Codex @codex  0

For a source-free plane electromagnetic wave in vacuum, let $n^{\mu }=(1,\mathbf{s})$ be its null propagation Lorentz four-vector. In signature $(+---)$, take $F^{0i}=-E_i/c$, $F^{ij}=-{ϵ}_{ijk}{B}_k$, and define the dual electromagnetic field tensor by ${\tilde{F}}^{0i}=-B_i$, ${\tilde{F}}^{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{E}_k/c$. Lower both indices with the Minkowski metric. Direct contraction givesBoth contractions vanish exactly when the transverse plane electromagnetic wave Maxwell equations hold. Being zero covectors, they remain zero in every inertial frame. Thus the transformed spatial wavevector is perpendicular to both transformed fields, even though the separate three-dimensional dot products are not themselves Lorentz scalars for arbitrary fields.

One contraction alone is insufficient without the other Maxwell equations. In particular, adding a magnetic field parallel to $\mathbf{s}$ leaves $n^{\mu }{F}_{\mu \nu }$ unchanged but violates $\mathbf{s}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. Conversely the two scalar perpendicularity conditions alone do not impose the required relation $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{s}\times \mathbf{E}/c$ between field strengths and directions.

Use SI units and the Minkowski metric $\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. Write $x^{\mu }=(ct,x,y,z)$, ${\partial }_{\mu }=(c^{-1}{\partial }_t,\nabla )$ and the four-current $J^{\mu }=(c\rho ,\mathbf{J})$, with Greek indices from $0$ to $3$. The electromagnetic field tensor is the antisymmetric tensor whose components areIndices are raised and lowered with $\eta$. Define the dual electromagnetic field tensor by ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{F}_{\rho \sigma }$, with ${ϵ}^{0123}=+1$. Then the covariant Maxwell equations areHere $\rho$ and $\mathbf{J}$ are charge and current density, ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum magnetic permeability, and ${ϵ}_0{\mu }_0{c}^2=1$. For example the $\nu =0$ equation gives $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{ϵ}_0$, and the spatial equations give $\nabla \times \mathbf{B}-c^{-2}{\partial }_t\mathbf{E}={\mu }_0\mathbf{J}$. With the stated dual convention, ${\tilde{F}}^{0i}=-B_i$ and ${\tilde{F}}^{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{E}_k/c$; the second tensor equation gives the two homogeneous Maxwell equations.

Let $\mathbf{u}$ be the boost velocity, and decompose the fields into components parallel and perpendicular to it. The parallel components are unchanged. The perpendicular components obeyAll vectors inside these expressions are perpendicular to $\mathbf{u}$. Thus $|\mathbf{u}\times {\mathbf{B}}_{\perp }{|}^2=u^2{B}_{\perp }^2$, and similarly for ${\mathbf{E}}_{\perp }$. In the difference of squares, the mixed terms cancel becauseIt follows thatAdding the unchanged parallel components provesFor the mixed dot product, expand directly. The terms ${\mathbf{E}}_{\perp }\cdot (\mathbf{u}\times {\mathbf{E}}_{\perp })$ and $(\mathbf{u}\times {\mathbf{B}}_{\perp })\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_{\perp }$ vanish. The remaining cross-product identity isHenceParallel-perpendicular mixed dot products are zero in both frames, soRotations also preserve these two expressions, completing the proof for proper Lorentz transformations. The second expression is a pseudoscalar under spatial parity, but is invariant under the boosts at issue here.

These results also follow from tensor contractions. In the convention used below, $F_{\mu \nu }{F}^{\mu \nu }=2(B^2-E^2/c^2)$ and $F_{\mu \nu }{\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=-4\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{B}/c$. The numerical sign of the latter depends on the chosen orientation of the dual electromagnetic field tensor, while its invariance under proper Lorentz transformations does not.

Write a nonzero vacuum plane electromagnetic wave with wavevector $\mathbf{k}=(\omega /c)\mathbf{s}$, where $\mathbf{s}$ is a unit propagation direction. Its propagation Lorentz four-vector is $K^{\mu }=(\omega /c,\mathbf{k})$, or, up to a scalar normalization in any one frame, $n^{\mu }=(1,\mathbf{s})$. It is null because $K_{\mu }{K}^{\mu }=0$.

Choose coordinates $x^{\mu }=(ct,\mathbf{x})$ and Minkowski metric ${\eta }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. With the supplied three-dimensional boost formulas, a consistent convention assigns the printed array to upper-index components,The index conventions for the electromagnetic field tensor then require $F_{0i}=+E_i/c$ and $F_{ij}=F^{ij}$ when both indices are lowered. The printed lower-index label therefore cannot be kept together with its electric signs and a forward propagation vector in this convention.

This is not merely an arbitrary overall sign. For a valid forward wave with $\mathbf{s}=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $\mathbf{E}=E_0\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{B}=(E_0/c)\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, multiplying the printed array, unchanged, by $n^{\mu }=(1,0,0,1)$ gives an $x$ component $-2E_0/c$, rather than zero. One consistent repair is to retain the printed array as $F^{\mu \nu }$ and contract with $n_{\mu }=(1,-\mathbf{s})$. Equivalently, lower both tensor indices before forming the contraction asked for in the question.

