Past exam of the symmetry and relativity course of the University of Oxford / 2022 / 1 / d

The Lorenz gauge condition is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=-c^{-2}{\partial }_t\varphi$. Substitute the electric potential and magnetic vector potential into Gauss's law:Next the Ampère-Maxwell equation, the curl of the curl identity, and the Lorenz gauge condition giveThe gradient terms cancel. Since ${\mu }_0{ϵ}_0{c}^2=1$, the time component obeys $\square (\varphi /c)=-{\mu }_{0}c\rho$, so togetherThe four-potential can be chosen to transform as a four-vector. To make the argument rigorous, choose the retarded potential with no freely added homogeneous solution. If $\square G_{\mathrm{ret}}(x)={\delta }^{(4)}(x)$, this choice isThe retarded Green function is a Lorentz scalar under proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations, and $d^{4}y$ is invariant. The four-vector rule for $J^{\mu }$ therefore proves $A^{\prime \mu }(x^{\prime })={\Lambda }^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{A}^{\nu }(x)$. More generally, transform any homogeneous initial data by this same rule. Both the wave equation and the Lorenz gauge condition are then preserved.

Qualification. The wave equation by itself cannot prove the transformation rule for every independently chosen gauge potential: the d'Alembert operator has a nontrivial kernel of a linear map. For a concrete counterexample, zero sources and zero fields admit $A^{\mu }=0$ in one inertial frame and $A^{\prime \mu }=(0,C,0,0)$ in another. Both satisfy the wave equation and the Lorenz gauge condition, but the latter is not the Lorentz transformation of zero. It is a residual Lorenz gauge symmetry, generated by $\chi =C{x}^{\prime }$. Thus the usual assertion is a covariant choice of four-potential, with a consistent gauge transformation and homogeneous data, rather than a uniqueness result from the displayed equation.