 days ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Not all initial value problems have unique solution. Your example of $alpha$ function demonstrates that this initial value problem is of such kind.



In this case, the problem is in the system of partial differential equations



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0
$$

itself; it does not put enough constraint on the functions $varphi(mathbf x,t), mathbf A(mathbf x,t)$. It is somewhat similar to a situation in linear algebra that sometimes occurs where a system of $n$ linear equations for $n$ unknowns has infinity of solutions.



A slightly different way to see this: notice that nowhere in the above system of PDE can we find $partial_t^2 A^0$ or $partial_t A^0$ directly; only a spatial gradient of $partial_t A^0$ is present. The equations for $A^i$'s do not relate them directly with time derivatives of $varphi$.



This means that if we have a solution of the initial value problem $varphi(x,t),mathbf A(x,t)$ and replace the scalar potential by $varphi' = varphi(x,t)+ht^2$ at time $t = 0$ (where $h$ is a constant), the equations are still satisfied and at $t=0$, initial conditions are satisfied too. This would not be so obviously possible if the system contained directly time derivatives of $varphi$. Consider a slightly different system



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu= 0,
$$

(which in EM theory can be derived as a result of the Lorenz gauge choice) - this does constrain $partial_t^2 varphi$, so the above argument fails. I think this system should have a unique solution, because it is very similar to a set of equations for independent harmonic oscillators. However, for proof better check with mathematicians.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 days ago

















up vote
2
down vote













Are you asking for the physical or mathematical explanation? Dan Yand's answer gives the physical explanation.



Regarding the mathematical question: On what basis would you expect the field configuration to be uniquely determined by its initial data? Unlike for (uncoupled) ODE's, there's no theorem to that effect for general linear homogeneous second-order PDEs.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 1:22










  • A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:51











  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:57











  • A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 3:00










  • @AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 3:10










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',
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%2f441414%2fif-a-mu-is-not-determined-uniquely-by-maxwells-equations-what-happens-if-we%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








up vote
3
down vote













Not all initial value problems have unique solution. Your example of $alpha$ function demonstrates that this initial value problem is of such kind.



In this case, the problem is in the system of partial differential equations



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0
$$

itself; it does not put enough constraint on the functions $varphi(mathbf x,t), mathbf A(mathbf x,t)$. It is somewhat similar to a situation in linear algebra that sometimes occurs where a system of $n$ linear equations for $n$ unknowns has infinity of solutions.



A slightly different way to see this: notice that nowhere in the above system of PDE can we find $partial_t^2 A^0$ or $partial_t A^0$ directly; only a spatial gradient of $partial_t A^0$ is present. The equations for $A^i$'s do not relate them directly with time derivatives of $varphi$.



This means that if we have a solution of the initial value problem $varphi(x,t),mathbf A(x,t)$ and replace the scalar potential by $varphi' = varphi(x,t)+ht^2$ at time $t = 0$ (where $h$ is a constant), the equations are still satisfied and at $t=0$, initial conditions are satisfied too. This would not be so obviously possible if the system contained directly time derivatives of $varphi$. Consider a slightly different system



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu= 0,
$$

(which in EM theory can be derived as a result of the Lorenz gauge choice) - this does constrain $partial_t^2 varphi$, so the above argument fails. I think this system should have a unique solution, because it is very similar to a set of equations for independent harmonic oscillators. However, for proof better check with mathematicians.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 days ago














up vote
3
down vote













Not all initial value problems have unique solution. Your example of $alpha$ function demonstrates that this initial value problem is of such kind.



In this case, the problem is in the system of partial differential equations



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0
$$

itself; it does not put enough constraint on the functions $varphi(mathbf x,t), mathbf A(mathbf x,t)$. It is somewhat similar to a situation in linear algebra that sometimes occurs where a system of $n$ linear equations for $n$ unknowns has infinity of solutions.



