Electromagnetic Field & Space-Time: Relationship Explained

In summary: Being a manifold means that the metric can be computed explicitly (and is usually is). A manifold is a mathematical structure on which certain mathematical operations (like smooth maps) can be performed without having to first specify the coordinates. Being represented by a manifold means that the structure is an adequate model for the data.I Summoned up Feynman's ghost to interpret for me. He says this:"The guy is basically saying: Spacetime is the sheet of rubber and the EM field is the static on the sheet. Things move sometimes because the sheet is curved and sometimes because of the static and very often because of both!"Spacetime is not a "thing" that gets "mapped" by us
  • #1
crastinus
78
9
What is the relationship between the electromagnetic field and space-time? I am basically assuming that space-time is one big gravitational field.

Is there a relationship between space-time and the field (I presume) created by the strong force (however negligible it may be at any significant distance)?

I am in particular wondering whether there is one big EM field that is everywhere in space or something else. I googled around and got only some papers that were way beyond me.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Don't assume things. 🤭

Spacetime is a manifold together with a metric, and the electromagnetic field is an antisymmetric tensor field ##F_{ab}## defined on the manifold. The stress tensor ##T_{ab}## depends on ##F_{ab}## and is related to the curvature of spacetime by Einstein's equation.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #3
Assumptions are so much fun, though! :)
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical
  • #4
I can honestly say that I'm still trying to decipher what you said.

I summoned up Feynman's ghost to interpret for me. He says this:

"The guy is basically saying: Spacetime is the sheet of rubber and the EM field is the static on the sheet. Things move sometimes because the sheet is curved and sometimes because of the static and very often because of both!"

Snarky replies welcome, of course. (But they have to use LaTeX!)
 
  • #5
There have been attempts to make electromagnetism a part of spacetime geometry - Kaluza-Klein theory is one well known one. Unfortunately they've never worked - Kaluza-Klein successfully combines gravity and electromagnetism, but predicts an extra field that would be glaringly obvious if it existed.

Spacetime is the "background" on which the other fields do their thing. Don't take that Feynman quote too literally, but it's a decent enough attempt at explaining the distinction.
 
  • #6
crastinus said:
I can honestly say that I'm still trying to decipher what you said.

The intent of the B/I/A header is to try and avoid that, and to provide answers that don't need deciphering. As you saw, results are mixed.

crastinus said:
I am basically assuming that space-time is one big gravitational field.
Don't think of space-time (or space, or time) as "made up" of anything. Any correct insight that this provides is more than compensated for by the number of wrong conclusions you can draw. It's better to think of it as a way of labeling where and when events happen (x,y,z and t). But the events matter more than the labeling.
crastinus said:
I am in particular wondering whether there is one big EM field that is everywhere in space
A field is something that has a value at every point in space and time. That value may be zero. But the field is not the coordinate system used to label events.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Imager and Dale
  • #7
@Vanadium 50 it's wrong to think of spacetime as a way of labelling where and when events happen, because there is not a unique way to cover ##M## with charts ##(\mathscr{U}_{\alpha}, \phi_{\alpha} )##; the only concepts defined by the manifold structure are those independent of any coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, cmb and Delta2
  • #8
ergospherical said:
it's wrong to think of spacetime as a way of labelling where and when events happen
No it isn't, that's exactly WHAT spacetime is. It's literally a mathematical model that labels all events. If you think of spacetime as anything else, then I'd love to hear it.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #9
romsofia said:
No it isn't, that's exactly WHAT spacetime is. It's literally a mathematical model that labels all events.
No, that's not spacetime, that's a coordinate chart (and as has already been pointed out, there is no one unique coordinate chart for any given spacetime geometry). Spacetime is the geometric object in which the events are points; but the events don't come with any intrinsic "labeling" by numbers. If something of interest happens at an event (e.g., "observer A received a light signal from observer B"), you can use that happening as a way of referencing the event, but not all events (points in spacetime) have something of interest happening at them.
 
  • #10
To help myself understand the difficulty here, since I'm the OP, I think the question discussed in the last coupled of posts is this:

"Is spacetime itself a map or is it the thing that gets mapped by us in some way?"

Is that the question you guys are discussing? Or something else?

What is the difference between being a manifold and being represented by a manifold? (I do have some notion of what a manifold is, by the way.)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
The way GR models gravity is to propose that all events (an event is a place at a particular time) form a manifold, one with a metric with a particular signature and whose curvature is directly or indirectly responsible for all the phenomena we call gravity. Typically we label all events in a systematic way, assigning four numbers we call coordinates to each one.

The argument seems to be whether this process of labelling events is part of the definition of spacetime or not. I'd go with no - spacetime is all events and the labelling is an extra system that we impose because it's useful.