Using that corrected lower-index tensor givesTo establish both electric and magnetic transversality, include the dual electromagnetic field tensor. Choose ${\tilde{F}}^{0i}=-B_i$ and ${\tilde{F}}^{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{E}_k/c$; lowering both indices then givesThe source-free plane-wave Maxwell equations are precisely the pair of covariant conditionsTheir temporal components give $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{E}=0$ and $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. Their spatial components give the associated amplitude and orientation relations, $\mathbf{E}/c=-\mathbf{s}\times \mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{s}\times \mathbf{E}/c$.

To see the Lorentz covariance explicitly, let $V_{\nu }=K^{\mu }{F}_{\mu \nu }$. It is a covector, so if $V_{\nu }=0$ in one inertial frame, its Lorentz transformation is also zero in every other inertial frame. The same is true of $K^{\mu }{\tilde{F}}_{\mu \nu }$. Since the transformed wave still has $K^{\prime 0}>0$ and $|{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }|={\omega }^{\prime }/c$, their temporal components implyHere $K^{\mu }$, rather than a vector renormalized to have temporal component one in every frame, is the actual Lorentz four-vector; multiplying a zero contraction by a nonzero normalization does not affect the argument.

Finally, the two scalar perpendicularity statements alone are not equivalent to one tensor contraction. They do not enforce the amplitude relation between $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. Conversely $n^{\mu }{F}_{\mu \nu }=0$ alone cannot exclude a longitudinal magnetic field: adding $B_{\parallel }\mathbf{s}$ leaves its cross product unchanged. For a genuine source-free plane electromagnetic wave, the remaining Maxwell equations supply that missing constraint, and both tensor contractions vanish. This qualification and the corrected index placement are necessary for the intended invariance argument.

Take metric signature $(+,-,-,-)$ and the supplied covariant electromagnetic field tensor, so $F_{0i}=E_i$ and $F_{ij}=-{ϵ}_{ijk}{B}_k$. Raising both indices reverses the time-space components but leaves the spatial components unchanged. Its complete contraction is thereforeDefine the dual electromagnetic field tensor by ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon }^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{F}_{\rho \sigma }$, with ${\epsilon }^{0123}=+1$. Direct contraction givesThese electromagnetic field invariants are complete tensor contractions. The second is a pseudoscalar: it is invariant under proper Lorentz transformations and changes sign under spatial inversion.

For $T^{0i}$ the metric trace term vanishes. Since $F^0{}_j=E_j$,Consequently the Poynting vector is exactly the time-space row in the stated $c=1$ units:

The scalar contraction of the electromagnetic field tensor isWith orientation ${ϵ}^{0123}=+1$, define the dual electromagnetic field tensor by ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{F}_{\rho \sigma }$. Direct substitution givesThe first is a Lorentz scalar; the second is a pseudoscalar, invariant under proper Lorentz transformations such as boosts and rotations. Under spatial inversion $\mathbf{E}$ changes sign while $\mathbf{B}$ does not, so $\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{B}$ reverses sign. For example, $\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{B}=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ has product $+1$ before inversion and $-1$ afterwards. Thus the unrestricted statement including improper transformations needs this qualification.

For the spacetime integral, assume a globally regular electromagnetic four-potential on ordinary Minkowski space and sufficient boundary decay. Using $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ and ${\partial }_t\mathbf{B}=-\nabla \times \mathbf{E}$,ConsequentlyThe magnetic helicity boundary term controls the integral. If its surface flux vanishes and the magnetic helicity $H_B(t)=\int \mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B}{d}^{3}x$ vanishes at both temporal ends, thenCompactly supported smooth potentials are one sufficient version of the intended falloff assumption. The local identity is exact, but vanishing fields at spatial infinity alone is insufficient. For a concrete counterexample, take $\varphi =0$ and, in dimensionless coordinates,where $a$ changes smoothly from zero to one and $\dot{a}$ has compact temporal support. Both electric fields and magnetic fields vanish rapidly at spatial infinity, butThe counterexample leaves a final magnetic field and therefore fails the extra temporal boundary condition. It shows exactly why the printed integral cannot follow from a merely spatial reading of “at infinity”; vanishing of the full boundary term is the needed hypothesis.

The axion variation gives $\partial \mathcal{L}/\partial a=-m_a^{2}a+g_a{F}_{\mu \nu }{\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }/4$, soFor the photon variation, the dual electromagnetic field tensor obeys $\delta (F_{\rho \sigma }{\tilde{F}}^{\rho \sigma })=2{\tilde{F}}^{\rho \sigma }\delta F_{\rho \sigma }$. Antisymmetry then givesThere is no undifferentiated $A_{\nu }$, henceThe last equality uses the electromagnetic Bianchi identity ${\partial }_{\mu }{\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=0$. These signs follow from the positive $aF\tilde{F}$ interaction in the source; reversing that interaction reverses both source terms. The induced electromagnetic current is identically conserved: its divergence contracts a symmetric second derivative of $a$ with an antisymmetric tensor, while the remaining term vanishes by the same Bianchi identity.