A slightly different way to see this: notice that nowhere in the above system of PDE can we find $partial_t^2 A^0$ or $partial_t A^0$ directly; only a spatial gradient of $partial_t A^0$ is present. The equations for $A^i$'s do not relate them directly with time derivatives of $varphi$.



This means that if we have a solution of the initial value problem $varphi(x,t),mathbf A(x,t)$ and replace the scalar potential by $varphi' = varphi(x,t)+ht^2$ at time $t = 0$ (where $h$ is a constant), the equations are still satisfied and at $t=0$, initial conditions are satisfied too. This would not be so obviously possible if the system contained directly time derivatives of $varphi$. Consider a slightly different system



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu= 0,
$$

(which in EM theory can be derived as a result of the Lorenz gauge choice) - this does constrain $partial_t^2 varphi$, so the above argument fails. I think this system should have a unique solution, because it is very similar to a set of equations for independent harmonic oscillators. However, for proof better check with mathematicians.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 days ago












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Not all initial value problems have unique solution. Your example of $alpha$ function demonstrates that this initial value problem is of such kind.



In this case, the problem is in the system of partial differential equations



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0
$$

itself; it does not put enough constraint on the functions $varphi(mathbf x,t), mathbf A(mathbf x,t)$. It is somewhat similar to a situation in linear algebra that sometimes occurs where a system of $n$ linear equations for $n$ unknowns has infinity of solutions.



A slightly different way to see this: notice that nowhere in the above system of PDE can we find $partial_t^2 A^0$ or $partial_t A^0$ directly; only a spatial gradient of $partial_t A^0$ is present. The equations for $A^i$'s do not relate them directly with time derivatives of $varphi$.



This means that if we have a solution of the initial value problem $varphi(x,t),mathbf A(x,t)$ and replace the scalar potential by $varphi' = varphi(x,t)+ht^2$ at time $t = 0$ (where $h$ is a constant), the equations are still satisfied and at $t=0$, initial conditions are satisfied too. This would not be so obviously possible if the system contained directly time derivatives of $varphi$. Consider a slightly different system



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu= 0,
$$

(which in EM theory can be derived as a result of the Lorenz gauge choice) - this does constrain $partial_t^2 varphi$, so the above argument fails. I think this system should have a unique solution, because it is very similar to a set of equations for independent harmonic oscillators. However, for proof better check with mathematicians.






share|cite|improve this answer














Not all initial value problems have unique solution. Your example of $alpha$ function demonstrates that this initial value problem is of such kind.



In this case, the problem is in the system of partial differential equations



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu-partial^mupartial_nuA^nu=0
$$

itself; it does not put enough constraint on the functions $varphi(mathbf x,t), mathbf A(mathbf x,t)$. It is somewhat similar to a situation in linear algebra that sometimes occurs where a system of $n$ linear equations for $n$ unknowns has infinity of solutions.



A slightly different way to see this: notice that nowhere in the above system of PDE can we find $partial_t^2 A^0$ or $partial_t A^0$ directly; only a spatial gradient of $partial_t A^0$ is present. The equations for $A^i$'s do not relate them directly with time derivatives of $varphi$.



This means that if we have a solution of the initial value problem $varphi(x,t),mathbf A(x,t)$ and replace the scalar potential by $varphi' = varphi(x,t)+ht^2$ at time $t = 0$ (where $h$ is a constant), the equations are still satisfied and at $t=0$, initial conditions are satisfied too. This would not be so obviously possible if the system contained directly time derivatives of $varphi$. Consider a slightly different system



$$
partial_nupartial^nu A^mu= 0,
$$

(which in EM theory can be derived as a result of the Lorenz gauge choice) - this does constrain $partial_t^2 varphi$, so the above argument fails. I think this system should have a unique solution, because it is very similar to a set of equations for independent harmonic oscillators. However, for proof better check with mathematicians.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered Nov 17 at 2:14









Ján Lalinský

13.7k1334




13.7k1334











  • @tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 days ago
















  • @tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 days ago















@tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
– Ján Lalinský
2 days ago




@tparker, thanks for pointing this out, I missed a preposition, fixed.
– Ján Lalinský
2 days ago










up vote
2
down vote













Are you asking for the physical or mathematical explanation? Dan Yand's answer gives the physical explanation.



