upvote
> From a mathematician's point of view, yes, you should write the Maxwell field equations, at least to see it once, that way because you're showing a very low-level symmetry that even the differential forms approach doesn't get all the way to. Differential forms is a standard approach for general relativity, e.g. MTW.

While it's neat to write them all as one equation, I disagree that it's an enlightening perspective to learn. While it seems like writing Maxwell's equations in one equation instead of two is a step forward with even more symmetry, what is actually going on is that you are obscuring the most important part of Maxwell's equations: the gauge structure. Without this, it actually becomes much more hidden just how geometric electromagnetism is.

When you write Maxwell's equations as the pair `dF = 0`, `d*F = J`, the first of those two equations is exactly what tells you that this is a gauge theory, and thus may write `F = dA` where `A` is a vector potential. This vector potential then becomes the connection which defines a covariant derivative in a fibre bundle, and one then sees that charged particles follow geodesics now in spacetime, but in an enclosing fibre bundle. This is foundationally important to modern physics, and IMO obscured by writing Maxwell's equations as `∇F = J`

____

n.b. I'm not a particularly big fan of differential forms either, I think it leaves a lot to be desired, and it's super awkward to constantly have to pull out Hodge Duals every time you want to do something that involves the metric, but I'm also unconvinced that geometric algebra is the answer here.

reply
What interests a mathematician isn't 100% the same as what interests the physicist. All I'm saying is there is some math there that's interesting and people should see it once for the math.
reply
And then there are us engineers. I don't care much either way whether Maxwell's equations are ∇F = J or some other form, as long as it makes the problem easier to solve.

If I were in the GA Marketing Committee I'd publish a paper with suitably hand-picked worked examples where the vector approach is long and tedious, and GA version is short and sweet.

reply
I like this idea but I get the sinking feeling GA proponents don't really solve problems with GA. Like how Haskell advocates don't write programs and modular synth enthusiasts don't write music.
reply
Application of the Method of Moments to solve full wave formulation of Maxwell's equations. To derive the EFIE using maxwell's equations is a massive pain. With geometric algebra, all you need is ∇F = J and the MoM becomes a mechanical process.
reply
I guess I'd say my point though is that the gauge structure is the mathematically interesting part of Maxwell's equations. (i.e. the fact that `F` is a closed differential form).

Without it, I think it'd be of significantly less mathematical interest because it'd lose almost all of its geometric properties.

reply
There isn't just ONE interesting facet of this. There isn't just ONE mathematical formalism of a lot of these things. GA is just one of those approaches and you should see it just once, just like you should see the group structure and all of that as well. For most applications, the standard vector calculus approach is fine. But the math underlying all of this is full of richness and no one approach is the skeleton key.

Same with programming languages. Some people are like RUST RUST RUST and some are like C C C! I'm like, you guys only use one language?

reply
> pull out Hodge Duals every time you want to do something that involves the metric, but I'm also unconvinced that geometric algebra is the answer here.

I don't know, I recently tried to work out how the metric on vectors/1-forms induces a metric on higher-degree forms, and if the geometric product magically gives this for free I'd say it's a win (same for the Hodge star).

reply
Both differential forms and geometric algebra are awkward for that sort of thing. I'd just stick with abstract index notation most of the time.
reply
agreed, when you start needing the the hodge star, diff form loose quite a lot of their interest.

i'd add it's quite nice in string theories for RR fields and coupling to D-branes, where writing 10 anti-symmetrized indices quickly gets annoying.. and topological field theories..

reply
Note that by introducing the co-differential δ, you can write the Maxwell equations as a single expression (δ + d)F = J in the differential forms approach.

However, from the perspective of Yang-Mills theory, that's rather questionable as you're stitching together the Bianchi identity and the Yang-Mills equation for no particular reason.

reply
The space time approach with E as t wedge x and B as x wedge y is purely linear algebra, not differential forms.

As opposed to the weird GA form it actually makes the physically most meaningful symmetry (Lorentz transformations) explicit. That's why it's actually used in Physics.

Anti symmetric space time tensors are the absolute standard. Further formulations that reveal other aspects, dualities, symmetries are much more niche and specialized subjects and not how the subject should be taught when first encountering it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_class...

reply
One should teach the next generation the best way possible, and not turn them into conformists.

"Standards" are things to be overcome when they've outlived their prime.

Disparaging new ideas as "niche" and "specialised" when their explicit aspiration is to be better foundations is motivated reasoning.

reply
OK, well, MTW is a pretty standard GR textbook and it is often cited as a useful text on differential forms for math.
reply