## Generalizing Ampere’s law using geometric algebra.

The question I’d like to explore in this post is how Ampere’s law, the relationship between the line integral of the magnetic field to current (i.e. the enclosed current)
\label{eqn:flux:20}
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx \cdot \BH = -\int_A \ncap \cdot \BJ,

generalizes to geometric algebra where Maxwell’s equations for a statics configuration (all time derivatives zero) is
\label{eqn:flux:40}

where the multivector fields and currents are
\label{eqn:flux:60}
\begin{aligned}
F &= \BE + I \eta \BH \\
J &= \eta \lr{ c \rho – \BJ } + I \lr{ c \rho_\txtm – \BM }.
\end{aligned}

Here (fictitious) the magnetic charge and current densities that can be useful in antenna theory have been included in the multivector current for generality.

My presumption is that it should be possible to utilize the fundamental theorem of geometric calculus for expressing the integral over an oriented surface to its boundary, but applied directly to Maxwell’s equation. That integral theorem has the form
\label{eqn:flux:80}
\int_A d^2 \Bx \boldpartial F = \oint_{\partial A} d\Bx F,

where $$d^2 \Bx = d\Ba \wedge d\Bb$$ is a two parameter bivector valued surface, and $$\boldpartial$$ is vector derivative, the projection of the gradient onto the tangent space. I won’t try to explain all of geometric calculus here, and refer the interested reader to [1], which is an excellent reference on geometric calculus and integration theory.

The gotcha is that we actually want a surface integral with $$\spacegrad F$$. We can split the gradient into the vector derivative a normal component
\label{eqn:flux:160}

so
\label{eqn:flux:100}
=
\int_A d^2 \Bx \boldpartial F
+
\int_A d^2 \Bx \ncap \lr{ \ncap \cdot \spacegrad } F,

so
\label{eqn:flux:120}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx F
&=
\int_A d^2 \Bx \lr{ J – \ncap \lr{ \ncap \cdot \spacegrad } F } \\
&=
\int_A dA \lr{ I \ncap J – \lr{ \ncap \cdot \spacegrad } I F }
\end{aligned}

This is not nearly as nice as the magnetic flux relationship which was nicely split with the current and fields nicely separated. The $$d\Bx F$$ product has all possible grades, as does the $$d^2 \Bx J$$ product (in general). Observe however, that the normal term on the right has only grades 1,2, so we can split our line integral relations into pairs with and without grade 1,2 components
\label{eqn:flux:140}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\int_A dA \gpgrade{ I \ncap J }{0,3} \\
&=
\int_A dA \lr{ \gpgrade{ I \ncap J }{1,2} – \lr{ \ncap \cdot \spacegrad } I F }.
\end{aligned}

Let’s expand these explicitly in terms of the component fields and densities to check against the conventional relationships, and see if things look right. The line integrand expands to
\label{eqn:flux:180}
\begin{aligned}
d\Bx F
&=
d\Bx \lr{ \BE + I \eta \BH }
=
d\Bx \cdot \BE + I \eta d\Bx \cdot \BH
+
d\Bx \wedge \BE + I \eta d\Bx \wedge \BH \\
&=
d\Bx \cdot \BE
– \eta (d\Bx \cross \BH)
+ I (d\Bx \cross \BE )
+ I \eta (d\Bx \cdot \BH),
\end{aligned}

the current integrand expands to
\label{eqn:flux:200}
\begin{aligned}
I \ncap J
&=
I \ncap
\lr{
\frac{\rho}{\epsilon} – \eta \BJ + I \lr{ c \rho_\txtm – \BM }
} \\
&=
\ncap I \frac{\rho}{\epsilon} – \eta \ncap I \BJ – \ncap c \rho_\txtm + \ncap \BM \\
&=
\ncap \cdot \BM
+ \eta (\ncap \cross \BJ)
– \ncap c \rho_\txtm
+ I (\ncap \cross \BM)
+ \ncap I \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}
– \eta I (\ncap \cdot \BJ).
\end{aligned}

We are left with
\label{eqn:flux:220}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial A}
\lr{
d\Bx \cdot \BE + I \eta (d\Bx \cdot \BH)
}
&=
\int_A dA
\lr{
\ncap \cdot \BM – \eta I (\ncap \cdot \BJ)
} \\
\oint_{\partial A}
\lr{
– \eta (d\Bx \cross \BH)
+ I (d\Bx \cross \BE )
}
&=
\int_A dA
\lr{
\eta (\ncap \cross \BJ)
– \ncap c \rho_\txtm
+ I (\ncap \cross \BM)
+ \ncap I \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}
-\PD{n}{} \lr{ I \BE – \eta \BH }
}.
\end{aligned}

This is a crazy mess of dots, crosses, fields and sources. We can split it into one equation for each grade, which will probably look a little more regular. That is
\label{eqn:flux:240}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx \cdot \BE &= \int_A dA \ncap \cdot \BM \\
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx \cross \BH
&=
\int_A dA
\lr{
– \ncap \cross \BJ
+ \frac{ \ncap \rho_\txtm }{\mu}
– \PD{n}{\BH}
} \\
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx \cross \BE &=
\int_A dA
\lr{
\ncap \cross \BM
+ \frac{\ncap \rho}{\epsilon}
– \PD{n}{\BE}
} \\
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx \cdot \BH &= -\int_A dA \ncap \cdot \BJ \\
\end{aligned}

The first and last equations could have been obtained much more easily from Maxwell’s equations in their conventional form more easily. The two cross product equations with the normal derivatives are not familiar to me, even without the fictitious magnetic sources. It is somewhat remarkable that so much can be packed into one multivector equation:
\label{eqn:flux:260}
\oint_{\partial A} d\Bx F
=
I \int_A dA \lr{ \ncap J – \PD{n}{F} }.

# References

[1] A. Macdonald. Vector and Geometric Calculus. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.

## The many faces of Maxwell’s equations

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting (including equation numbering and references)]

The following is a possible introduction for a report for a UofT ECE2500 project associated with writing a small book: “Geometric Algebra for Electrical Engineers”. Given the space constraints for the report I may have to drop much of this, but some of the history of Maxwell’s equations may be of interest, so I thought I’d share before the knife hits the latex.

## Goals of the project.

This project had a few goals

1. Perform a literature review of applications of geometric algebra to the study of electromagnetism. Geometric algebra will be defined precisely later, along with bivector, trivector, multivector and other geometric algebra generalizations of the vector.
2. Identify the subset of the literature that had direct relevance to electrical engineering.
3. Create a complete, and as compact as possible, introduction of the prerequisites required
geometric algebra to problems in electromagnetism.

## The many faces of electromagnetism.

There is a long history of attempts to find more elegant, compact and powerful ways of encoding and working with Maxwell’s equations.

### Maxwell’s formulation.

Maxwell [12] employs some differential operators, including the gradient $$\spacegrad$$ and Laplacian $$\spacegrad^2$$, but the divergence and gradient are always written out in full using coordinates, usually in integral form. Reading the original Treatise highlights how important notation can be, as most modern engineering or physics practitioners would find his original work incomprehensible. A nice translation from Maxwell’s notation to the modern Heaviside-Gibbs notation can be found in [16].

### Quaterion representation.

In his second volume [11] the equations of electromagnetism are stated using quaterions (an extension of complex numbers to three dimensions), but quaternions are not used in the work. The modern form of Maxwell’s equations in quaternion form is
\label{eqn:ece2500report:220}
\begin{aligned}
\inv{2} \antisymmetric{ \frac{d}{dr} }{ \BH } – \inv{2} \symmetric{ \frac{d}{dr} } { c \BD } &= c \rho + \BJ \\
\inv{2} \antisymmetric{ \frac{d}{dr} }{ \BE } + \inv{2} \symmetric{ \frac{d}{dr} }{ c \BB } &= 0,
\end{aligned}

where $$\ifrac{d}{dr} = (1/c) \PDi{t}{} + \Bi \PDi{x}{} + \Bj \PDi{y}{} + \Bk \PDi{z}{}$$ [7] acts bidirectionally, and vectors are expressed in terms of the quaternion basis $$\setlr{ \Bi, \Bj, \Bk }$$, subject to the relations $$\Bi^2 = \Bj^2 = \Bk^2 = -1, \quad \Bi \Bj = \Bk = -\Bj \Bi, \quad \Bj \Bk = \Bi = -\Bk \Bj, \quad \Bk \Bi = \Bj = -\Bi \Bk$$.
There is clearly more structure to these equations than the traditional Heaviside-Gibbs representation that we are used to, which says something for the quaternion model. However, this structure requires notation that is arguably non-intuitive. The fact that the quaterion representation was abandoned long ago by most electromagnetism researchers and engineers supports such an argument.

### Minkowski tensor representation.

Minkowski introduced the concept of a complex time coordinate $$x_4 = i c t$$ for special relativity [3]. Such a four-vector representation can be used for many of the relativistic four-vector pairs of electromagnetism, such as the current $$(c\rho, \BJ)$$, and the energy-momentum Lorentz force relations, and can also be applied to Maxwell’s equations
\label{eqn:ece2500report:140}
\sum_{\mu= 1}^4 \PD{x_\mu}{F_{\mu\nu}} = – 4 \pi j_\nu.
\sum_{\lambda\rho\mu=1}^4
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}
\PD{x_\mu}{F_{\lambda\rho}} = 0,

where
\label{eqn:ece2500report:160}
F
=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & B_z & -B_y & -i E_x \\
-B_z & 0 & B_x & -i E_y \\
B_y & -B_x & 0 & -i E_z \\
i E_x & i E_y & i E_z & 0
\end{bmatrix}.

