format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The natural appearance of noncommutativity in string theories  and the observation that ordinary and noncommutative gauge theories are equivalent  have increasingly led to attempts to study physical problems in noncommutative spaces. Apparently, formulation of quantum mechanics in noncommutative spaces  may provide some hints for understanding the physical consequences of noncommuting space coordinates.

Although noncommuting coordinates are operators even at the classical level, one can treat them as commuting by replacing operator products with $``$–products. This approach was developed in order to formulate quantum mechanics without appealing to operators ( and the references therein). However, it is more appropriate to perform calculations with noncommutative coordinates without introducing new machinery. This approach allows us to generalize classical as well as quantum mechanics without altering their main physical interpretations and to recover the usual results when noncommutativity is switched off.

There exist some physical systems which do not obey the rules of the standard thermodynamics (some of them are mentioned in ). One may hope to find a remedy for these anomalies by generalizing Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics by adopting noncommutative coordinates. At this point, we cannot offer a general answer as to whether this is always possible. Nevertheless, we can obtain insights by studying a specific example.

Calculation of susceptibility for electrons moving in an external uniform magnetic field leads to Landau diamagnetism , which is a consequence of quantization. We wish to study this system, which may provide some evidence on whether the generalization of the usual thermodynamics due to noncommutativity of space coordinates is useful when Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics is not applicable. One can choose a gauge such that the motion in the direction of the magnetic field remains intact. It is then convenient to calculate the susceptibility in a setting where the coordinates which are perpendicular to the external magnetic field are taken as noncommuting, but the one in the direction of the external magnetic field is kept commuting.

On the other hand Tsallis , proposed a nonextensive statistics, which is a candidate for curing some of the problems that appear in standard thermodynamics. It is therefore interesting to investigate whether the statistics resulting from noncommutativity of the coordinates is somehow connected to the nonextensive statistics of Tsallis.

After a brief review of the quantization of an electron moving in an external uniform magnetic field and the related coherent states, we calculate the partition function, the magnetization and the susceptibility, taking the coordinates perpendicular to the magnetic field as noncommuting.

Although Landau diamagnetism according to Tsallis nonextensive statistics was studied in , the method adopted therein is not suitable for our purposes. We therefore, present another method to calculate the susceptibility according to the nonextensive statistics of Tsallis by retaining the leading terms in $`(q1)1.`$ These two methods yield different results.

We then show that in the high temperature limit the susceptibility obtained in the noncommuting space and the one based on Tsallis nonextensive statistics agree if their parameters satisfy a certain relation.

## 2 Preliminaries

An electron moving in the external uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A},`$ neglecting spin, is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A})^2.$$
(1)
We let the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ be in the $`z`$-direction by choosing the symmetric gauge:

$$\stackrel{}{A}=(\frac{B}{2}y,\frac{B}{2}x,0).$$
(2)
After imposing the usual canonical commutation relations between the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p},`$ the operators

$$a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m\mathrm{}\omega }}\left[\left(p_x\frac{m\omega }{2}y\right)i\left(p_y+\frac{m\omega }{2}x\right)\right],$$
(3)
and its hermitian conjugate $`a^{}`$ can be shown to satisfy

$$[a,a^{}]=1,$$
(4)
where $`\omega =\frac{eB}{mc}`$ is the cyclotron frequency.

In the $`z`$–direction the motion is free, however, the appropriate Hamiltonian for the motion in the $`(x,y)`$–plane becomes

$$H_{}=\mathrm{}\omega (a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}).$$
(5)
Eigenstates of (5) can simultaneously be taken to be eigenstates of angular momentum in the $`z`$–direction. Although, one can construct coherent states reflecting this fact , for our purposes it is sufficient to consider the normalized coherent states $`|\alpha >`$ defined as

$$|\alpha >\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\alpha |^2}{4l^2}i\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}a^{}\right)|0>,$$
(6)
where $`l=(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the magnetic length and $`\alpha `$ is a complex parameter. As usual the ground state $`|0>`$ is defined to satisfy $`a|0>=0,`$ and $`|\alpha >`$ are eigenstates of the annihilation operator:

$$a|\alpha >=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\omega }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\alpha }{il^2}|\alpha >,$$
(7)
These states were used in  to calculate the susceptibility for a cylindrical body which results in the usual Landau diamagnetism.

## 3 Landau diamagnetism in noncommutative space

Because of choosing the symmetric gauge (2), the motion along the $`z`$–direction is free and the motion in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is described by (5). Let us keep the $`z`$ coordinate commuting, but take the coordinates perpendicular to the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ as noncommuting

$$[\widehat{x},\widehat{y}]=i\theta ,$$
(8)
where the constant $`\theta `$ is real. Noncommutativity can be imposed by treating the coordinates as commuting, but introducing the star product

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{i\theta }{2}(\stackrel{}{}_x\stackrel{}{}_y\stackrel{}{}_y\stackrel{}{}_x).$$
(9)
Now, we deal with the commutative coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ but replace the products with the star product (9). For example, instead of the commutator (8) one introduces the Moyal bracket

$$xyyx=i\theta .$$
(10)
We quantize this system in terms of the standard canonical quantization by establishing the usual canonical commutation relations $`[r_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}.`$ However, eigenvalue equations should be modified. According to this receipt, in the symmetric gauge (2), the transverse part of the Hamiltonian (1) acting on an arbitrary function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ yields

$$H_{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{1}{2m}\left[\left(p_x\frac{eB}{2c}y\right)^2+\left(p_y+\frac{eB}{2c}x\right)^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)H_{nc}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(11)
where, in terms of $`\kappa =\frac{eB\theta }{4c},`$ we defined

$$H_{nc}=\frac{1}{2m}\left[\left((1+\kappa )p_x\frac{eB}{2c}y\right)^2+\left((1+\kappa )p_y+\frac{eB}{2c}x\right)^2\right].$$
(12)
We obtain the appropriate creation and annihilation operators for this system, $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a},`$ from (3) by replacing $`\omega `$ with the modified cyclotron frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }:`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(1+\kappa )\omega .$$
(13)
They satisfy the usual commutation relation

$$[\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{a}^{}]=1.$$

The modified transverse Hamiltonian $`H_{nc}`$ can be written as

$$H_{nc}=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\stackrel{~}{a}^{}\stackrel{~}{a}+\frac{1}{2}).$$
(14)
Reminiscent of noncommutativity is only in the frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }.`$ In fact we construct the coherent states $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>`$ of the noncommutative case from $`|\alpha >`$ by the replacement $`a\stackrel{~}{a},`$ $`a^{}\stackrel{~}{a}^{},`$ $`\omega \stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ in (6). Obviously, they satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{a}|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\stackrel{~}{\omega }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\alpha }{i\stackrel{~}{l}^2}|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>,$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{l}=(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\stackrel{~}{\omega }})^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$

The creation and annihilation operators $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ are the usual ones appearing in quantum mechanics. Thus, the total Hamiltonian

$$H_t=\frac{p_z^2}{2m}+H_{nc},$$

can be used to define the partition function in noncommutative coordinates in the standard way as

$$Z_{nc}=\text{Tr}e^{\beta H_t},$$
(16)
where $`\beta =1/kT.`$

Now, by following the arguments of , the partition function $`Z_{nc}`$ for a cylindrical body of volume $`V`$ can be written as

$$Z_{nc}=\frac{V}{\lambda ^3}\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2}\frac{e^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2}}}{2\stackrel{~}{l}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2\alpha <\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|e^{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\beta \stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{a}}|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>,$$
(17)
where $`\lambda =\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta }{m}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the thermal wavelength. By performing the calculation it leads to

$$Z_{nc}=\frac{V}{\lambda ^3}\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\frac{(1+\kappa )}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1+\kappa )\right)},$$
(18)
where we emphasized the $`\kappa `$ dependence. We should adopt the standard definitions for the free energy and the magnetization:

$$F_{nc}=\frac{n}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_{nc},M_{nc}=\frac{F_{nc}}{B},$$
(19)
where $`n`$ is the total number of particles. Thus, we compute the magnetization as