To answer your last question, the difference between being a manifold and being represented by a manifold is philosophical. Formally, we build mathematical models and associate entities in those models with physical experience. So the mathematical object, the manifold, represents whatever spacetime is. I think this is the correct formalism, not least because someone may come along with a theory of quantum gravity in which spacetime is modeled by something else. Spacetime doesn't change when we revise our models, but the representation can do.

On the other hand, "spacetime is a manifold" is a lot shorter to type. You should just keep in the back of your mind the rather pedantic thought that any "x is a y" statement in science would be more precisely stated as "in our model x is represented by a y".
 
  • Like
Likes KosKallah, vanhees71, Dale and 2 others
  • #12
crastinus said:
I think the question discussed in the last coupled of posts is this:

"Is spacetime itself a map or is it the thing that gets mapped by us in some way?"
Yes. The answer is that spacetime is the thing that gets mapped; coordinate charts are the maps.
 
  • #13
crastinus said:
Is that the question you guys are discussing? Or something else?
It's basically that, but the caveat is that they'd rather blast you with math which isn't physical. Coordinate charts aren't physical. Your question was a physical one in nature, and I took issue to how it was being approached. I, also, philosophically differ with them. This has been my stance since my first GR course, and it's a hill I die on, but that's for another thread.

Now, I realize it wasn't the time nor place for it, so in the spirt of PF I will answer your OP question to the best of my ability, and if you're more into the math-y answers than by all means tell me that, and I'll move on.

crastinus said:
What is the relationship between the electromagnetic field and space-time?
If you view this from the lens of general relativity, and I'm assuming you are since this is the relativity forum, the relationship between the E+M field and space-time can be described in the concept known as "minimal coupling". It's *mainly* a math procedure, but the result of it is physical (if you go through the procedure for the given field, this will always satisfy the equivalence principle, and general covariance). If you take your well known E+M relationships (those on a minkowski (flat) space time), and try to generalize them (riemannian (potentially curved) spacetime), what you'll see is that the relationships between your electromagnetic fields and potential don't change, and neither do your conservation laws.

But what DOES change? The dynamics of your electromagnetic fields. In other words, your Maxwell Equations become dependent on the geometry of your spacetime (seems kind of obvious, eh?).
crastinus said:
Is there a relationship between space-time and the field (I presume) created by the strong force (however negligible it may be at any significant distance)?
No, the relationship is simply that you take spacetime to be fundamental in general relativity. Spacetime exists, and things get coupled to the geometry. You can then talk about those relationships, but first you must ask "how does the (potential) geometry effect my dynamical equations?". As far as I'm aware, there is no physical system that doesn't care about the curvature/geometry of spacetime.

crastinus said:
I am in particular wondering whether there is one big EM field that is everywhere in space or something else. I googled around and got only some papers that were way beyond me.
Yes Sir! That's how you should think about it. However, if you want to be a relativist, you first have to think of your spacetime, then your E+M field comes next.

I do apologize for the inconvenience I have caused by having your thread shut down for a few days, as your question is a fun one to ponder when starting out in GR!
 
  • Like
Likes KosKallah
  • #14
romsofia said:
the caveat is that they'd rather blast you with math which isn't physical.
You were also doing that. See below.

(Note, btw, that the overly mathematical posts have been deleted from this thread.)

romsofia said:
Coordinate charts aren't physical.
Exactly. Which means that you, in your previous posts, by talking about how events are labeled, were focusing on the non-physical thing--the coordinates--instead of the physical thing--spacetime itself, the set of events. That's what you got pushback about.

Your latest post does focus on the actual physical things instead of the coordinates, which is good.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy

FAQ: Electromagnetic Field & Space-Time: Relationship Explained

What is an electromagnetic field?

An electromagnetic field is a physical field that is created by electrically charged particles and is responsible for the interaction between charged particles. It is composed of an electric field and a magnetic field, which are perpendicular to each other and propagate through space as electromagnetic waves.

How does an electromagnetic field interact with matter?

An electromagnetic field can interact with matter in several ways. It can exert a force on charged particles, causing them to move. It can also induce an electric current in conductive materials. Additionally, matter can absorb or reflect electromagnetic waves, depending on its properties.

What is the relationship between electromagnetic fields and space-time?

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space and time are intertwined and can be affected by the presence of massive objects. Electromagnetic fields also have an effect on space-time, as they can create distortions and curvatures in the fabric of space-time.

How are electromagnetic fields measured?

Electromagnetic fields can be measured using specialized instruments such as magnetometers and electromagnetic field meters. These devices can detect the strength and direction of the electric and magnetic fields at a specific location.

Are there any potential health risks associated with electromagnetic fields?

There is ongoing research on the potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, particularly from sources such as power lines and electronic devices. While there is currently no conclusive evidence that low-level exposure to electromagnetic fields is harmful, it is recommended to limit exposure as a precautionary measure.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
995
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top