A rank-2 complex (Hermitian) tensor contains all six of the field components. Transformation of coordinates for this representation of the field may be performed exactly like the transformation for any other four-vector. This formalism is described nicely in [13], where the structure used is motivated by transformational requirements. One of the costs of this tensor representation is that we loose the clear separation of the electric and magnetic fields that we are so comfortable with. Another cost is that we loose the distinction between space and time, as separate space and time coordinates have to be projected out of a larger four vector. Both of these costs have theoretical benefits in some applications, particularly for high energy problems where relativity is important, but for the low velocity problems near and dear to electrical engineers who can freely treat space and time independently, the advantages are not clear.

### Modern tensor formalism.

The Minkowski representation fell out of favour in theoretical physics, which settled on a real tensor representation that utilizes an explicit metric tensor $$g_{\mu\nu} = \pm \textrm{diag}(1, -1, -1, -1)$$ to represent the complex inner products of special relativity. In this tensor formalism, Maxwell’s equations are also reduced to a set of two tensor relationships ([10], [8], [5]).
\label{eqn:ece2500report:40}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_\mu F^{\mu \nu} &= \mu_0 J^\nu \\
\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu} \partial_\beta F_{\mu \nu} &= 0,
\end{aligned}

where $$F^{\mu\nu}$$ is a \textit{real} rank-2 antisymmetric tensor that contains all six electric and magnetic field components, and $$J^\nu$$ is a four-vector current containing both charge density and current density components. \Cref{eqn:ece2500report:40} provides a unified and simpler theoretical framework for electromagnetism, and is used extensively in physics but not engineering.

### Differential forms.

It has been argued that a differential forms treatment of electromagnetism provides some of the same theoretical advantages as the tensor formalism, without the disadvantages of introducing a hellish mess of index manipulation into the mix. With differential forms it is also possible to express Maxwell’s equations as two equations. The free-space differential forms equivalent [4] to the tensor equations is
\label{eqn:ece2500report:60}
\begin{aligned}
d \alpha &= 0 \\
d *\alpha &= 0,
\end{aligned}

where
\label{eqn:ece2500report:180}
\alpha = \lr{ E_1 dx^1 + E_2 dx^2 + E_3 dx^3 }(c dt) + H_1 dx^2 dx^3 + H_2 dx^3 dx^1 + H_3 dx^1 dx^2.

One of the advantages of this representation is that it is valid even for curvilinear coordinate representations, which are handled naturally in differential forms. However, this formalism also comes with a number of costs. One cost (or benefit), like that of the tensor formalism, is that this is implicitly a relativistic approach subject to non-Euclidean orthonormality conditions $$(dx^i, dx^j) = \delta^{ij}, (dx^i, c dt) = 0, (c dt, c dt) = -1$$. Most grievous of the costs is the requirement to use differentials $$dx^1, dx^2, dx^3, c dt$$, instead of a more familar set of basis vectors, even for non-curvilinear coordinates. This requirement is easily viewed as unnatural, and likely one of the reasons that electromagnetism with differential forms has never become popular.

### Vector formalism.

Euclidean vector algebra, in particular the vector algebra and calculus of $$R^3$$, is the de-facto language of electrical engineering for electromagnetism. Maxwell’s equations in the Heaviside-Gibbs vector formalism are
\label{eqn:ece2500report:20}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \cross \BE &= – \PD{t}{\BB} \\
\spacegrad \cross \BH &= \BJ + \PD{t}{\BD} \\
\spacegrad \cdot \BD &= \rho \\
\end{aligned}

We are all intimately familiar with these equations, with the dot and the cross products, and with gradient, divergence and curl operations that are used to express them.
Given how comfortable we are with this mathematical formalism, there has to be a really good reason to switch to something else.

### Space time algebra (geometric algebra).

An alternative to any of the electrodynamics formalisms described above is STA, the Space Time Algebra. STA is a relativistic geometric algebra that allows Maxwell’s equations to be combined into one equation ([2], [6])
\label{eqn:ece2500report:80}

where
\label{eqn:ece2500report:200}
F = \BE + I c \BB \qquad (= \BE + I \eta \BH)

is a bivector field containing both the electric and magnetic field “vectors”, $$\grad = \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu$$ is the spacetime gradient, $$J$$ is a four vector containing electric charge and current components, and $$I = \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3$$ is the spacetime pseudoscalar, the ordered product of the basis vectors $$\setlr{ \gamma_\mu }$$. The STA representation is explicitly relativistic with a non-Euclidean relationships between the basis vectors $$\gamma_0 \cdot \gamma_0 = 1 = -\gamma_k \cdot \gamma_k, \forall k > 0$$. In this formalism “spatial” vectors $$\Bx = \sum_{k>0} \gamma_k \gamma_0 x^k$$ are represented as spacetime bivectors, requiring a small slight of hand when switching between STA notation and conventional vector representation. Uncoincidentally $$F$$ has exactly the same structure as the 2-form $$\alpha$$ above, provided the differential 1-forms $$dx^\mu$$ are replaced by the basis vectors $$\gamma_\mu$$. However, there is a simple complex structure inherent in the STA form that is not obvious in the 2-form equivalent. The bivector representation of the field $$F$$ directly encodes the antisymmetric nature of $$F^{\mu\nu}$$ from the tensor formalism, and the tensor equivalents of most STA results can be calcualted easily.

Having a single PDE for all of Maxwell’s equations allows for direct Green’s function solution of the field, and has a number of other advantages. There is extensive literature exploring selected applications of STA to electrodynamics. Many theoretical results have been derived using this formalism that require significantly more complex approaches using conventional vector or tensor analysis. Unfortunately, much of the STA literature is inaccessible to the engineering student, practising engineers, or engineering instructors. To even start reading the literature, one must learn geometric algebra, aspects of special relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, generalized integration theory, and even some tensor analysis.

### Paravector formalism (geometric algebra).

In the geometric algebra literature, there are a few authors who have endorsed the use of Euclidean geometric algebras for relativistic applications ([1], [14])
These authors use an Euclidean basis “vector” $$\Be_0 = 1$$ for the timelike direction, along with a standard Euclidean basis $$\setlr{ \Be_i }$$ for the spatial directions. A hybrid scalar plus vector representation of four vectors, called paravectors is employed. Maxwell’s equation is written as a multivector equation
\label{eqn:ece2500report:120}
\lr{ \spacegrad + \inv{c} \PD{t}{} } F = J,

where $$J$$ is a multivector source containing both the electric charge and currents, and $$c$$ is the group velocity for the medium (assumed uniform and isometric). $$J$$ may optionally include the (fictitious) magnetic charge and currents useful in antenna theory. The paravector formalism uses a the hybrid electromagnetic field representation of STA above, however, $$I = \Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3$$ is interpreted as the $$R^3$$ pseudoscalar, the ordered product of the basis vectors $$\setlr{ \Be_i }$$, and $$F$$ represents a multivector with vector and bivector components. Unlike STA where $$\BE$$ and $$\BB$$ (or $$\BH$$) are interpretted as spacetime bivectors, here they are plain old Euclidian vectors in $$R^3$$, entirely consistent with conventional Heaviyside-Gibbs notation. Like the STA Maxwell’s equation, the paravector form is directly invertible using Green’s function techniques, without requiring the solution of equivalent second order potential problems, nor any requirement to take the derivatives of those potentials to determine the fields.

Lorentz transformation and manipulation of paravectors requires a variety of conjugation, real and imaginary operators, unlike STA where such operations have the same complex exponential structure as any 3D rotation expressed in geometric algebra. The advocates of the paravector representation argue that this provides an effective pedagogical bridge from Euclidean geometry to the Minkowski geometry of special relativity. This author agrees that this form of Maxwell’s equations is the natural choice for an introduction to electromagnetism using geometric algebra, but for relativistic operations, STA is a much more natural and less confusing choice.

## Results.

The end product of this project was a fairly small self contained book, titled “Geometric Algebra for Electrical Engineers”. This book includes an introduction to Euclidean geometric algebra focused on $$R^2$$ and $$R^3$$ (64 pages), an introduction to geometric calculus and multivector Green’s functions (64 pages), and applications to electromagnetism (75 pages). This report summarizes results from this book, omitting most derivations, and attempts to provide an overview that may be used as a road map for the book for further exploration. Many of the fundamental results of electromagnetism are derived directly from the geometric algebra form of Maxwell’s equation in a streamlined and compact fashion. This includes some new results, and many of the existing non-relativistic results from the geometric algebra STA and paravector literature. It will be clear to the reader that it is often simpler to have the electric and magnetic on equal footing, and demonstrates this by deriving most results in terms of the total electromagnetic field $$F$$. Many examples of how to extract the conventional electric and magnetic fields from the geometric algebra results expressed in terms of $$F$$ are given as a bridge between the multivector and vector representations.

The aim of this work was to remove some of the prerequisite conceptual roadblocks that make electromagnetism using geometric algebra inaccessbile. In particular, this project explored non-relativistic applications of geometric algebra to electromagnetism. After derivation from the conventional Heaviside-Gibbs representation of Maxwell’s equations, the paravector representation of Maxwell’s equation is used as the starting point for of all subsequent analysis. However, the paravector literature includes a confusing set of conjugation and real and imaginary selection operations that are tailored for relativisitic applications. These are not neccessary for low velocity applications, and have been avoided completely with the aim of making the subject more accessibility to the engineer.