$$M_{nc}=\frac{n\mathrm{}e}{mc}(1+2\kappa )\left[\frac{1}{\beta \mathrm{}\omega (1+\kappa )}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1+\kappa )\right)\right].$$
(20)
The susceptibility defined by

$$\chi _{nc}=\frac{1}{n}\frac{M_{nc}}{B},$$
(21)
can be calculated to yield

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _{nc}=\frac{\mathrm{}e}{mc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\kappa \left[\frac{1}{\beta \mathrm{}\omega (1+\kappa )}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1+\kappa )\right)\right]\hfill \\ \left(\frac{\mathrm{}e}{mc}\right)^2\beta (1+2\kappa )^2\left[\frac{1}{\left(\beta \mathrm{}\omega (1+\kappa )\right)^2}+\frac{1}{4}\left[1\mathrm{coth}^2\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1+\kappa )\right)\right]\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
In the high temperature limit, $`\beta 1,`$ we get

$$\chi _{nc}=\chi _L\left[1+6\kappa +6\kappa ^2\right],$$
(23)
where the usual Landau diamagnetism is

$$\chi _L=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}e}{2mc}\right)^2\beta .$$

Noncommutativity arising in string theories is due to a background field strength . This leads to the fact that the related noncommutativity parameter is positive. However, when we introduce the noncommutativity in an ad hoc manner in terms of the commutator (8), there is no restriction on the sign of $`\theta .`$ In spite of that, for the consistency of our formalism $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ should be positive, which yields the condition $`\kappa =\frac{eB\theta }{4c}>1.`$ For these values of $`\kappa `$ (or $`\theta `$) the system is diamagnetic, except for the values $`0.8<\kappa <0.2,`$ where $`\chi _{nc}`$ becomes positive. This is an interesting fact which deserves a more detailed study.

## 4 Landau diamagnetism according to the nonextensive statistics of Tsallis

To deal with the systems which do not obey the rules of the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics Tsallis proposed a nonextensive generalization of thermodynamics ,. In this formalism internal energy can be constrained in three different ways which result in different definitions of partition function ,. We take the definition of the partition function to be

$$Z_q=\left[1(1q)\beta \underset{n}{}E_n\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}},$$
(24)
where the parameter $`q`$ is a real number and $`E_n`$ are energy eigenvalues. This definition possesses some undesirable properties and the most satisfactory definition which we denote as $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_q(\beta )`$ is given in terms of normalized $`q`$–expectation values . Nevertheless, there exists a map  $`\beta \beta ^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_q(\beta )=Z_q(\beta ^{}).`$ Moreover, $`\beta ^{}`$ is an increasing function of $`\beta `$ , so that the high temperature limit can equivalently be taken as $`\beta ^{}1.`$

The free energy $`F_q`$ is also modified:

$$F_q=\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{Z_q^{1q}1}{1q},$$
(25)
but the magnetization $`M_q`$ and the susceptibility $`\chi _q`$ are still given by

$$M_q=\frac{F_q}{B},\chi _q=\frac{1}{n}\frac{M_q}{B}.$$
(26)
We wish to investigate whether the generalized statistics obtained due to noncommutativity of space and the nonextensive statistics of Tsallis possess some common features. Obviously, we can have insights by studying the specific example of the previous section, namely electrons in the uniform magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ according to the nonextensive statistics of Tsallis and then comparing their results.

Calculation of generalized partition functions exactly is a hard task  and it is not always possible to achieve. We use the approximation which is known as the factorization approach . It is valid for high and low temperatures without any restriction on $`q`$ and for small number of states for $`(1q)1`$ . However, its validity can be enlarged to other values of $`q`$ as far as some other conditions are satisfied ,.

Our aim is to calculate the generalized partition function $`Z_q`$ for a cylindrical body of length $`L`$ and radius $`R,`$ which is oriented along the $`z`$-direction, using the Hamiltonian (1). The transverse part of the Hamiltonian, by choosing the symmetric gauge (2), is given as in (5). By using the factorization approach the generalized partition function $`Z_q`$ can be written as

$$Z_q\frac{L}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \beta }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[1\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1q)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}Z_{},$$
(27)
where $`Z_{}`$ is taken as

$$Z_{}=\frac{R^2}{4\pi l^4}d^2\alpha <\alpha |\left[1(1q)\beta \mathrm{}\omega a^{}a\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}|\alpha >.$$
(28)
The coherent states $`|\alpha >`$ are the eigenstates of $`a`$ satisfying (7). Thus, if we write the operators appearing in (28) in normal ordered form the computation will become manageable. Fortunately, it is known that any function $`f`$ of $`a^{}a`$ can be written in the normal ordered form as

$$f(a^{}a)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1)^sf(rs)}{(rs)!s!}a^ra^r.$$
(29)
Actually, for an exponential function it yields

$$e^{\xi a^{}a}=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(e^\xi 1)^r}{r!}a^ra^r,$$
(30)
where $`\xi `$ is a constant. By making use of (29) and (7) we can write (28) as

$$Z_{}=\frac{R^2}{4\pi l^4}d^2\alpha \underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_r\left(\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2l^2}\right)^r,$$
(31)
where the coefficients $`C_r`$ are given by

$$C_r=\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1)^s}{(rs)!s!}\left[1(1q)\beta \mathrm{}\omega (rs)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(32)
These coefficients can be expanded in $`(1q)`$ as

$$C_r=\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1)^s}{(rs)!s!}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(1q)^nn!}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1q)^k}{k}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^k(rs)^k\right).$$
(33)
The terms to second order in $`(1q)`$ can be evaluated explicitly

$`C_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^s}{(rs)!s!}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}\{(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^n+(1q){\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(rs)^{n+1}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^{n+1}`$
$`+(1q)^2[{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{3}}](rs)^{n+2}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^{n+2}+\mathrm{}\}.`$
We retain the terms to first order in $`(1q)`$ and utilize (30) to obtain the compact form

$$C_r\frac{(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)^r}{r!}\frac{(1q)}{2}\beta ^2\frac{^2}{\beta ^2}\left[\frac{(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)^r}{r!}\right].$$
(34)
Now, we write $`Z_{}`$ as

$$Z_{}=R^24\pi l^4\left(1\frac{(1q)}{2}\beta ^2\frac{^2}{\beta ^2}\right)d^2\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2l^2}\left(1e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }\right)\right],$$
(35)
which can be evaluated to yield

$$Z_{}=\frac{R^2}{2l^2}\left(1\frac{(1q)}{2}\beta ^2\frac{^2}{\beta ^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }}\right).$$
(36)
By keeping the dominant terms in $`(1q),`$ the first factor appearing in (27) can be written as

$$\left[1\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}(1q)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}e^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\frac{(1q)}{2}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\right)^2e^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}.$$
(37)
Substitution of the approximated values (36) and (37) into (27) yields

$$Z_q\frac{V}{\lambda ^3}\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)}\frac{(1q)}{2}\left[\frac{(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)}+e^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\beta ^2\frac{^2}{\beta ^2}(1e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega })^1\right]\right\}.$$
(38)
We can write it in the compact form

$$Z_qZ_L\left[1\frac{(1q)}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,\omega )\right],$$
(39)
where $`Z_L`$ is the partition function of free electrons in the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ according to the standard thermodynamics

$$Z_L=\frac{V}{\lambda ^3}\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)},$$
(40)
and the first order modification is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,\omega )=(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^2\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)}\right].$$
(41)
Because of dealing with the values of $`q`$ such that $`(1q)1,`$ we retain the terms to first order in $`(1q)`$ for the free energy $`F_q`$

$$F_q\frac{1}{\beta }\left[\mathrm{ln}Z_L\frac{(1q)}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,\omega )\frac{(1q)}{2}(\mathrm{ln}Z_L)^2\right],$$
(42)
after inserting (39) into (25). It is now straightforward to calculate the magnetization $`M_q`$ and the susceptibility $`\chi _q`$ of the nonextensive case by making use of the definitions (26), which lead to

