I can't seem to get my results to match D'Inverno's electromagnetic tensor for a charged point (page 239 of his book - *Introducing Einstein's Relativity*).
Here are D'Inverno's steps:
- The line element in spherical coordinates is (η and λ are functions of r only)
ds2=eηdt2−eλdr2−r2(dθ2+sin2θ dϕ2)
- He defines this covariant electromagnetic field tensor:
Fμν=E(r)(0−100100000000000)
- He then proceeds to find the electric field, and consequently the electromagnetic field tensor by using the source-free Maxwell equations:
∇νFμν=0∂[λFμν]=0.
- Solving the differential equation that appears from the equations above, he finds the electric field:
E(r)=e(η+λ)/2ε/r2
- He then notes that this field is that of a point charge at infinity (η and λ go to zero at infinity) where ε is the electric charge. I managed to reproduce all these steps.
Now, here are my steps, using the four-potential procedure (the line element is the same):
- I define my contravariant four-potential (there is just the first element which is the electric potential of a point charge, just as D'Inverno found):
Aμ=(ε/r,0,0,0)
- Then I lower the index of this four-potential to find the covariant one:
Aμ=(eηε/r,0,0,0)
- Finally I apply this equation to build the covariant electromagnetic tensor:
Fμν=∂μAν−∂νAμ
- The result is
Fμν=eηεr2(r∂η∂r−1)(0−100100000000000)
- Where:
eηεr2(r∂η∂r−1)=E(r)
And this is different from D'Inverno's electric field. I don't know what I am doing wrong. The calculations are not difficult for this simple case.
The question is, due to these calculations:
Do my contravariant four-potential needs to contain my metric funcions in some way? I was assuming it is just the four-potential for a electric charge in the flat space:
Aμ=(ε/r,0,0,0)
If everything is right, the wrong assumption must be here.