In the book an attempt has been made to avoid introducing as little new notation as possible. For example, some authors use special notation for the bivector valued magnetic field $$I \BB$$, such as $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{b}}$$ or $$\Bcap$$. Given the inconsistencies in the literature, $$I \BB$$ (or $$I \BH$$) will be used explicitly for the bivector (magnetic) components of the total electromagnetic field $$F$$. In the geometric algebra literature, there are conflicting conventions for the operator $$\spacegrad + (1/c) \PDi{t}{}$$ which we will call the spacetime gradient after the STA equivalent. For examples of different notations for the spacetime gradient, see [9], [1], and [15]. In the book the spacetime gradient is always written out in full to avoid picking from or explaining some of the subtlties of the competing notations.

Some researchers will find it distasteful that STA and relativity have been avoided completely in this book. Maxwell’s equations are inherently relativistic, and STA expresses the relativistic aspects of electromagnetism in an exceptional and beautiful fashion. However, a student of this book will have learned the geometric algebra and calculus prerequisites of STA. This makes the STA literature much more accessible, especially since most of the results in the book can be trivially translated into STA notation.

# References

[1] William Baylis. Electrodynamics: a modern geometric approach, volume 17. Springer Science \& Business Media, 2004.

[2] C. Doran and A.N. Lasenby. Geometric algebra for physicists. Cambridge University Press New York, Cambridge, UK, 1st edition, 2003.

[3] Albert Einstein. Relativity: The special and the general theory, chapter Minkowski’s Four-Dimensional Space. Princeton University Press, 2015. URL http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5001.

[4] H. Flanders. Differential Forms With Applications to the Physical Sciences. Courier Dover Publications, 1989.

[5] David Jeffrey Griffiths and Reed College. Introduction to electrodynamics. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd edition, 1999.

[6] David Hestenes. Space-time algebra, volume 1. Springer, 1966.

[7] Peter Michael Jack. Physical space as a quaternion structure, i: Maxwell equations. a brief note. arXiv preprint math-ph/0307038, 2003. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0307038.

[8] JD Jackson. Classical Electrodynamics. John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edition, 1975.

[9] Bernard Jancewicz. Multivectors and Clifford algebra in electrodynamics. World Scientific, 1988.

[10] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz. The classical theory of fields. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1980. ISBN 0750627689.

[11] James Clerk Maxwell. A treatise on electricity and magnetism, volume II. Merchant Books, 1881.

[12] James Clerk Maxwell. A treatise on electricity and magnetism, third edition, volume I. Dover publications, 1891.

[13] M. Schwartz. Principles of Electrodynamics. Dover Publications, 1987.

[14] Chappell et al. A simplified approach to electromagnetism using geometric algebra. arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.4947, 2010.

[15] Chappell et al. Geometric algebra for electrical and electronic engineers. 2014.

[16] Chappell et al. Geometric Algebra for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 2014

## second experiment in screen recording

Here’s a second attempt at recording a blackboard style screen recording:

To handle the screen transitions, equivalent to clearing my small blackboard, I switched to using a black background and just moved the text as I filled things up.  This worked much better.  I still drew with mischief, and recorded with OBS, but then did a small post production edit in iMovie to remove a little bit of dead air and to edit out one particularly bad flub.

This talk covers the product of two vectors, defines the dot and wedge products, and shows how the 3D wedge product is related to the cross product.  I recorded some additional discussion of duality that I left out of this video, which was long enough without it.

## Motivation

Geometric algebra (GA) allows for a compact description of Maxwell’s equations in either an explicit 3D representation or a STA (SpaceTime Algebra [2]) representation. The 3D GA and STA representations Maxwell’s equation both the form

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1280}
L \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = J,

where $$J$$ represents the sources, $$L$$ is a multivector gradient operator that includes partial derivative operator components for each of the space and time coordinates, and

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1020}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + \eta I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}},

is an electromagnetic field multivector, $$I = \Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3$$ is the \R{3} pseudoscalar, and $$\eta = \sqrt{\mu/\epsilon}$$ is the impedance of the media.

When Maxwell’s equations are extended to include magnetic sources in addition to conventional electric sources (as used in antenna-theory [1] and microwave engineering [3]), they take the form

\label{eqn:chapter3Notes:20}
\spacegrad \cross \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} = – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} – \PD{t}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}

\label{eqn:chapter3Notes:40}
\spacegrad \cross \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} + \PD{t}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}}

\label{eqn:chapter3Notes:60}

\label{eqn:chapter3Notes:80}

The corresponding GA Maxwell equations in their respective 3D and STA forms are

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:300}
\lr{ \spacegrad + \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
=
\eta
\lr{ v q_{\textrm{e}} – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} }
+ I \lr{ v q_{\textrm{m}} – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} }

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:320}
\grad \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \eta J – I M,

where the wave group velocity in the medium is $$v = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon\mu}$$, and the medium is isotropic with
$$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}} = \mu \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}$$, and $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}} = \epsilon \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}$$. In the STA representation, $$\grad, J, M$$ are all four-vectors, the specific meanings of which will be spelled out below.

How to determine the potential equations and the field representation using the conventional distinct Maxwell’s \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:20}, … is well known. The basic procedure is to consider the electric and magnetic sources in turn, and observe that in each case one of the electric or magnetic fields must have a curl representation. The STA approach is similar, except that it can be observed that the field must have a four-curl representation for each type of source. In the explicit 3D GA formalism
\ref{eqn:potentialMethods:300} how to formulate a natural potential representation is not as obvious. There is no longer an reason to set any component of the field equal to a curl, and the representation of the four curl from the STA approach is awkward. Additionally, it is not obvious what form gauge invariance takes in the 3D GA representation.

### Ideas explored in these notes

• GA representation of Maxwell’s equations including magnetic sources.
• STA GA formalism for Maxwell’s equations including magnetic sources.
• Explicit form of the GA potential representation including both electric and magnetic sources.
• Demonstration of exactly how the 3D and STA potentials are related.
• Explore the structure of gauge transformations when magnetic sources are included.
• Explore the structure of gauge transformations in the 3D GA formalism.
• Specify the form of the Lorentz gauge in the 3D GA formalism.

### No magnetic sources

When magnetic sources are omitted, it follows from \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:80} that there is some $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}$$ for which

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:20}
\boxed{
}

Substitution into Faraday’s law \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:20} gives

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:40}

or
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:60}
\spacegrad \cross \lr{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + \PD{t}{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} } } = 0.

A gradient representation of this curled quantity, say $$-\spacegrad \phi$$, will provide the required zero

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:80}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} = -\spacegrad \phi -\PD{t}{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} }.
}

The final two Maxwell equations yield

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:100}
\begin{aligned}
-\spacegrad^2 \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \spacegrad \lr{ \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} } &= \mu \lr{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} + \epsilon \PD{t}{} \lr{ -\spacegrad \phi -\PD{t}{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} } } } \\
\end{aligned}

or
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:120}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad^2 \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} }
\inv{v^2} \PD{t}{\phi}
}
&= -\mu \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} \\
\end{aligned}
}

Note that the Lorentz condition $$\PDi{t}{(\phi/v^2)} + \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} = 0$$ can be imposed to decouple these, leaving non-homogeneous wave equations for the vector and scalar potentials respectively.

### No electric sources

Without electric sources, a curl representation of the electric field can be assumed, satisfying Gauss’s law

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:140}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}} = – \spacegrad \cross \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}.
}

Substitution into the Maxwell-Faraday law gives
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:160}
\spacegrad \cross \lr{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} + \PD{t}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}} } = 0.

This is satisfied with any gradient, say, $$-\spacegrad \phi_m$$, providing a potential representation for the magnetic field

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:180}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} = -\spacegrad \phi_m – \PD{t}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}}.
}

The remaining Maxwell equations provide the required constraints on the potentials

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:220}
\lr{
-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} – \mu \PD{t}{}
\lr{
}
}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:240}
\lr{
}
= \inv{\mu} q_m,

or
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:260}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad^2 \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}} – \spacegrad \lr{ \inv{v^2} \PD{t}{\phi_m} + \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } &= -\epsilon \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} \\
\end{aligned}
}

The general solution to Maxwell’s equations is therefore
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:280}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} &=
– \inv{\epsilon} \spacegrad \cross \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} &=
\end{aligned}

subject to the constraints \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:120} and \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:260}.

### Potential operator structure

Knowing that there is a simple underlying structure to the potential representation of the electromagnetic field in the STA formalism inspires the question of whether that structure can be found directly using the scalar and vector potentials determined above.

Specifically, what is the multivector representation \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1020} of the electromagnetic field in terms of all the individual potential variables, and can an underlying structure for that field representation be found? The composite field is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:280b}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
=
– \inv{\epsilon} \spacegrad \cross \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} \\
+ I \eta
\lr{
}.

Can this be factored into into multivector operator and multivector potentials? Expanding the cross products provides some direction

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1040}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&=
– \PD{t}{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} }
– \eta \PD{t}{I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}}
– \spacegrad \lr{ \phi – \eta I \phi_m } \\
+ \frac{1}{2 \epsilon} \lr{ \rspacegrad I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} – I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} \lspacegrad }.
\end{aligned}

Observe that the
gradient and the time partials can be grouped together

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1060}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&=
– \PD{t}{ } \lr{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}}
– \spacegrad \lr{ \phi + \eta I \phi_m }
+ \frac{v}{2} \lr{ \rspacegrad (\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + I \eta \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}) – (\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + I \eta \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}) \lspacegrad } \\
&=
\inv{2} \lr{
\lr{ \rspacegrad – \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \rightarrow }{\partial_t}} } \lr{ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta v I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} }

\lr{ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta v I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}} \lr{ \lspacegrad + \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \leftarrow }{\partial_t}} }
} \\
\lr{ \rspacegrad – \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \rightarrow }{\partial_t}} } \lr{ -\phi – \eta I \phi_m }
– \lr{ \phi + \eta I \phi_m } \lr{ \lspacegrad + \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \leftarrow }{\partial_t}} }
}
,
\end{aligned}

or

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1080}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
=
\inv{2} \Biglr{
\lr{ \rspacegrad – \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \rightarrow }{\partial_t}} }
\lr{
– \phi
+ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
+ \eta I v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
– \eta I \phi_m
}

\lr{
\phi
+ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
+ \eta I v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
+ \eta I \phi_m
}
\lr{ \lspacegrad + \inv{v} {\stackrel{ \leftarrow }{\partial_t}} }
}
.
}

There’s a conjugate structure to the potential on each side of the curl operation where we see a sign change for the scalar and pseudoscalar elements only. The reason for this becomes more clear in the STA formalism.

## Potentials in the STA formalism.

Maxwell’s equation in its explicit 3D form \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:300} can be
converted to STA form, by introducing a four-vector basis $$\setlr{ \gamma_\mu }$$, where the spatial basis
$$\setlr{ \Be_k = \gamma_k \gamma_0 }$$
is expressed in terms of the Dirac basis $$\setlr{ \gamma_\mu }$$.
By multiplying from the left with $$\gamma_0$$ a STA form of Maxwell’s equation
\ref{eqn:potentialMethods:320}
is obtained,
where
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:340}
\begin{aligned}
J &= \gamma^\mu J_\mu = ( v q_e, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} ) \\
M &= \gamma^\mu M_\mu = ( v q_m, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}} ) \\
I &= \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3,
\end{aligned}

Here the metric choice is $$\gamma_0^2 = 1 = -\gamma_k^2$$. Note that in this representation the electromagnetic field $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + \eta I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}$$ is a bivector, not a multivector as it is explicit (frame dependent) 3D representation of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:300}.

A potential representation can be obtained as before by considering electric and magnetic sources in sequence and using superposition to assemble a complete potential.

### No magnetic sources

Without magnetic sources, Maxwell’s equation splits into vector and trivector terms of the form

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:380}
\grad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \eta J

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:400}

A four-vector curl representation of the field will satisfy \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:400} allowing an immediate potential solution

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:560}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \grad \wedge {A^{\mathrm{e}}} \\
\end{aligned}
}

This can be put into correspondence with \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:120} by noting that

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:460}
\begin{aligned}
\grad^2 &= (\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu) \cdot (\gamma^\nu \partial_\nu) = \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} – \spacegrad^2 \\
\gamma_0 {A^{\mathrm{e}}} &= \gamma_0 \gamma^\mu {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_\mu = {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 + \Be_k {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_k = {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 + \BA^{\mathrm{e}} \\
\gamma_0 \grad &= \gamma_0 \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu = \inv{v} \partial_t + \spacegrad \\
\grad \cdot {A^{\mathrm{e}}} &= \partial_\mu {A^{\mathrm{e}}}^\mu = \inv{v} \partial_t {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 – \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{e}},
\end{aligned}

so multiplying from the left with $$\gamma_0$$ gives

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:480}
\lr{ \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} – \spacegrad^2 } \lr{ {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 + \BA^{\mathrm{e}} } – \lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t + \spacegrad }\lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 – \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{e}} } = \eta( v q_e – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} ),

or

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:520}
\lr{ \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} – \spacegrad^2 } \BA^{\mathrm{e}} – \spacegrad \lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 – \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{e}} } = -\eta \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:540}
\spacegrad^2 {A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 – \inv{v} \partial_t \lr{ \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{e}} } = -q_e/\epsilon.

So $${A^{\mathrm{e}}}_0 = \phi$$ and $$-\ifrac{\BA^{\mathrm{e}}}{v} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}$$, or

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:600}
\boxed{
{A^{\mathrm{e}}} = \gamma_0\lr{ \phi – v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} }.
}

### No electric sources

Without electric sources, Maxwell’s equation now splits into

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:640}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:660}
\grad \wedge \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = -I M.

Here the dual of an STA curl yields a solution

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:680}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = I ( \grad \wedge {A^{\mathrm{m}}} ).
}

Substituting this gives

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:720}
\begin{aligned}
0
&=
&=
&=
\end{aligned}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:740}
\begin{aligned}
-I M
&=
&=
&=
\end{aligned}

The $$\grad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}$$ relation \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:720} is identically zero as desired, leaving

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:760}
\boxed{
=
M.
}

So the general solution with both electric and magnetic sources is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:800}
\boxed{
}

subject to the constraints of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:560} and \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:760}. As before the four-potential $${A^{\mathrm{m}}}$$ can be put into correspondence with the conventional scalar and vector potentials by left multiplying with $$\gamma_0$$, which gives

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:820}
\lr{ \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} – \spacegrad^2 } \lr{ {A^{\mathrm{m}}}_0 + \BA^{\mathrm{m}} } – \lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t + \spacegrad }\lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t {A^{\mathrm{m}}}_0 – \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{m}} } = v q_m – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}},

or
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:860}
\lr{ \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} – \spacegrad^2 } \BA^{\mathrm{m}} – \spacegrad \lr{ \inv{v} \partial_t {A^{\mathrm{m}}}_0 – \spacegrad \cdot \BA^{\mathrm{m}} } = – \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:880}

Comparing with \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:260} shows that $${A^{\mathrm{m}}}_0/v = \mu \phi_m$$ and $$-\ifrac{\BA^{\mathrm{m}}}{v^2} = \mu \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}$$, or

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:900}
\boxed{
{A^{\mathrm{m}}} = \gamma_0 \eta \lr{ \phi_m – v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} }.
}

### Potential operator structure

Observe that there is an underlying uniform structure of the differential operator that acts on the potential to produce the electromagnetic field. Expressed as a linear operator of the
gradient and the potentials, that is

$$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = L(\lrgrad, {A^{\mathrm{e}}}, {A^{\mathrm{m}}})$$

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:980}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&=
&=
&=
+ \frac{1}{2} \lr{ -\rgrad I {A^{\mathrm{m}}} – I {A^{\mathrm{m}}} \lgrad } \\
&=
\inv{2} \lr{ \rgrad ({A^{\mathrm{e}}} -I {A^{\mathrm{m}}}) – ({A^{\mathrm{e}}} + I {A^{\mathrm{m}}}) \lgrad }
,
\end{aligned}

or
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1000}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
=
\inv{2} \lr{ \rgrad ({A^{\mathrm{e}}} -I {A^{\mathrm{m}}}) – ({A^{\mathrm{e}}} – I {A^{\mathrm{m}}})^\dagger \lgrad }
.
}

Observe that \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1000} can be
put into correspondence with \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1080} using a factoring of unity $$1 = \gamma_0 \gamma_0$$

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1100}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
=
\inv{2} \lr{ (-\rgrad \gamma_0) (-\gamma_0 ({A^{\mathrm{e}}} -I {A^{\mathrm{m}}})) – (({A^{\mathrm{e}}} + I {A^{\mathrm{m}}}) \gamma_0)(\gamma_0 \lgrad) },

where

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1140}
\begin{aligned}
&=
-(\gamma^0 \partial_0 + \gamma^k \partial_k) \gamma_0 \\
&=
-\partial_0 – \gamma^k \gamma_0 \partial_k \\
&=
-\inv{v} \partial_t
,
\end{aligned}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1160}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\gamma_0 (\gamma^0 \partial_0 + \gamma^k \partial_k) \\
&=
\partial_0 – \gamma^k \gamma_0 \partial_k \\
&=
+ \inv{v} \partial_t
,
\end{aligned}

and
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1200}
\begin{aligned}
-\gamma_0 ( {A^{\mathrm{e}}} – I {A^{\mathrm{m}}} )
&=
-\gamma_0 \gamma_0 \lr{ \phi -v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \lr{ \phi_m – v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } } \\
&=
-\lr{ \phi -v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \phi_m – \eta v I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } \\
&=
– \phi
+ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
+ \eta v I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
– \eta I \phi_m
\end{aligned}

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1220}
\begin{aligned}
( {A^{\mathrm{e}}} + I {A^{\mathrm{m}}} )\gamma_0
&=
\lr{ \gamma_0 \lr{ \phi -v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} } + I \gamma_0 \eta \lr{ \phi_m – v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } } \gamma_0 \\
&=
\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + I \eta \phi_m + I \eta v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} \\
&=
\phi
+ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
+ \eta v I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
+ \eta I \phi_m
,
\end{aligned}

This recovers \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1080} as desired.

## Potentials in the 3D Euclidean formalism

In the conventional scalar plus vector differential representation of Maxwell’s equations \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:20}…, given electric(magnetic) sources the structure of the electric(magnetic) potential follows from first setting the magnetic(electric) field equal to the curl of a vector potential. The procedure for the STA GA form of Maxwell’s equation was similar, where it was immediately evident that the field could be set to the four-curl of a four-vector potential (or the dual of such a curl for magnetic sources).

In the 3D GA representation, there is no immediate rationale for introducing a curl or the equivalent to a four-curl representation of the field. Reconciliation of this is possible by recognizing that the fact that the field (or a component of it) may be represented by a curl is not actually fundamental. Instead, observe that the two sided gradient action on a potential to generate the electromagnetic field in the STA representation of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1000} serves to select the grade two component product of the gradient and the multivector potential $${A^{\mathrm{e}}} – I {A^{\mathrm{m}}}$$, and that this can in fact be written as
a single sided gradient operation on a potential, provided the multivector product is filtered with a four-bivector grade selection operation

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1240}
\boxed{
}

Similarly, it can be observed that the
specific function of the conjugate structure in the two sided potential representation of
\ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1080}
is to discard all the scalar and pseudoscalar grades in the multivector product. This means that a single sided potential can also be used, provided it is wrapped in a grade selection operation

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1260}
\boxed{
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} =
\lr{
– \phi
+ v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
+ \eta I v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
– \eta I \phi_m
} }{1,2}.
}

It is this grade selection operation that is really the fundamental defining action in the potential of the STA and conventional 3D representations of Maxwell’s equations. So, given Maxwell’s equation in the 3D GA representation, defining a potential representation for the field is really just a demand that the field have the structure

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1320}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \gpgrade{ (\alpha \spacegrad + \beta \partial_t)( A_0 + A_1 + I( A_0′ + A_1′ ) }{1,2}.

This is a mandate that the electromagnetic field is the grades 1 and 2 components of the vector product of space and time derivative operators on a multivector field $$A = \sum_{k=0}^3 A_k = A_0 + A_1 + I( A_0′ + A_1′ )$$ that can potentially have any grade components. There are more degrees of freedom in this specification than required, since the multivector can absorb one of the $$\alpha$$ or $$\beta$$ coefficients, so without loss of generality, one of these (say $$\alpha$$) can be set to 1.

Expanding \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1320} gives

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1340}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&=
+ \beta \partial_t A_1
+ \beta \partial_t A_1′
&=
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + I \eta \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{aligned}

This naturally has all the right mixes of curls, gradients and time derivatives, all following as direct consequences of applying a grade selection operation to the action of a “spacetime gradient” on a general multivector potential.

The conclusion is that the potential representation of the field is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1360}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} =

where $$A$$ is a multivector potentially containing all grades, where grades 0,1 are required for electric sources, and grades 2,3 are required for magnetic sources. When it is desirable to refer back to the conventional scalar and vector potentials this multivector potential can be written as $$A = -\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \lr{ -\phi_m + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} }$$.

## Gauge transformations

Recall that for electric sources the magnetic field is of the form

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1380}

so adding the gradient of any scalar field to the potential $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}’ = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} + \spacegrad \psi$$
does not change the magnetic field

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1400}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}’
&= \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}.
\end{aligned}

The electric field with this changed potential is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1420}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}’
&= -\spacegrad \lr{ \phi + \partial_t \psi } – \partial_t \BA,
\end{aligned}

so if
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1440}
\phi = \phi’ – \partial_t \psi,

the electric field will also be unaltered by this transformation.

In the STA representation, the field can similarly be altered by adding any (four)gradient to the potential. For example with only electric sources

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1460}

and for electric or magnetic sources

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1480}

In the 3D GA representation, where the field is given by \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1360}, there is no field that is being curled to add a gradient to. However, if the scalar and vector potentials transform as

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1500}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} &\rightarrow \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} + \spacegrad \psi \\
\phi &\rightarrow \phi – \partial_t \psi,
\end{aligned}

then the multivector potential transforms as
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1520}
-\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}
\rightarrow -\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} + \partial_t \psi + v \spacegrad \psi,

so the electromagnetic field is unchanged when the multivector potential is transformed as

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1540}
A \rightarrow A + \lr{ \spacegrad + \inv{v} \partial_t } \psi,

where $$\psi$$ is any field that has scalar or pseudoscalar grades. Viewed in terms of grade selection, this makes perfect sense, since the transformed field is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1560}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&\rightarrow
\gpgrade{ \lr{ \spacegrad – \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } \lr{ A + \lr{ \spacegrad + \inv{v} \partial_t } \psi } }{1,2} \\
&=
\gpgrade{ \lr{ \spacegrad – \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } A + \lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} } \psi }{1,2} \\
&=
\end{aligned}

The $$\psi$$ contribution to the grade selection operator is killed because it has scalar or pseudoscalar grades.

## Lorenz gauge

Maxwell’s equations are completely decoupled if the potential can be found such that

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1580}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}
&=
&=
\lr{ \spacegrad – \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } A.
\end{aligned}

When this is the case, Maxwell’s equations are reduced to four non-homogeneous potential wave equations

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1620}
\lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{} } A = J,

that is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1600}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{} } \phi &= – \inv{\epsilon} q_e \\
\lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{} } \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} &= – \mu \boldsymbol{\mathcal{J}} \\
\lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{} } \phi_m &= – \frac{I}{\mu} q_m \\
\lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \PDSq{t}{} } \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} &= – I \epsilon \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}.
\end{aligned}

There should be no a-priori assumption that such a field representation has no scalar, nor no pseudoscalar components. That explicit expansion in grades is

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1640}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \spacegrad – \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } A
&=
\lr{ \spacegrad – \inv{v} \PD{t}{} } \lr{ -\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \lr{ -\phi_m + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } } \\
&=
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi
+ v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} \\
+ I \eta v \spacegrad \wedge \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}}
– \partial_t \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} \\
– I \eta \partial_t \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} \\
&+ \eta I \inv{v} \partial_t \phi_m
+ I \eta v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}},
\end{aligned}

so if this potential representation has only vector and bivector grades, it must be true that

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1660}
\begin{aligned}
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi + v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} &= 0 \\
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi_m + v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} &= 0.
\end{aligned}

The first is the well known Lorenz gauge condition, whereas the second is the dual of that condition for magnetic sources.

Should one of these conditions, say the Lorenz condition for the electric source potentials, be non-zero, then it is possible to make a potential transformation for which this condition is zero

\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1680}
\begin{aligned}
0
&\ne
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi + v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} \\
&=
\inv{v} \partial_t (\phi’ – \partial_t \psi) + v \spacegrad \cdot (\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}’ + \spacegrad \psi) \\
&=
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi’ + v \spacegrad \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}’
+ v \lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} } \psi,
\end{aligned}

so if $$\inv{v} \partial_t \phi’ + v \spacegrad \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}’$$ is zero, $$\psi$$ must be found such that
\label{eqn:potentialMethods:1700}
\inv{v} \partial_t \phi + v \spacegrad \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}}
= v \lr{ \spacegrad^2 – \inv{v^2} \partial_{tt} } \psi.

# References

[1] Constantine A Balanis. Antenna theory: analysis and design. John Wiley \& Sons, 3rd edition, 2005.

[2] C. Doran and A.N. Lasenby. Geometric algebra for physicists. Cambridge University Press New York, Cambridge, UK, 1st edition, 2003.

[3] David M Pozar. Microwave engineering. John Wiley \& Sons, 2009.

## Corollaries to Stokes and Divergence theorems

In [1] a few problems are set to prove some variations of Stokes theorem. He gives some cool tricks to prove each one using just the classic 3D Stokes and divergence theorems. We can also do them directly from the more general Stokes theorem $$\int d^k \Bx \cdot (\spacegrad \wedge F) = \oint d^{k-1} \Bx \cdot F$$.

## Question: Stokes theorem on scalar function. ([1] pr. 1.60a)

Prove
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:20}
\int \spacegrad T dV = \oint T d\Ba.

The direct way to prove this is to apply Stokes theorem

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:80}
\int d^3 \Bx \cdot (\spacegrad \wedge T) = \oint d^2 \Bx \cdot T

Here $$d^3 \Bx = d\Bx_1 \wedge d\Bx_2 \wedge d\Bx_3$$, a pseudoscalar (trivector) volume element, and the wedge and dot products take their most general meanings. For $$k$$-blade $$F$$, and $$k’$$-blade $$F’$$, that is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:100}
\begin{aligned}
F \wedge F’ &= \gpgrade{F F’}{k+k’} \\
F \cdot F’ &= \gpgrade{F F’}{\Abs{k-k’}}
\end{aligned}

With $$d^3\Bx = I dV$$, and $$d^2 \Bx = I \ncap dA = I d\Ba$$, we have

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:120}
\int I dV \spacegrad T = \oint I d\Ba T.

Cancelling the factors of $$I$$ proves the result.

Griffith’s trick to do this was to let $$\Bv = \Bc T$$, where $$\Bc$$ is a constant. For this, the divergence theorem integral is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:160}
\begin{aligned}
\int dV \spacegrad \cdot (\Bc T)
&=
\int dV \Bc \cdot \spacegrad T \\
&=
\Bc \cdot \int dV \spacegrad T \\
&=
\oint d\Ba \cdot (\Bc T) \\
&=
\Bc \cdot \oint d\Ba T.
\end{aligned}

This is true for any constant $$\Bc$$, so is also true for the unit vectors. This allows for summing projections in each of the unit directions

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:180}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \int dV \spacegrad T } \\
&=
\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \oint d\Ba T } \\
&=
\oint d\Ba T.
\end{aligned}

## Question: ([1] pr. 1.60b)

Prove
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:40}
\int \spacegrad \cross \Bv dV = -\oint \Bv \cross d\Ba.

This also follows directly from the general Stokes theorem

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:200}
\int d^3 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \wedge \Bv } = \oint d^2 \Bx \cdot \Bv

The volume integrand is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:220}
\begin{aligned}
d^3 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \wedge \Bv }
&=
&=
\end{aligned}

and the surface integrand is
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:240}
\begin{aligned}
d^2 \Bx \cdot \Bv
&=
\gpgradeone{ I d\Ba \Bv } \\
&=
\gpgradeone{ I (d\Ba \wedge \Bv) } \\
&=
I^2 (d\Ba \cross \Bv) \\
&=
-d\Ba \cross \Bv \\
&=
\Bv \cross d\Ba.
\end{aligned}

Plugging these into \ref{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:200} proves the result.

Griffiths trick for the same is to apply the divergence theorem to $$\Bv \cross \Bc$$. Such a volume integral is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:260}
\begin{aligned}
\int dV \spacegrad \cdot (\Bv \cross \Bc)
&=
\int dV \Bc \cdot (\spacegrad \cross \Bv) \\
&=
\Bc \cdot \int dV \spacegrad \cross \Bv.
\end{aligned}

This must equal
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:280}
\begin{aligned}
\oint d\Ba \cdot (\Bv \cross \Bc)
&=
\Bc \cdot \oint d\Ba \cross \Bv \\
&=
-\Bc \cdot \oint \Bv \cross d\Ba
\end{aligned}

Again, assembling projections, we have
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:300}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \int dV \spacegrad \cross \Bv } \\
&=
-\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \oint \Bv \cross d\Ba } \\
&=
-\oint \Bv \cross d\Ba.
\end{aligned}

## Question: ([1] pr. 1.60e)

Prove
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:60}
\int \spacegrad T \cross d\Ba = -\oint T d\Bl.

This one follows from
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:320}
\int d^2 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \wedge T } = \oint d^1 \Bx \cdot T.

The surface integrand can be written
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:340}
\begin{aligned}
d^2 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \wedge T }
&=
&=
I (d\Ba \wedge \spacegrad T ) \\
&=
I^2 ( d\Ba \cross \spacegrad T ) \\
&=
\end{aligned}

The line integrand is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:360}
d^1 \Bx \cdot T = d^1 \Bx T.

Given a two parameter representation of the surface area element $$d^2 \Bx = d\Bx_1 \wedge d\Bx_2$$, the line element representation is
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:380}
\begin{aligned}
d^1 \Bx
&= (\Bx_1 \wedge d\Bx_2) \cdot \Bx^1 + (d\Bx_1 \wedge \Bx_2) \cdot \Bx^2 \\
&= -d\Bx_2 + d\Bx_1,
\end{aligned}

giving

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:400}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\int
-\evalbar{\lr{ \PD{u_2}{\Bx} T }}{\Delta u_1} du_2
+\evalbar{\lr{ \PD{u_1}{\Bx} T }}{\Delta u_2} du_1 \\
&=
-\oint d\Bl T,
\end{aligned}

or
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:420}
=
-\oint d\Bl T.

Griffiths trick for the same is to use $$\Bv = \Bc T$$ for constant $$\Bc$$ in (the usual 3D) Stokes’ theorem. That is

\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:440}
\begin{aligned}
\int d\Ba \cdot (\spacegrad \cross (\Bc T))
&=
\Bc \cdot \int d\Ba \cross \spacegrad T \\
&=
-\Bc \cdot \int \spacegrad T \cross d\Ba \\
&=
\oint d\Bl \cdot (\Bc T) \\
&=
\Bc \cdot \oint d\Bl T.
\end{aligned}

Again assembling projections we have
\label{eqn:stokesCorollariesGriffiths:460}
\begin{aligned}
&=
\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \int \spacegrad T \cross d\Ba} \\
&=
-\sum \Be_k \lr{ \Be_k \cdot \oint d\Bl T } \\
&=
-\oint d\Bl T.
\end{aligned}

# References

[1] David Jeffrey Griffiths and Reed College. Introduction to electrodynamics. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd edition, 1999.

## Motivation

I initially thought that I might submit a problem set solution for ece1228 using Geometric Algebra. In order to justify this, I needed to add an appendix to that problem set that outlined enough of the ideas that such a solution might make sense to the grader.

I ended up changing my mind and reworked the problem entirely, removing any use of GA. Here’s the tutorial I initially considered submitting with that problem.

## Geometric Algebra in a nutshell.

Geometric Algebra defines a non-commutative, associative vector product

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:20}
\begin{aligned}
\Ba \Bb \Bc
&=
(\Ba \Bb) \Bc \\
&=
\Ba (\Bb \Bc),
\end{aligned}

where the square of a vector equals the squared vector magnitude

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:40}
\Ba^2 = \Abs{\Ba}^2,

In Euclidean spaces such a squared vector is always positive, but that is not necessarily the case in the mixed signature spaces used in special relativity.

There are a number of consequences of these two simple vector multiplication rules.

• Squared unit vectors have a unit magnitude (up to a sign). In a Euclidean space such a product is always positive

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:60}
(\Be_1)^2 = 1.

• Products of perpendicular vectors anticommute.

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:80}
\begin{aligned}
2
&=
(\Be_1 + \Be_2)^2 \\
&= (\Be_1 + \Be_2)(\Be_1 + \Be_2) \\
&= \Be_1^2 + \Be_2 \Be_1 + \Be_1 \Be_2 + \Be_2^2 \\
&= 2 + \Be_2 \Be_1 + \Be_1 \Be_2.
\end{aligned}

A product of two perpendicular vectors is called a bivector, and can be used to represent an oriented plane. The last line above shows an example of a scalar and bivector sum, called a multivector. In general Geometric Algebra allows sums of scalars, vectors, bivectors, and higher degree analogues (grades) be summed.

Comparison of the RHS and LHS of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:80} shows that we must have

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:100}
\Be_2 \Be_1 = -\Be_1 \Be_2.

It is true in general that the product of two perpendicular vectors anticommutes. When, as above, such a product is a product of
two orthonormal vectors, it behaves like a non-commutative imaginary quantity, as it has an imaginary square in Euclidean spaces

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:120}
\begin{aligned}
(\Be_1 \Be_2)^2
&=
(\Be_1 \Be_2)
(\Be_1 \Be_2) \\
&=
\Be_1 (\Be_2
\Be_1) \Be_2 \\
&=
-\Be_1 (\Be_1
\Be_2) \Be_2 \\
&=
-(\Be_1 \Be_1)
(\Be_2 \Be_2) \\
&=-1.
\end{aligned}

Such “imaginary” (unit bivectors) have important applications describing rotations in Euclidean spaces, and boosts in Minkowski spaces.

• The product of three perpendicular vectors, such as

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:140}
I = \Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3,

is called a trivector. In \R{3}, the product of three orthonormal vectors is called a pseudoscalar for the space, and can represent an oriented volume element. The quantity $$I$$ above is the typical orientation picked for the \R{3} unit pseudoscalar. This quantity also has characteristics of an imaginary number

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:160}
\begin{aligned}
I^2
&=
(\Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3)
(\Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3) \\
&=
\Be_1 \Be_2 (\Be_3
\Be_1) \Be_2 \Be_3 \\
&=
-\Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_1
\Be_3 \Be_2 \Be_3 \\
&=
-\Be_1 (\Be_2 \Be_1)
(\Be_3 \Be_2) \Be_3 \\
&=
-\Be_1 (\Be_1 \Be_2)
(\Be_2 \Be_3) \Be_3 \\
&=

\Be_1^2
\Be_2^2
\Be_3^2 \\
&=
-1.
\end{aligned}

• The product of two vectors in \R{3} can be expressed as the sum of a symmetric scalar product and antisymmetric bivector product

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:480}
\begin{aligned}
\Ba \Bb
&=
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n \Be_i \Be_j a_i b_j \\
&=
\sum_{i = 1}^n \Be_i^2 a_i b_i
+
\sum_{0 < i \ne j \le n} \Be_i \Be_j a_i b_j \\ &= \sum_{i = 1}^n a_i b_i + \sum_{0 < i < j \le n} \Be_i \Be_j (a_i b_j - a_j b_i). \end{aligned} The first (symmetric) term is clearly the dot product. The antisymmetric term is designated the wedge product. In general these are written $$\label{eqn:gaTutorial:500} \Ba \Bb = \Ba \cdot \Bb + \Ba \wedge \Bb,$$ where \label{eqn:gaTutorial:520} \begin{aligned} \Ba \cdot \Bb &\equiv \inv{2} \lr{ \Ba \Bb + \Bb \Ba } \\ \Ba \wedge \Bb &\equiv \inv{2} \lr{ \Ba \Bb - \Bb \Ba }, \end{aligned} The coordinate expansion of both can be seen above, but in \R{3} the wedge can also be written $$\label{eqn:gaTutorial:540} \Ba \wedge \Bb = \Be_1 \Be_2 \Be_3 (\Ba \cross \Bb) = I (\Ba \cross \Bb).$$ This allows for an handy dot plus cross product expansion of the vector product $$\label{eqn:gaTutorial:180} \Ba \Bb = \Ba \cdot \Bb + I (\Ba \cross \Bb).$$ This result should be familiar to the student of quantum spin states where one writes $$\label{eqn:gaTutorial:200} (\Bsigma \cdot \Ba) (\Bsigma \cdot \Bb) = (\Ba \cdot \Bb) + i (\Ba \cross \Bb) \cdot \Bsigma.$$ This correspondence is because the Pauli spin basis is a specific matrix representation of a Geometric Algebra, satisfying the same commutator and anticommutator relationships. A number of other algebra structures, such as complex numbers, and quaterions can also be modelled as Geometric Algebra elements.

• It is often useful to utilize the grade selection operator
$$\gpgrade{M}{n}$$ and scalar grade selection operator $$\gpgradezero{M} = \gpgrade{M}{0}$$
to select the scalar, vector, bivector, trivector, or higher grade algebraic elements. For example, operating on vectors $$\Ba, \Bb, \Bc$$, we have

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:580}
\begin{aligned}
&= \Ba \cdot \Bb \\
&=
\Ba (\Bb \cdot \Bc)
+
\Ba \cdot (\Bb \wedge \Bc) \\
&=
\Ba (\Bb \cdot \Bc)
+
(\Ba \cdot \Bb) \Bc

(\Ba \cdot \Bc) \Bb \\
\Ba \wedge \Bb \\
\Ba \wedge \Bb \wedge \Bc.
\end{aligned}

Note that the wedge product of any number of vectors such as $$\Ba \wedge \Bb \wedge \Bc$$ is associative and can be expressed in terms of the complete antisymmetrization of the product of those vectors. A consequence of that is the fact a wedge product that includes any colinear vectors in the product is zero.

## Example: Helmholz equations.

As an example of the power of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:180}, consider the following Helmholtz equation derivation (wave equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the frequency domain.)

Application of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:180} to
Maxwell equations in the frequency domain for source free simple media gives

\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:340}
\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:360}
\spacegrad \BE = -j \omega I \BB

\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:380}
\spacegrad I \BB = -j \omega \mu \epsilon \BE.

These equations use the engineering (not physics) sign convention for the phasors where the time domain fields are of the form $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(\Br, t) = \textrm{Re}( \BE e^{j\omega t}$$.

Operation with the gradient from the left produces the Helmholtz equation for each of the fields using nothing more than multiplication and simple substitution

\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:400}
\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:420}
\spacegrad^2 \BE = – \mu \epsilon \omega^2 \BE

\label{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem6:440}
\spacegrad^2 I \BB = – \mu \epsilon \omega^2 I \BB.

There was no reason to go through the headache of looking up or deriving the expansion of $$\spacegrad \cross (\spacegrad \cross \BA )$$ as is required with the traditional vector algebra demonstration of these identities.

Observe that the usual Helmholtz equation for $$\BB$$ doesn’t have a pseudoscalar factor. That result can be obtained by just cancelling the factors $$I$$ since the \R{3} Euclidean pseudoscalar commutes with all grades (this isn’t the case in \R{2} nor in Minkowski spaces.)

## Example: Factoring the Laplacian.

There are various ways to demonstrate the identity

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:660}

such as the use of (somewhat obscure) tensor contraction techniques. We can also do this with Geometric Algebra (using a different set of obscure techniques) by factoring the Laplacian action on a vector

\label{eqn:gaTutorial:700}
\begin{aligned}
&=
&=
&=
+
%+
&=
+
\end{aligned}

Should we wish to express the last term using cross products, a grade one selection operation can be used
\label{eqn:gaTutorial:680}
\begin{aligned}
&=
&=
&=
&=
&=
\end{aligned}

Here coordinate expansion was not required in any step.

# References

[1] C. Doran and A.N. Lasenby. Geometric algebra for physicists. Cambridge University Press New York, Cambridge, UK, 1st edition, 2003.

[2] L. Dorst, D. Fontijne, and S. Mann. Geometric Algebra for Computer Science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2007.

[3] D. Hestenes. New Foundations for Classical Mechanics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

[4] A. Macdonald. Vector and Geometric Calculus. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.

## Green’s function inversion of the magnetostatic equation

A previous example of inverting a gradient equation was the electrostatics equation. We can do the same for the magnetostatics equation, which has the following Geometric Algebra form in linear media

\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:20}
\spacegrad I \BB = – \mu \BJ.

The Green’s inversion of this is
\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:40}
\begin{aligned}
I \BB(\Bx)
&= \int_V dV’ G(\Bx, \Bx’) \spacegrad’ I \BB(\Bx’) \\
&= \int_V dV’ G(\Bx, \Bx’) (-\mu \BJ(\Bx’)) \\
&= \inv{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \frac{\Bx – \Bx’}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}^3 } (-\mu \BJ(\Bx’)).
\end{aligned}

We expect the LHS to be a bivector, so the scalar component of this should be zero. That can be demonstrated with some of the usual trickery
\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:60}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \frac{\Bx – \Bx’}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}^3 } \cdot \BJ(\Bx’)
&= \frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \lr{ \spacegrad \inv{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} }} \cdot \BJ(\Bx’) \\
&= -\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \lr{ \spacegrad’ \inv{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} }} \cdot \BJ(\Bx’) \\
&= -\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \lr{
\spacegrad’ \cdot \frac{\BJ(\Bx’)}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} }

\frac{\spacegrad’ \cdot \BJ(\Bx’)}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} }
}.
\end{aligned}

The current $$\BJ$$ is not unconstrained. This can be seen by premultiplying \ref{eqn:biotSavartGreens:20} by the gradient

\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:80}

On the LHS we have a bivector so must have $$\spacegrad \BJ = \spacegrad \wedge \BJ$$, or $$\spacegrad \cdot \BJ = 0$$. This kills the $$\spacegrad’ \cdot \BJ(\Bx’)$$ integrand numerator in \ref{eqn:biotSavartGreens:60}, leaving

\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:100}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \frac{\Bx – \Bx’}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}^3 } \cdot \BJ(\Bx’)
&= -\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \spacegrad’ \cdot \frac{\BJ(\Bx’)}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} } \\
&= -\frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_{\partial V} dA’ \ncap \cdot \frac{\BJ(\Bx’)}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’} }.
\end{aligned}

This shows that the scalar part of the equation is zero, provided the normal component of $$\BJ/\Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}$$ vanishes on the boundary of the infinite sphere. This leaves the Biot-Savart law as a bivector equation

\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:120}
I \BB(\Bx)
= \frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \BJ(\Bx’) \wedge \frac{\Bx – \Bx’}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}^3 }.

Observe that the traditional vector form of the Biot-Savart law can be obtained by premultiplying both sides with $$-I$$, leaving

\label{eqn:biotSavartGreens:140}
\BB(\Bx)
= \frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int_V dV’ \BJ(\Bx’) \cross \frac{\Bx – \Bx’}{ \Abs{\Bx – \Bx’}^3 }.

This checks against a trusted source such as [1] (eq. 5.39).

# References

[1] David Jeffrey Griffiths and Reed College. Introduction to electrodynamics. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd edition, 1999.

## Maxwell equation boundary conditions in media

Following [1], Maxwell’s equations in media, including both electric and magnetic sources and currents are

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:40}
\spacegrad \cross \BE = -\BM – \partial_t \BB

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:60}
\spacegrad \cross \BH = \BJ + \partial_t \BD

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:80}

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:100}

In general, it is not possible to assemble these into a single Geometric Algebra equation unless specific assumptions about the permeabilities are made, but we can still use Geometric Algebra to examine the boundary condition question. First, these equations can be expressed in a more natural multivector form

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:140}
\spacegrad \wedge \BE = -I \lr{ \BM + \partial_t \BB }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:160}
\spacegrad \wedge \BH = I \lr{ \BJ + \partial_t \BD }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:180}

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:200}

Then duality relations can be used on the divergences to write all four equations in their curl form

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:240}
\spacegrad \wedge \BE = -I \lr{ \BM + \partial_t \BB }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:260}
\spacegrad \wedge \BH = I \lr{ \BJ + \partial_t \BD }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:280}
\spacegrad \wedge (I\BD) = \rho I

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:300}
\spacegrad \wedge (I\BB) = \rho_{\textrm{m}} I.

Now it is possible to employ Stokes theorem to each of these. The usual procedure is to both use the loops of fig. 2 and the pillbox of fig. 1, where in both cases the height is made infinitesimal.

fig 1. Two surfaces normal to the interface.

fig 2. A pillbox volume encompassing the interface.

With all these relations expressed in curl form as above, we can use just the pillbox configuration to evaluate the Stokes integrals.
Let the height $$h$$ be measured along the normal axis, and assume that all the charges and currents are localized to the surface

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:320}
\begin{aligned}
\BM &= \BM_{\textrm{s}} \delta( h ) \\
\BJ &= \BJ_{\textrm{s}} \delta( h ) \\
\rho &= \rho_{\textrm{s}} \delta( h ) \\
\rho_{\textrm{m}} &= \rho_{\textrm{m}\textrm{s}} \delta( h ),
\end{aligned}

we can enumerate the Stokes integrals $$\int d^3 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \wedge \BX } = \oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot \BX$$. The three-volume area element will be written as $$d^3 \Bx = d^2 \Bx \wedge \ncap dh$$, giving

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:360}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot \BE = -\int (d^2 \Bx \wedge \ncap) \cdot \lr{ I \BM_{\textrm{s}} + \partial_t I \BB \Delta h}

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:380}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot \BH = \int (d^2 \Bx \wedge \ncap) \cdot \lr{ I \BJ_{\textrm{s}} + \partial_t I \BD \Delta h}

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:400}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I\BD) = \int (d^2 \Bx \wedge \ncap) \cdot \lr{ \rho_{\textrm{s}} I }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:420}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I\BB) = \int (d^2 \Bx \wedge \ncap) \cdot \lr{ \rho_{\textrm{m}\textrm{s}} I }

In the limit with $$\Delta h \rightarrow 0$$, the LHS integrals are reduced to just the top and bottom surfaces, and the $$\Delta h$$ contributions on the RHS are eliminated. With $$i = I \ncap$$, and $$d^2 \Bx = dA\, i$$ on the top surface, we are left with

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:460}
0 = \int dA \lr{ i \cdot \Delta \BE + I \cdot \lr{ I \BM_{\textrm{s}} } }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:480}
0 = \int dA \lr{ i \cdot \Delta \BH – I \cdot \lr{ I \BJ_{\textrm{s}} } }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:500}
0 = \int dA \lr{ i \cdot \Delta (I\BD) + \rho_{\textrm{s}} }