$`M_q`$ $``$ $`M_L{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{B}}+(1q)M_L\mathrm{ln}Z_L,`$ (43)
$`\chi _q`$ $``$ $`\chi _L{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Sigma }}{B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{n^2}}M_L^2+2\chi _L\mathrm{ln}Z_L\right],`$ (44)
where $`M_L=\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_L}{B}`$ and $`\chi _L=\frac{1}{n}\frac{M_L}{B}`$ are the magnetization and the susceptibility according to the standard extensive formalism which can be approximated in the high temperature limit, $`\beta 1,`$ as

$`M_L`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{ne\mathrm{}^2\omega }{mc}}\beta ,`$ (45)
$`\chi _L`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e}{2mc}}\right)^2\beta .`$ (46)
Moreover, the leading terms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,\omega )`$ for high temperatures are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,\omega )\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\beta \mathrm{}\omega +\frac{7}{3}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}\right)^2.$$
(47)
For $`\beta 1,`$ the third term of (44) behaves like $`\beta ^3`$ so that it should be ignored with respect to the second term behaving like $`\beta `$ . We then conclude that according to the nonextensive formalism of Tsallis the standard Landau diamagnetism is modified as

$$\chi _q\chi _L\left[1+(1q)(7+\mathrm{ln}Z_L)\right],$$
(48)
for $`\beta 1`$ as well as retaining only the terms to first order in $`(1q).`$

## 5 Conclusions

The modified susceptibility in noncommuting coordinates (23) for $`\beta 1`$ and the one obtained according to the nonextensive formalism of Tsallis (48) for $`\beta 1`$ and $`(1q)1,`$ in terms of the factorization approach, coincide if their parameters are related as

$$\kappa +\kappa ^2=(1q)\left(\frac{7+\mathrm{ln}Z_L}{6}\right).$$
(49)
We recall that $`\kappa `$ is given in terms of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ as $`\kappa =\frac{eB\theta }{4c}.`$ Thus, the generalization of the standard thermodynamics obtained due to noncommutativity of coordinates covers, in certain limits, the nonextensive formalism of Tsallis for Landau diamagnetism. We would like to emphasize that this result is obtained in terms of some approximations and it is far from being an exact result.

Obviously, it may happen that some deformations of quantum mechanical systems other than letting the coordinates be noncommuting may lead to similar relations. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that our results indicate that the generalized statistics due to noncommutative coordinates is a candidate to deal with the systems which do not obey the rules of the standard thermodynamics. However, it is not guaranteed that the results obtained in this specific example can be extrapolated to other physical systems. To have a better understanding of the roles of noncommuting coordinates in generalization of the standard thermodynamics one should study more physical systems in noncommuting coordinates.

Acknowledgements

For very fruitful discussions we are indebted to A. Erzan and U. Tırnaklı. We would like to thank E. İnönü and C. Saçlıoğlu for their interest. A.J. also thanks J. Brodie and H. Saidi for their encouragement.


text:
# On the energy-momentum current of the electromagnetic field in a pre-metric axiomatic approach*footnote **footnote *Dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague Ruggiero de Ritis from Napoli.. I

## 1 Introduction

In an axiomatic approach to classical electrodynamics, one can start with electric charge conservation $`dJ=0`$ as first axiom, with the existence of the Lorentz force density $`f_\alpha =(e_\alpha F)J`$ as second axiom, and with magnetic flux conservation $`dF=0`$ as third axiom. Here $`J`$ is the electric current density 3-form, $`F=(E,B)`$ the electromagnetic field strength 2-form, and $`e_\alpha `$ the frame field, i.e., the vector basis of the tangent space, with $`\alpha =\widehat{0},\widehat{1},\widehat{2},\widehat{3}`$ as frame index. A fairly detailed account, including the conventions and references to the literature, can be found in , see also ; for the mathematics involved, compare Frankel .

For the formulation of the axiomatics mentioned, one needs a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold as spacetime. It is assumed that this manifold can be cut into 3-dimensional slices (folia) such that successive slices can be numbered, at least locally, by means of a monotone increasing parameter $`\sigma `$. The slices represent ordinary 3-space, the increasing parameter represents time. No linear connection and no metric is used in this approach up to this stage. Therefore we call it a pre-metric axiomatics (strictly, we should also add the qualification “pre-connection”). Accordingly, our three axioms are valid on a sliceable, but otherwise arbitrary 4-dimensional manifold, see , be it described by means of the Minkowskian geometry of special relativity (SR), the Riemannian geometry of general relativity (GR), or the metric-affine geometry of the metric-affine gauge theory of gravity (MAG, see ).

The first axiom has the inhomogeneous Maxwell equation $`dH=J`$ as a consequence, with $`H=(𝒟,)`$ as the electromagnetic excitation 2-form. The third axiom represents the homogeneous Maxwell equation $`dF=0`$. In order to complete the fundamental structure of classical electrodynamics, one has to specify an axiom for the distribution of the energy and the momentum and the corresponding fluxes of the electromagnetic field. Only in this way we will be able to find a formula for the electromagnetic radiation pressure, for example. As it will turn out, this is also possible in a pre-metric framework.

## 2 Fourth axiom: localization of energy-momentum

Let us consider the Lorentz force density $`f_\alpha =(e_\alpha F)J`$. If we want to derive the energy-momentum law for electrodynamics, we have to try to express $`f_\alpha `$ as an exact form. Then energy-momentum is a kind of a generalized potential for the Lorentz force density, namely $`f_\alpha d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$. For that purpose we start from $`f_\alpha `$. We substitute $`J=dH`$ (inhomogeneous Maxwell equation) and subtract out a term with $`H`$ and $`F`$ exchanged and multiplied by a constant factor $`a`$:

$$f_\alpha =(e_\alpha F)dHa(e_\alpha H)dF.$$
(2.1)
Because of $`dF=0`$ (homogeneous Maxwell equation), the subtracted term vanishes. The factor $`a`$ will be left open for the moment. Note that we need a non-vanishing current $`J0`$ for our derivation to be sensible.

We partially integrate both terms in (2.1):

$`f_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d[aF(e_\alpha H)H(e_\alpha F)]`$ (2.2)
$``$ $`aFd(e_\alpha H)+Hd(e_\alpha F).`$ (2.3)
The first term has already the desired form. We recall the main formula for the Lie derivative of an arbitrary form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, namely $`_{e_\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }=d(e_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })+e_\alpha (d\mathrm{\Phi }).`$ This allows us to transform the second line of (2.2):

$`f_\alpha =d[aF(e_\alpha H)`$ $``$ $`H(e_\alpha F)]`$ (2.4)
$`aF(_{e_\alpha }H)`$ $`+`$ $`H(_{e_\alpha }F)`$ (2.5)
$`+aFe_\alpha (dH)`$ $``$ $`He_\alpha (dF).`$ (2.6)
The last line can be rewritten as

$`+ae_\alpha [FdH]`$ $``$ $`a(e_\alpha F)dH`$ (2.7)
$`e_\alpha [HdF]`$ $`+`$ $`(e_\alpha H)dF.`$ (2.8)
As 5-forms, the expressions in the square brackets vanish. Two terms remain, and we find

$`f_\alpha =d[aF(e_\alpha H)`$ $``$ $`H(e_\alpha F)]`$ (2.9)
$`aF(_{e_\alpha }H)`$ $`+`$ $`H(_{e_\alpha }F)`$ (2.10)
$`a(e_\alpha F)dH`$ $`+`$ $`(e_\alpha H)dF.`$ (2.11)
Now we have to make up our mind about the choice of the factor $`a`$. Because of $`dF=0`$, the third line adds up to $`af_\alpha `$. Accordingly,

$`(1+a)f_\alpha =d[aF(e_\alpha H)`$ $``$ $`H(e_\alpha F)]`$ (2.12)
$`aF(_{e_\alpha }H)`$ $`+`$ $`H(_{e_\alpha }F).`$ (2.13)
With $`a=1`$, the left hand side is zero and we find a mathematical identity. A real conservation law is only obtained when, eventually, the second line vanishes. In other words, here we need an a posteriori argument, i.e., we have to take some information from experience. For $`a=0`$, the second line does not vanish. However, for $`a=1`$, we can hope that the first term in the second line compensates the second term if somehow $`HF`$. In fact, under “ordinary circumstances”, to be explored below, the two terms in the second line do compensate each other for $`a=1`$. Therefore we postulate this choice and find

$$f_\alpha =(e_\alpha F)J=d^\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha +X_\alpha .$$
(2.14)
Here the kinematic energy-momentum 3-form of the electromagnetic field, a central result of this section, reads

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}:=\frac{1}{2}[F(e_\alpha H)H(e_\alpha F)]\text{(fourth axiom)},$$
(2.15)
and the remaining force density 4-form turns out to be

$$X_\alpha :=\frac{1}{2}\left(F_{e_\alpha }HH_{e_\alpha }F\right).$$
(2.16)
Incidentally, our formula (2.14) supersedes the corresponding relation of Post, see  Eq. (4.42).

Our derivation of (2.14) doesn’t lead to a unique definition of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$. The addition of any closed 3-form would be possible,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^{}:={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}+Y_\alpha ,\text{with}dY_\alpha =0,$$
(2.17)
such that

$$f_\alpha =d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^{}+X_\alpha .$$
(2.18)
In particular, $`Y_\alpha `$ could be exact: $`Y_\alpha =dZ_\alpha `$. The 2-form $`Z_\alpha `$ has the same dimension as $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$. It seems impossible to build up $`Z_\alpha `$ exclusively in terms of the quantities $`e_\alpha ,H,F`$ in an algebraic way. Therefore, $`Y_\alpha =0`$ appears to be the most natural choice. Thus, by the fourth axiom we postulate that $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ in (2.15) represents the energy-momentum current that correctly localizes the energy-momentum distribution of the electromagnetic field in spacetime.

The current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ can also be rewritten by applying the anti-Leibniz rule for $`e_\alpha `$ either in the first or the second term on the right hand side of (2.15). With the 4-form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\frac{1}{2}FH,$$
(2.19)
we find

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }+F(e_\alpha H)`$ (2.20)
$`=`$ $`e_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }H(e_\alpha F).`$ (2.21)
## 3 Properties of the energy-momentum current, electric-magnetic reciprocity

### A $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ is tracefree

The energy-momentum current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ is a 3-form. We can blow it up to a 4-form according to $`\vartheta ^\beta {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$. Since it still has 16 components, we haven’t lost any information. If we recall that for any $`p`$-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we have $`\vartheta ^\alpha (e_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })=p\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we immediately recognize from (2.15) that

$$\vartheta ^\alpha {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=0,$$
(3.22)
which amounts to one equation. This property — the vanishing of the “trace” of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ — is connected with the fact that the electromagnetic field (the “photon”) carries no mass and the theory is thus invariant under dilations. Why we call that the trace of the energy-momentum will become clear below, see (3.38).

### B $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ is electric-magnetic reciprocal

Furthermore, we can observe another property of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$. It is remarkable how symmetric $`H`$ and $`F`$ enter (2.15). This was achieved by our choice of $`a=1`$. The energy-momentum current is electric-magnetic reciprocal, i.e., it remains invariant under the transformation

$$H\zeta F,F\frac{1}{\zeta }H,{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{},$$
(3.23)
with the twisted zero-form (pseudo-scalar function) $`\zeta =\zeta (x)`$ of dimension $`[\zeta ]=[H]/[F]=q^2/h`$. Here $`q`$ denotes the dimension of charge and $`h`$ that of action.

It should be stressed that in spite of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ being e-m reciprocal, Maxwell’s equations are not,

$`dH=J`$ $``$ $`dF+Fd\zeta /\zeta =J/\zeta ,`$ (3.24)
$`dF=0`$ $``$ $`dHHd\zeta /\zeta =0,`$ (3.25)
not even for $`d\zeta =0`$, since we don’t want to restrict ourselves to the free-field case with vanishing source $`J=0`$.

Eq.(3.23) expresses a certain reciprocity between electric and magnetic effects with regard to their respective contributions to the energy-momentum current of the field. We call it electric-magnetic reciprocity.…following Toupin  even if he introduced this notion in a somewhat more restricted context. Maxwell spoke of the mutual embrace of electricity and magnetism, see Wise . In the case of a prescribed metric, discussions of the corresponding Rainich “duality rotation” were given by Gaillard & Zumino  and by Mielke , amongst others. That this naming is appropriate can be seen from a (1+3)-decomposition. We recall, see , the (1+3)-decompositions of $`H`$ and $`F`$:

$$H=d\sigma +𝒟,F=Ed\sigma +B.$$
(3.26)
We substitute them in (3.23):

$$H\zeta F\{\begin{array}{cc}\zeta E,\hfill & \\ 𝒟\zeta B,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.27)
$$F\frac{1}{\zeta }H\{\begin{array}{cc}E\frac{1}{\zeta },\hfill & \\ B\frac{1}{\zeta }𝒟.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.28)
Here it is clearly visible that a magnetic quantity is replaced by an electric one and an electric quantity by a magnetic one: $`\text{electric}\text{magnetic}`$. In this sense, we can speak of an electric-magnetic reciprocity in the expression for the energy-momentum current $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$. Alternatively we can say that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ fulfills e-m reciprocity, it is e-m reciprocal.

Let us pause for a moment and wonder of how the notions “electric” and “magnetic” are attached to certain fields and whether there is a conventional element involved. By making experiments with a cat’s skin and a rod of amber, we can “liberate” what we call electric charges. In 3 dimensions, they are described by the charge density $`\rho `$. Set in motion, they produce an electric current $`j`$. The electric charge is conserved (first axiom) and is linked, via the Gauss law $`\underset{¯}{d}𝒟=\rho `$, to the electric excitation $`𝒟`$.

Recurring to the Oersted experiment, it is clear that moving charges $`j`$ induce magnetic effects, in accordance with the Oersted-Ampère law $`\underset{¯}{d}\dot{𝒟}=j`$ — also a consequence of the first axiom. Hence we can unanimously attribute the term magnetic to the excitation $``$. There is no room left for doubt about that.

The second axiom links the electric charge density $`\rho `$ to the field strength $`E`$ according to $`(e_a\rho )E`$ and the electric current $`j`$ to the field $`B`$ according to $`(e_aj)B`$. Consequently, also for the field strength $`F`$, there can be no other way than to label $`E`$ as electric and $`B`$ as magnetic field strength.

These arguments imply that the substitutions $`H\zeta F`$ as well as $`FH/\zeta `$ both substitute an electric by a magnetic field and a magnetic by an electric one, see (3.27) and (3.28). Because of the minus sign (that is, because of $`a=1`$) that we found in (3.23) in analyzing the electromagnetic energy-momentum current $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$, we cannot speak of an equivalence of electric and magnetic fields, the expression reciprocity is much more appropriate. Fundamentally, electricity and magnetism enter into classical electrodynamics in an asymmetric way.

Let us try to explain the electric-magnetic reciprocity by means of a simple example. If we apply a $`(1+3)`$-decomposition to $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$, the electric energy density turns out to be $`u_{\text{el}}=\frac{1}{2}E𝒟`$. If one wants to try to guess the corresponding expression for the magnetic energy density $`u_{\text{mag}}`$, one substitutes for an electric a corresponding magnetic quantity. However, the electric field strength is a 1-form. One cannot substitute it by the magnetic field strength $`B`$ since that is a 2-form. Therefore one has to switch to the magnetic excitation according to $`E\frac{1}{\zeta }`$, with the 1-form $``$. The function $`\zeta `$ is needed because of the different dimensions of $`E`$ and $``$ and since $`E`$ is an untwisted and $``$ a twisted form. Analogously, one substitutes $`𝒟\zeta B`$ thereby finding $`u_{\text{mg}}=\frac{1}{2}B`$. This is the correct result, i.e., $`u=\frac{1}{2}(E𝒟+B)`$, and we could be happy.