Regarding the mathematical question: On what basis would you expect the field configuration to be uniquely determined by its initial data? Unlike for (uncoupled) ODE's, there's no theorem to that effect for general linear homogeneous second-order PDEs.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 1:22










  • A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:51











  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:57











  • A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 3:00










  • @AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 3:10














up vote
2
down vote













Are you asking for the physical or mathematical explanation? Dan Yand's answer gives the physical explanation.



Regarding the mathematical question: On what basis would you expect the field configuration to be uniquely determined by its initial data? Unlike for (uncoupled) ODE's, there's no theorem to that effect for general linear homogeneous second-order PDEs.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 1:22










  • A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:51











  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:57











  • A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 3:00










  • @AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 3:10












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









Are you asking for the physical or mathematical explanation? Dan Yand's answer gives the physical explanation.



Regarding the mathematical question: On what basis would you expect the field configuration to be uniquely determined by its initial data? Unlike for (uncoupled) ODE's, there's no theorem to that effect for general linear homogeneous second-order PDEs.






share|cite|improve this answer














Are you asking for the physical or mathematical explanation? Dan Yand's answer gives the physical explanation.



Regarding the mathematical question: On what basis would you expect the field configuration to be uniquely determined by its initial data? Unlike for (uncoupled) ODE's, there's no theorem to that effect for general linear homogeneous second-order PDEs.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 17 at 2:56

























answered Nov 17 at 0:53









tparker

22.1k146117




22.1k146117











  • The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 1:22










  • A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:51











  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:57











  • A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 3:00










  • @AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 3:10
















  • The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 1:22










  • A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 2:51











  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 2:57











  • A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 17 at 3:00










  • @AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
    – tparker
    Nov 17 at 3:10















The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 1:22




The issue is not about PDE vs ODE. There are point particle systems with gauge symmetries, and whose time evolution is not uniquely fixed by the equations of motion. And vice versa: there are field systems whose time evolution is uniquely fixed by the equations of motion (say, the heat/Schrödinger equation). The issue is about invertibility of the differential operator, equiv. about existence of a unique Green function. Obstructions may appear whether the system is one-dimensional or not.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 1:22












A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 2:51





A Lagrangian of the form $L(q_1,q_2)=f(q_1-q_2)$, for arbitrary $f$, is invariant under $q_i(t)to q_i(t)+eta(t)$. The system has a gauge symmetry. I leave this to you to pick some specific $f$ and compute Euler-Lagrange. You get two redundant equations of motion, so only one independent equation for two degrees of freedom. No unique solution. Etc. (And if we are just going to cite references, let me quote Henneaux, Teitelboim "Quantization of Gauge Systems", which is a book about point particles, not fields).
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 2:51













@AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 2:57





@AccidentalFourierTransform Oops, you're right. I meant that a function $mathbbR to mathbbR$ can't have a gauge freedom, but you can get around that by adding more variables at either end of the arrow. Edited to clarify.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 2:57













A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 3:00




A system with a single degree of freedom, if it has a gauge symmetry, has no effective degrees of freedom at all. So its dynamics are purely topological and/or due to constraints. For example, a relativistic point particle, in the reparametrisation-invariant formalism, has a gauge symmetry, and it is still $mathbb Rtomathbb R$.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 17 at 3:00












@AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 3:10




@AccidentalFourierTransform I would describe a point particle (whether relatvistic or not) with trajectory $(t(tau), x(tau))$ as being described by a a function $mathbbR to mathbbR^2$, not $mathbbR to mathbbR$.
– tparker
Nov 17 at 3:10

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f441414%2fif-a-mu-is-not-determined-uniquely-by-maxwells-equations-what-happens-if-we%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

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Bahrain

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay