Past exam of the symmetry and relativity course of the University of Oxford / 2019 / 3 / d

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.