Naively, one would then postulate the invariance of $`u`$ under the substitution $`E\frac{1}{\zeta },𝒟\zeta B,B\frac{1}{\zeta }𝒟,\zeta E`$. But, as a look at (3.26) will show, this cannot be implemented in a covariant way because of the minus sign in (3.26). One could reconsider the sign convention for $``$ in (3.26)1. However, as a matter of fact, the relative sign between (3.26)1 and (3.26)2 is basically fixed by Lenz’s rule (the induced electromotive force \[measured in volt\] is opposite in sign to the inducing field). Thus the minus sign in (3.26) is independent of conventions.

How are we going to save our rule of thumb for extracting the magnetic energy from the electric one? Well, if we turn to the substitutions (3.27) and (3.28), i.e., if we introduce two minus signs according to $`E\frac{1}{\zeta },𝒟\zeta B,B\frac{1}{\zeta }𝒟,\zeta E`$, then $`u`$ still remains invariant and we recover the covariant rule (3.23). In other words, the naive approach works up to two minus signs. Those we can supply by having insight into the covariant version of electrodynamics. Accordingly, the electric-magnetic reciprocity is the one that we knew all the time – we just have to be careful with the sign.

### C $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ expressed in terms of the complex electromagnetic field

We can understand the e-m reciprocity transformation as acting on the column vector consisting of $`H`$ and $`\zeta F`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H^{}\\ \zeta F^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ \zeta F\end{array}\right).$$
(3.29)
In order to compactify this formula, we introduce the complex electromagnetic field

$$U:=H+i\zeta F\mathrm{and}U^{}=Hi\zeta F,$$
(3.30)
with  denoting the conjugate complex. Now the e-m reciprocity (3.29) translates into

$$U^{}=iU,U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=iU^{}.$$
(3.31)
This corresponds, in the complex plane, where $`U`$ lives, to a rotation by an angle of $`\pi /2`$.

We can resolve (3.30) with respect to excitation and field strength:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(U+U^{}),F=\frac{i}{2\zeta }(UU^{}).$$
(3.32)
We differentiate (3.30)1. Then the Maxwell equation for the complex field turns out to be

$$dU+(U^{}U)\frac{d\zeta }{2\zeta }=J.$$
(3.33)
Clearly, if we choose a constant $`\zeta `$, i.e., $`d\zeta =0`$, the second term on the left hand side vanishes. The asymmetry between electric and magnetic fields finds its expression in the fact that the source term on the right hand side of (3.33) is a real quantity.

If we substitute (3.32) into the energy-momentum current (2.15), we find, after some algebra,

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=\frac{i}{4\zeta }[U^{}(e_\alpha U)U(e_\alpha U^{})].$$
(3.34)
Now, according to (3.31), e-m reciprocity of the energy-momentum current is manifest.

If we execute successively two e-m reciprocity transformations, namely $`UU^{}U^{\prime \prime }`$, then, as can be seen from (3.31) or (3.23), we find a reflection (a rotation of $`\pi `$), namely $`U^{\prime \prime }=U`$, i.e.,

$$UU\text{or}(HH,FF).$$
(3.35)
Only four e-m reciprocity transformations lead back to the identity. It should be stressed, however, that already one e-m reciprocity transformation leaves $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ invariant.

It is now straightforward to formally extend the e-m reciprocity transformation (3.31) to

$$U^{}=e^{+i\varphi }U,U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=e^{i\varphi }U^{},$$
(3.36)
with $`\varphi =\varphi (x)`$ as an arbitrary “rotation” angle. The energy-momentum current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ is still invariant under this extended transformation, but in later applications only the subcase of $`\varphi =\pi /2`$, treated above, will be of interest.

### D Energy-momentum tensor density $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}^\beta `$

Since $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ is a 3-form, we can decompose it either conventionally or with respect to the basis 3-form $`ϵ_\beta :=e_\beta ϵ`$, with $`ϵ:=\vartheta ^0\vartheta ^1\vartheta ^2\vartheta ^3`$ :

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=\frac{1}{3!}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda \mu \nu \alpha }^{}\vartheta ^\lambda \vartheta ^\mu \vartheta ^\nu ={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }ϵ_{\beta }^{}.$$
(3.37)
The 2nd rank tensor density of weight 1, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}^\beta `$, is the Minkowski energy tensor density. We can resolve this equation with respect to $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}^\beta `$ by exterior multiplication with $`\vartheta ^\beta `$. We recall $`\vartheta ^\beta ϵ_\gamma =\delta _\gamma ^\beta ϵ`$ and find

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }ϵ=\vartheta ^\beta {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}.$$
(3.38)
Thereby we recognize that $`\vartheta ^\alpha {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=0`$, see (3.22), is equivalent to the vanishing of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor density $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=0`$. Thus $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}^\beta `$ as well as $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ have 15 independent components at this stage. Both quantities are equivalent.

If we substitute (2.15) into (3.38), then we can express the energy-momentum tensor density in the components of $`H`$ and $`F`$ as followsOur conventions with respect to the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol are as follows: We have $`ϵ^{\widehat{0}\widehat{1}\widehat{2}\widehat{3}}=+1`$, i.e., $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is a tensor density of weight $`+1`$. Its reciprocal $`\widehat{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$, a tensor density of weight $`1`$, is defined according to $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\widehat{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\delta _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$, with $`\delta `$ as generalized Kronecker symbol.:

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{\beta \mu \rho \sigma }(H_{\alpha \mu }F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\alpha \mu }H_{\rho \sigma }).$$
(3.39)
### E Preview: Covariant conservation law and vanishing force density $`\widehat{X}_\alpha `$

The Lorentz force density $`f_\alpha `$ in (2.14) and the energy-momentum current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ in (2.15) are covariant with respect to frame and coordinate transformations. Nevertheless, each of the two terms on the right hand side of (2.14), namely $`d{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ or $`X_\alpha `$, are not covariant by themselves. What can we do?

For the first three axioms of electrodynamics, the spacetime arena is only required to be a (1+3)-decomposable 4-dimensional manifold. We cannot be as economical as this in general. Ordinarily a linear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$ on that manifold is needed. The linear connection will be the guiding field that transports a vector, e.g., from one point of spacetime to a neighboring one. Then the covariant exterior differential is be defined $`D=d+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\rho (L_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha })`$, see . With the help of this operator, a generally covariant expression $`D{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ can be constructed. Then (2.14) can be rewritten as

$$f_\alpha =D{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}+\widehat{X}_\alpha ,$$
(3.40)
with the new supplementary force density

$$\widehat{X}_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\left(H\text{Ł}_{e_\alpha }FF\text{Ł}_{e_\alpha }H\right),$$
(3.41)
which contains the gauge covariant Lie derivative

$$\text{Ł}_\xi :=D\xi +\xi D.$$
(3.42)
Note that the energy-momentum current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ remains the same, only the force density $`X_\alpha `$ is replaced by $`\widehat{X}_\alpha `$. Now we will be able to show that the fourth axiom is exactly what is needed for an appropriate and consistent derivation of the conservation law for energy-momentum.

It is remarkable, in (3.40) \[or in (2.14)\] the energy-momentum current can be defined even if (3.40), as long as $`\widehat{X}_\alpha 0`$, doesn’t represent a conservation law. However, in order to find a genuine conservation law, we have to require that $`\widehat{X}_\alpha `$ vanishes. This cannot be achieved without some knowledge on the relation between excitation and field strength. Only this electromagnetic spacetime relation between $`H`$ and $`F`$, which we shall postulate as fifth axiom in (6.74), makes electrodynamics a complete theory. At first, however, we don’t want to commit ourselves to this axiom. We rather would like to exploit the arbitrary linear connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$, introduced above, as far as possible. As auxiliary quantities, attached to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$, we need the torsion 2-form $`T^\alpha :=D\vartheta ^\alpha =d\vartheta ^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }\vartheta ^\beta =T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\vartheta _{}^{\mu }\vartheta ^\nu /2`$ and the transposed connection 1-form $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+e_\alpha T^\beta `$.

Let us now consider the extra (supplementary, or offending) force density $`\widehat{X}_\alpha `$. What we need is the gauge covariant Lie derivative of an arbitrary 2-form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu \nu }\vartheta ^\mu \vartheta ^\nu /2`$ in terms of its components. Using (3.42), some algebra yields

$$\text{Ł}_{e_\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu \nu }\right)\vartheta ^\mu \vartheta ^\nu ,$$
(3.43)
where $`\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha :=e_\alpha \stackrel{}{D}`$, with $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ as the exterior covariant differential with respect to the transposed connection. Thus,

$$\widehat{X}_\alpha =\frac{1}{8}\left(H_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha H_{\mu \nu }\right)\vartheta ^\rho \vartheta ^\sigma \vartheta ^\mu \vartheta ^\nu ,$$
(3.44)
or, since $`\vartheta ^\rho \vartheta ^\sigma \vartheta ^\mu \vartheta ^\nu =ϵ^{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }ϵ`$, we find

$$\widehat{X}_\alpha =\frac{ϵ}{8}ϵ^{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }\left(H_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha H_{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(3.45)
This is as far as we can go with an arbitrary linear connection.

## 4 Linear spacetime relation, Abelian axion

In order to make electrodynamics a complete theory, eventually more detailed properties of spacetime have to come into play. We have to find a relationship between excitation $`H`$ and field strength $`F`$. We shall call it the electromagnetic spacetime relation.\**\**\** Truesdell & Toupin , Toupin , and Kovetz  call it “aether relations”. Following Toupin , Schönberg , Jadczyk , and the authors with Rubilar and Fukui , see also Gross & Rubilar , a linear relation is assumed between $`H`$ and $`F`$. In coordinate (natural) components, it reads

$$H_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}F_{kl}^{}.$$
(4.46)
Compare also Tamm  and Post  in this context. This linear spacetime relation postulates the existence of $`6\times 6`$ pseudo-scalar functions $`\kappa `$ with

$$\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}=\kappa _{ji}{}_{}{}^{kl}=\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{lk}.$$
(4.47)
We can alternatively introduce

$$\chi ^{ijkl}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijmn}\kappa _{mn}{}_{}{}^{kl}.$$
(4.48)
Its reciprocal reads

$$\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijmn}\chi ^{mnkl}.$$
(4.49)
The 36 functions $`\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}(\sigma ,x)`$ as well as the $`\chi ^{ijkl}(\sigma ,x)`$ depend on time $`\sigma `$ and on space $`x`$ in general. Because of the corresponding properties of the Levi-Civita symbol, the $`\chi ^{ijkl}`$ represent an untwisted tensor density of weight $`+1`$. As is clear from (4.46) and (4.49), the $`\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$ and the $`\chi ^{ijkl}`$ both carry the dimension $`[\kappa ]=[\chi ]=q^2/h`$.

With the linear law we can set up a Lagrange 4-form $`V`$. Because of $`H=V/F`$, the Lagrangian must be quadratic in $`F`$. Thus we find

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}HF={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H_{ij}F_{pq}dx^idx^jdx^pdx^q`$ (4.50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\chi ^{mnkl}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijmn}F_{kl}F_{pq}dx^idx^jdx^pdx^q.`$ (4.51)
We rewrite the exterior products with the Levi-Civita symbol. Then we have

$$V=\frac{1}{8}\chi ^{ijkl}F_{ij}F_{kl}dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3.$$
(4.52)
The components of the field strength $`F`$ enter in a symmetric way. Therefore, without loss of generality, we can impose the symmetry condition

$$\chi ^{ijkl}=\chi ^{klij}$$
(4.53)
reducing them to 21 independent functions at this stage.

Right now (still without a metric), we can split off the totally antisymmetric part of $`\chi ^{ijkl}`$ according to

$$\chi ^{ijkl}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{ijkl}+\alpha ϵ^{ijkl},\mathrm{with}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{[ijkl]}=0.$$
(4.54)
Here $`\alpha =\alpha (\sigma ,x)`$ is a pseudo-scalar function with the dimension $`[\alpha ]=q^2/h`$. Thus the linearity ansatz eventually reads

$$H_{ij}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijmn}\chi ^{mnkl}F_{kl}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijmn}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{mnkl}F_{kl}+\alpha F_{ij},$$
(4.55)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{mnkl}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{nmkl}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{mnlk}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{klmn}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{[mnkl]}=0.$$
(4.56)
Besides the Abelian axion field $`\alpha `$, we have 20 independent functions. Accordingly, the tensor $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{nmkl}`$ has the same algebraic symmetries and the same number of independent components as a curvature tensor in a 4-dimensional Riemannian spacetime. It is remarkable that the pseudo-scalar axion field $`\alpha `$, see  and references therein, enters here as a quantity that does not interfere at all with the first four axioms of electrodynamics. Already at the pre-metric level, such a field emerges as a not unnatural companion of the electromagnetic field. However, to make it a real independent field, kinetic terms $`d\alpha `$ would have to be added to the Lagrange 4-form $`V`$.

Alternatively, the linear relation (4.55) can be reformulated as

$$H_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}F_{kl}^{}+\alpha F_{ij},$$
(4.57)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}`$ (speak “sharp tilde”) is a certain duality operator which acts linearly in the space of two-forms,

$${}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2X\mathrm{\Lambda }^2X.$$
(4.58)
In particular, the action on the basis of 2-forms reads:

$${}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}(dx^idx^j)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{kl}{}_{}{}^{ij}(dx^kdx^l)=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{klmn}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{mnij}(dx^kdx^l).$$
(4.59)
We display the duality operator as a superscript $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$. However, in its components $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{ij}^{kl}`$, the sharp sign is treated like an ordinary letter.

Now the linear material law (4.55) can be written as

$$H=\left({}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}+\alpha \right)F.$$
(4.60)
## 5 Electric-magnetic reciprocity of the spacetime relation

If we exploit the linear relationship between excitation and field strength and substitute it in the Maxwell equations, we end up  with the propagation of the electromagnetic disturbances in vacuum spacetime along quartic wave surfaces, for related work see . Accordingly, spacetime would be birefringent , for instance, a property which seems to be contrary to experiment, at least at in our part of the universe. If, say, at a very early time in the development of the universe the vacuum were birefringent, then we had already a consistent theory for such an effect, namely the one we formulated in the last section.

If we want to forbid birefingence for vacuum spacetime, then we can try to impose a constraint on the linear relationship (4.60). The obvious choice is to require electric-magnetic reciprocity for (4.60). We have discovered e-m reciprocity as a property of the energy-momentum current $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ of the electromagnetic field. Why should’t we apply it to (4.60)?

The e-m reciprocity transformation

$$H\zeta F,F\frac{1}{\zeta }H,$$
(5.61)
can alternatively be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ F\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \zeta \\ \frac{1}{\zeta }& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ F\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta F\\ \frac{1}{\zeta }H\end{array}\right).$$
(5.62)
If

$$W:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \zeta \\ \frac{1}{\zeta }& 0\end{array}\right),\text{then}W^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \zeta \\ \frac{1}{\zeta }& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5.63)
Let us perform an e-m reciprocity transformation in (4.60). By definition, the reciprocity transformation commutes with the duality operator $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$. Then we find

$$\zeta F=\left({}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}+\alpha \right)(\frac{H}{\zeta })\text{or}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}H=\zeta ^2F\alpha H.$$
(5.64)
On the other hand, we can also apply the duality operator $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$ to (4.60). Because $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$ commutes with 0-forms, we get

$${}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}H=({}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}+\alpha {}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}})F.$$
(5.65)
If we postulate e-m reciprocity of the linear law (4.60), then, as a comparison of (5.65) and (5.64) shows, we have to assume additionally

$${}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}=\zeta ^2𝕀,\alpha =0.$$
(5.66)
We call $`{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}=\zeta ^2𝕀`$ the closure relation since applying the operator $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$ twice, we come back to the identity operator $`𝕀`$ (= $`\delta _{kl}^{ij}`$, in components), up to a negative function. In this sense, the operation closes. At the same time, (5.66) tells us that the spacetime relation is not e-m reciprocal for an arbitrary transformation function $`\zeta `$ (like the energy-momentum current is). The duality operator $`^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}`$ is based on the measurable components $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{ijkl}`$. If applied twice, as in (5.66), there must not emerge an arbitrary function. In other words, we can solve (5.66)1, by taking its trace, to get

$$\zeta ^2=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{Tr}({}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}})=\frac{1}{24}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{kl}{}_{}{}^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{kl}=:\lambda ^2.$$
(5.67)
It is natural to factorize the dimensionfull function $`\lambda `$ in the constitutive matrix (4.54)-(4.57) which yields a representation

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{ijkl}=\lambda \stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }^{ijkl}$$
(5.68)
so that $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }^{ijkl}`$ is now the dimensionless tensor with the same symmetries as in (4.56). This effectively redefines the duality operator

$$^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\#}}}=:\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}},$$
(5.69)
and for # the closure reads

$$^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\#}}=𝕀.$$
(5.70)
As we will see, the minus sign is very decisive: It will eventually yield the Lorentzian signature of the metric of spacetime.

Let us collect our results. The e-m reciprocity of the linear ansatz leads to the relations

$$H=\lambda ^\mathrm{\#}F\text{and}^\mathrm{\#}H=\lambda F.$$
(5.71)
We can also consider the duality operator # from another point of view. It is our desire to eventually describe empty spacetime with such a linear ansatz. Therefore we have to reduce the number of independent functions $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }^{ijkl}`$ somehow. The only constants with even parity are the Kronecker deltas $`\delta _i^j`$. Obviously the $`\delta _i^j`$’s are of no help here in specifying the $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }^{ijkl}`$’s, since they carry also lower indices which cannot be absorbed in a non-trivial way in order to bring about the 4 upper indices of $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }^{ijkl}`$. Recognizing that in the framework of electrodynamics in matter a similar linear ansatz can describe anisotropic media, we need a condition in order to exclude so-called non-reciprocal effects. A “square” of $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }`$ will do the job,

$$\frac{1}{8}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }{}_{}{}^{ijkl}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{\chi }{}_{}{}^{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{klmn}^{}\widehat{ϵ}_{pqrs}=\delta _{rs}^{ij},$$
(5.72)
with $`\delta _{rs}^{ij}`$ as a generalized Kronecker delta. This equation represents, together the linearity ansatz, our fifth axiom for spacetime. Alternatively, it can also be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\#}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}\mathrm{\#}_{kl}^{}{}_{}{}^{mn}=\delta _{ij}^{mn}.$$
(5.73)
Apparently, the equations (5.66) or (5.72) and (5.73), being consequences of e-m reciprocity, are just alternative formulations of the closure property.

## 6 Fifth axiom, the construction of the metric

The linear spacetime relation $`H=(\lambda ^\mathrm{\#}+\alpha )F`$, see (4.60) and (5.69), together with the constraints $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\#}}=1`$ and $`\alpha =0`$, see (5.66), constitute our fifth axiom of electrodynamics. Since the dimensions of $`H`$ and $`F`$ are fixed, the unknown scalar function $`\lambda `$ is to be determined by experiment (like all of the components of the electromagnetic spacetime matrix). Thus our axiom reads

$$H=\lambda ^\mathrm{\#}F,\text{with}^{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\#}}=1.$$
(6.74)
The closure relation (6.74)2 affects the quartic wave surface mentioned at the beginning of Sec. 5. The wave surface reduces to the usual light cone surface. Thus, eventually, the closure relation yields the unique lightcone structure for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. As a result, up to a conformal factor, the spacetime metric $`g`$ with the correct Lorentzian signature is constructed by means of the fifth axiom. Our duality operator becomes the Hodge star operator  with respect to the metric $`g`$, see , i.e., the fifth axiom becomes

$$H=\lambda {}_{}{}^{}F.$$
(6.75)
For $`\lambda =const`$, we will call (6.75) the Maxwell-Lorentz spacetime relation. Only a constant $`\lambda `$ will provide for the vanishing of the extra force density (3.45).

The numerical value of the constant factor in (6.75) is fixed by experiment:

$$\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon _0}{\mu _0}}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi \alpha _\mathrm{f}\mathrm{}}=2.6544187283\frac{1}{k\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(6.76)
Here $`e`$ is the charge of the electron and $`\alpha _\mathrm{f}=1/137.036`$ the fine structure constant. The inverse $`1/\lambda `$ is called the characteristic impedance (or wave resistance) of the vacuum. This is a fundamental constant which describes the basic electromagnetic property of spacetime if considered as a special type of medium (sometimes called vacuum, or aether, in the old terminology). In this sense, one can understand (6.75) as the constitutive relations for the spacetime itself. The Maxwell-Lorentz spacetime relation (6.75) is universal. It is equally valid in Minkowski, Riemannian, and post-Riemannian spacetimes. The electric constant $`\epsilon _0`$ and the magnetic constant $`\mu _0`$ (also called vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability, respectively) determine the universal constant of nature

$$c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon _0\mu _0}}$$
(6.77)
that describes the velocity of light in vacuum.

If (6.75) is substituted into the Maxwell equations, we find the Maxwell-Lorentz equations

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F=J/\lambda ,dF=0$$
(6.78)
of standard electrodynamics.

## 7 Symmetry of the energy-momentum current of the electromagnetic field

If the spacetime metric $`g`$ is given, then there exists a unique torsion-free and metric-compatible Levi-Civita connection $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha ^\beta `$. Consider the conservation law (3.40). In a Riemannian space, the covariant Lie derivative $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Ł}}_\xi =\stackrel{~}{D}\xi +\xi \stackrel{~}{D}`$ commutes with the Hodge operator, $`\stackrel{~}{\text{Ł}}_\xi {}_{}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{Ł}}_{\xi }^{}`$. Thus (3.41) straightforwardly yields

$$\widehat{X}_\alpha =\frac{\lambda }{2}\left({}_{}{}^{}F\stackrel{~}{\text{Ł}}_{e_\alpha }FF\stackrel{~}{\text{Ł}}_{e_\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}F\right)=0.$$
(7.79)
Therefore in general relativity (GR), with the Maxwell-Lorentz spacetime relation, (3.40) simply reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=(e_\alpha F)J.$$
(7.80)
The energy-momentum current (2.15) now reads

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=\frac{\lambda }{2}[F(e_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}F)(e_\alpha F){}_{}{}^{}F].$$
(7.81)
In the absence of sources, $`J=0`$, we find the energy-momentum law

$$\stackrel{~}{D}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=0.$$
(7.82)
In the flat Minkowski spacetime of SR, we can globally choose the coordinates in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=0`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{}{=}d`$ and $`d{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=0`$.

As we already know from (3.22), the current (7.81) is traceless $`\vartheta ^\alpha {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=0`$. Moreover, we now can use the metric and prove also its symmetry. We multiply (7.81) by $`\vartheta _\beta =g_{\beta \gamma }\vartheta ^\gamma `$ and antisymmetrize:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\lambda }}\vartheta _{[\beta }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha ]}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\vartheta _\beta F(e_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}F)\vartheta _\beta (e_\alpha F)^{}F`$ (7.84)
$`\vartheta _\alpha F(e_\beta {}_{}{}^{}F)+\vartheta _\alpha (e_\beta F)^{}F.`$
Because of the identities $`e_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta _\alpha )`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }={}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (for all $`p`$-forms $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$), the first term on the right-hand side can be rewritten,

$`\vartheta _\beta F(e_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}F)`$ $`=`$ $`F\vartheta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{}(\vartheta _\beta F)`$ (7.85)
$`=`$ $`F\vartheta _\alpha (e_\beta {}_{}{}^{}F),`$ (7.86)
i.e., it is compensated by the third term. We apply the analogous technique to the second term. Because $`{}_{}{}^{}F=F`$, we have

$`\vartheta _\beta {}_{}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}F\vartheta _\alpha ){}_{}{}^{}F`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}F\vartheta _\alpha )\vartheta _\beta {}_{}{}^{}F`$ (7.87)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}(\vartheta _\beta {}_{}{}^{}F){}_{}{}^{}F\vartheta _\alpha `$ (7.88)
$`=`$ $`\vartheta _\alpha (e_\beta F)^{}F.`$ (7.89)
In other words, the second term is compensated by the fourth one and we finally have

$$\vartheta _{[\beta }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha ]}^{}=0.$$
(7.90)
Alternatively, we can work with the energy-momentum tensor. We decompose the 3-form $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ with respect to the $`\eta `$-basis. This is now possible since a metric is available. Because of $`\vartheta ^\alpha \eta _\gamma =\delta _\gamma ^\alpha \eta `$, with the volume 4-form $`\eta =\sqrt{detg_{\mu \nu }}\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}`$, we find

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}=:{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\eta _{\beta }^{}\text{or}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}={}_{}{}^{}(\vartheta _\beta {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}),$$
(7.91)
compare this with (3.37)-(3.38). We have

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}𝒯_{\alpha \beta }^{}/\sqrt{g}.$$
(7.92)
Its tracelessness $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }=0`$ has already been established, see (3.38), its symmetry

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{[\alpha \beta ]}^{}=0$$
(7.93)
can be either read off from (7.91) and (7.90) or directly from (3.39) with $`^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijkl}H_{kl}F^{ij}`$. A manifestly symmetric version of the energy-momentum tensor can be derived from (3.37) and (7.81):

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\lambda {}_{}{}^{}[{}_{}{}^{}(e_\alpha F)(e_\beta F)+\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }({}_{}{}^{}FF)].$$
(7.94)
Thus $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ is a traceless symmetric tensor(-valued 0-form) with 9 independent components. Its symmetry is sometimes called a bastard symmetry since it interrelates two indices of totally different origin, as can be seen from (7.90). Without using a metric, the symmetry cannot even be formulated, see (2.15).

## 8 Concluding remarks

The energy-momentum current

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}:=\frac{1}{2}[F(e_\alpha H)H(e_\alpha F)],$$
(8.95)
emerging in the context of the fourth axiom, fulfills all the desirable physical properties. If the Maxwell-Lorentz spacetime relation $`H=\sqrt{\epsilon _0/\mu _0}^{}F`$ is substituted, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ becomes symmetric and the conventional energy-momentum tensor for vacuum electrodynamics is recovered. In a future paper, we will discuss the consequences $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}`$ has for a consistently formulated energy-momentum current inside matter. We hope to clarify certain aspects of this age-old problem.

Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the DAAD (Kennziffer A/00/06508) and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn. We are grateful for this support.


text:
# Systematic Study of Au-Au Collisions with AGS Experiment E917

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In just the last year, center-of-mass energies reached in heavy ion collisions have increased by more than an order of magnitude over those previously attained at the AGS. Nevertheless, several outstanding issues remain in the AGS energy regime. The characterization of the evolution of the initial-state nucleons can be studied through the spectra and rapidity distribution of protons. The mechanisms underlying the production of strange and anti-strange quarks may be investigated through the examination of the yields and spectral shapes of $`\varphi `$ mesons, antilambdas, and antiprotons.

## 2 EXPERIMENT

E917 is the last in the E802/E859/E866 series of heavy ion experiments that were performed at the AGS. The E917 apparatus consisted of a series of beam counters, a beam vertexing detector, a multiplicity array surrounding the target, a hodoscope, a zero-degree calorimeter, and a movable spectrometer composed of drift chambers, magnet, and time-of-flight wall. The calorimeter and multiplicity array were used to determine collision centrality, while the spectrometer was used for tracking and particle identification. Detailed descriptions of the equipment can be found in .

## 3 PROTON YIELDS

The invariant yields of protons were determined from 6, 8, and 10.8 GeV/nucleon Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse mass ($`m_T=\sqrt{m_0^2+p_T^2}`$). The data were fit with a Boltzmann function over ten rapidity intervals. Rapidity distributions ($`dN/dy`$) were extracted for five centrality classes at each beam energy and are presented in Figure 1.

Two qualitative features emerge from the data. First, a smooth evolution in shape from concave for the most peripheral event class ($`39\%77/81\%`$) to convex for the most central ($`05\%`$) is evident at all beam energies. Second, the $`dN/dy`$ curves are not well-described by a singly-peaked function, but rather are consistent with a bimodal distribution, even for the most central events. The nature of this double-peak has been quantified by fitting the curves with a Gaussian distribution reflected about mid-rapidity . The persistence of bimodal shape for even the most central events suggests that complete stopping is not achieved at AGS energies, and that the longitudinal rapidity distribution is a result of transparency.

## 4 ANTILAMBDA/ANTIPROTON RATIO

A measurement of the ratio of antilambdas ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) to directly produced antiprotons ($`\overline{p}_{direct}`$) allows us to indirectly compare the ratio of $`\overline{s}`$ quarks to light anti-quarks ($`\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{d}`$). Theoretical predictions for this quantity range from $`0.9`$ from thermal models  to $`1.3`$ in the RQMD cascade model .

Invariant mass spectra for accepted $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ pairs were constructed for bins in $`m_T`$ and $`y`$ for both central ($`012\%`$) and peripheral ($`1277\%`$) collisions at a beam energy of $`10.8`$ GeV/nucleon for events which contained at least one $`\overline{p}`$ in the spectrometer. An event-mixed background was normalized to the mass region outside the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ peak, defined as lying more than 6 standard deviations away from the nominal $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ mass. The yield was determined by subtracting the number of $`\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ pairs which lie within 3 standard deviations of the peak from those in the background. Since a significant number of the observed antiprotons are produced by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ decay, both $`m_T`$ spectra were simultaneously fit with Boltzmann functions, as described in . This fit procedure yields values for $`dN/dy_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}_{direct}`$, and the inverse slopes for each.

We find that the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio increases from $`0.26_{.15}^{+.19}_{.4}^{+.5}`$ in peripheral events to $`3.6_{1.8}^{+4.7}_{1.1}^{+2.7}`$ in central events. This is consistent with an earlier indirect estimate which combined different results for the $`\overline{p}`$ yield from the E864 and E878 experiments, under the assumption that the difference was due to different acceptances for $`\overline{p}`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ feed-down .

## 5 PHI MESON YIELDS

The $`\varphi `$ meson is the lightest bound state of two strange quarks ($`s\overline{s}`$); it is therefore a useful probe of the strangeness produced in the reaction. It’s properties may also be sensitive to in-medium modifications of meson properties.

$`\varphi `$ mesons were reconstructed from $`K^+K^{}`$ pairs in the data in a similar fashion to that of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The $`\varphi `$ $`m_T`$ spectra were fit with exponential functions, and the yields were extracted over the rapidity range $`1.2y1.6`$ for five different centrality classes. The absolute yields as a function of centrality have been previously reported . Figure 3 shows the $`\varphi `$ yield divided by $`N_{pp}`$, the number of projectile participants, as a function of $`N_{pp}`$. The $`\varphi /N_{pp}`$ ratio increases by a factor of $`2.5`$ from peripheral to central collisions, which demonstrates that $`\varphi `$ mesons are produced through collective phenomena, and not just a simple superposition of individual nucleon-nucleon reactions. Displayed in Figure 3 is the $`\varphi /K^+`$ ratio as a function of $`N_{pp}`$, where it is evident that the ratio is independent of centrality.

## 6 SUMMARY

E917 has studied the systematics of baryon stopping, and the production of $`\varphi `$ mesons, antilambdas, and antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at 6, 8, and 10.8 GeV/nucleon. These studies indicate that the colliding nuclei are not fully stopped, and that secondary interactions play a significant role in $`\varphi `$ production. The large increase in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\overline{p}`$ ratio from peripheral to central collisions remains unexplained by theory.