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:520}
0 = \int dA \lr{ i \cdot \Delta (I\BB) + \rho_{\textrm{m}\textrm{s}} }

Consider the first integral. Any component of $$\BE$$ that is normal to the plane of the pillbox top (or bottom) has no contribution to the integral, so this constraint is one that effects only the tangential components $$\ncap (\ncap \wedge (\Delta \BE))$$. Writing out the vector portion of the integrand, we have

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:540}
\begin{aligned}
i \cdot \Delta \BE + I \cdot \lr{ I \BM_{\textrm{s}} }
&=
\gpgradeone{ i \Delta \BE + I^2 \BM_{\textrm{s}} } \\
&=
\gpgradeone{ I \ncap \Delta \BE – \BM_{\textrm{s}} } \\
&=
\gpgradeone{ I \ncap \ncap (\ncap \wedge \Delta \BE) – \BM_{\textrm{s}} } \\
&=
\gpgradeone{ I (\ncap \wedge (\Delta \BE)) – \BM_{\textrm{s}} } \\
&=
\gpgradeone{ -\ncap \cross (\Delta \BE) – \BM_{\textrm{s}} }.
\end{aligned}

The dot product (a scalar) in the two surface charge integrals can also be reduced

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:560}
\begin{aligned}
i \cdot \Delta (I\BD)
&=
\gpgradezero{ i \Delta (I\BD) } \\
&=
\gpgradezero{ I \ncap \Delta (I\BD) } \\
&=
\gpgradezero{ -\ncap \Delta \BD } \\
&=
-\ncap \cdot \Delta \BD,
\end{aligned}

so the integral equations are satisfied provided

\label{eqn:boundaryConditionsInMedia:580}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\ncap \cross (\BE_2 – \BE_1) &= – \BM_{\textrm{s}} \\
\ncap \cross (\BH_2 – \BH_1) &= \BJ_{\textrm{s}} \\
\ncap \cdot (\BD_2 – \BD_1) &= \rho_{\textrm{s}} \\
\ncap \cdot (\BB_2 – \BB_1) &= \rho_{\textrm{m}\textrm{s}}.
\end{aligned}
}

It is tempting to try to assemble these into a results expressed in terms of a four-vector surface current and composite STA bivector fields like the $$F = \BE + I c \BB$$ that we can use for the free space Maxwell’s equation. Dimensionally, we need something with velocity in that mix, but what velocity should be used when the speed of the field propagation in each media is potentially different?

# References

[1] Constantine A Balanis. Advanced engineering electromagnetics. Wiley New York, 1989.

## Motivation

fig 1. Two surfaces normal to the interface.

Most electrodynamics textbooks either start with or contain a treatment of boundary value conditions. These typically involve evaluating Maxwell’s equations over areas or volumes of decreasing height, such as those illustrated in fig. 1, and fig. 2. These represent surfaces and volumes where the height is allowed to decrease to infinitesimal levels, and are traditionally used to find the boundary value constraints of the normal and tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields.

fig 2. A pillbox volume encompassing the interface.

More advanced topics, such as evaluation of the Fresnel reflection and transmission equations, also rely on similar consideration of boundary value constraints. I’ve wondered for a long time how the Fresnel equations could be attacked by looking at the boundary conditions for the combined field $$F = \BE + I c \BB$$, instead of the considering them separately.

## A unified approach.

The Geometric Algebra (and relativistic tensor) formulations of Maxwell’s equations put the electric and magnetic fields on equal footings. It is in fact possible to specify the boundary value constraints on the fields without first separating Maxwell’s equations into their traditional forms. The starting point in Geometric Algebra is Maxwell’s equation, premultiplied by a stationary observer’s timelike basis vector

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:20}
\gamma_0 \grad F = \inv{\epsilon_0 c} \gamma_0 J,

or

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:40}
\lr{ \partial_0 + \spacegrad} F = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} – \frac{\BJ}{\epsilon_0}.

The electrodynamic field $$F = \BE + I c \BB$$ is a multivector in this spatial domain (whereas it is a bivector in the spacetime algebra domain), and has vector and bivector components. The product of the spatial gradient and the field can still be split into dot and curl components $$\spacegrad M = \spacegrad \cdot M + \spacegrad \wedge M$$. If $$M = \sum M_i$$, where $$M_i$$ is an grade $$i$$ blade, then we give this the Hestenes’ [1] definitions

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:60}
\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}

With that said, Maxwell’s equation can be rearranged into a pair of multivector equations

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:80}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \cdot F &= \gpgrade{-\partial_0 F + \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} – \frac{\BJ}{\epsilon_0 c}}{0,1} \\
\end{aligned}

The latter equation can be integrated with Stokes theorem, but we need to apply a duality transformation to the latter in order to apply Stokes to it

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:120}
\begin{aligned}
&=
&=
&=
&=
\end{aligned}

so

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:100}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \wedge (I F) &= I \lr{ -\inv{c} \partial_t \BE + \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} – \frac{\BJ}{\epsilon_0 c} } \\
\spacegrad \wedge F &= -I \partial_t \BB.
\end{aligned}

Integrating each of these over the pillbox volume gives

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:140}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I F)
&=
\int_{V} d^3 \Bx \cdot \lr{ I \lr{ -\inv{c} \partial_t \BE + \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} – \frac{\BJ}{\epsilon_0 c} } } \\
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot F
&=
– \partial_t \int_{V} d^3 \Bx \cdot \lr{ I \BB }.
\end{aligned}

In the absence of charges and currents on the surface, and if the height of the volume is reduced to zero, the volume integrals vanish, and only the upper surfaces of the pillbox contribute to the surface integrals.

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:200}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I F) &= 0 \\
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot F &= 0.
\end{aligned}

With a multivector $$F$$ in the mix, the geometric meaning of these integrals is not terribly clear. They do describe the boundary conditions, but to see exactly what those are, we can now resort to the split of $$F$$ into its electric and magnetic fields. Let’s look at the non-dual integral to start with

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:160}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot F
&=
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot \lr{ \BE + I c \BB } \\
&=
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot \BE + I c d^2 \Bx \wedge \BB \\
&=
0.
\end{aligned}

No component of $$\BE$$ that is normal to the surface contributes to $$d^2 \Bx \cdot \BE$$, whereas only components of $$\BB$$ that are normal contribute to $$d^2 \Bx \wedge \BB$$. That means that we must have tangential components of $$\BE$$ and the normal components of $$\BB$$ matching on the surfaces

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:180}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{\BE_2 \wedge \ncap} \ncap – \lr{\BE_1 \wedge (-\ncap)} (-\ncap) &= 0 \\
\lr{\BB_2 \cdot \ncap} \ncap – \lr{\BB_1 \cdot (-\ncap)} (-\ncap) &= 0 .
\end{aligned}

Similarly, for the dot product of the dual field, this is

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:220}
\begin{aligned}
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I F)
&=
\oint_{\partial V} d^2 \Bx \cdot (I \BE – c \BB) \\
&=
\oint_{\partial V} I d^2 \Bx \wedge \BE – c d^2 \Bx \cdot \BB.
\end{aligned}

For this integral, only the normal components of $$\BE$$ contribute, and only the tangential components of $$\BB$$ contribute. This means that

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:240}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{\BE_2 \cdot \ncap} \ncap – \lr{\BE_1 \cdot (-\ncap)} (-\ncap) &= 0 \\
\lr{\BB_2 \wedge \ncap} \ncap – \lr{\BB_1 \wedge (-\ncap)} (-\ncap) &= 0.
\end{aligned}

This is why we end up with a seemingly strange mix of tangential and normal components of the electric and magnetic fields. These constraints can be summarized as

\label{eqn:maxwellBoundaryConditions:260}
\begin{aligned}
( \BE_2 – \BE_1 ) \cdot \ncap &= 0 \\
( \BE_2 – \BE_1 ) \wedge \ncap &= 0 \\
( \BB_2 – \BB_1 ) \cdot \ncap &= 0 \\
( \BB_2 – \BB_1 ) \wedge \ncap &= 0
\end{aligned}

These relationships are usually expressed in terms of all of $$\BE, \BD, \BB$$ and $$\BH$$. Because I’d started with Maxwell’s equations for free space, I don’t have the $$\epsilon$$ and $$\mu$$ factors that produce those more general relationships. Those more general boundary value relationships are usually the starting point for the Fresnel interface analysis. It is also possible to further generalize these relationships to include charges and currents on the surface.

# References

[1] D. Hestenes. New Foundations for Classical Mechanics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

## Stokes integrals for Maxwell’s equations in Geometric Algebra

Recall that the relativistic form of Maxwell’s equation in Geometric Algebra is

\label{eqn:maxwellStokes:20}
\grad F = \inv{c \epsilon_0} J.

where $$\grad = \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu$$ is the spacetime gradient, and $$J = (c\rho, \BJ) = J^\mu \gamma_\mu$$ is the four (vector) current density. The pseudoscalar for the space is denoted $$I = \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3$$, where the basis elements satisfy $$\gamma_0^2 = 1 = -\gamma_k^2$$, and a dual basis satisfies $$\gamma_\mu \cdot \gamma^\nu = \delta_\mu^\nu$$. The electromagnetic field $$F$$ is a composite multivector $$F = \BE + I c \BB$$. This is actually a bivector because spatial vectors have a bivector representation in the space time algebra of the form $$\BE = E^k \gamma_k \gamma_0$$.

Previously, I wrote out the Stokes integrals for Maxwell’s equation in GA form using some three parameter spacetime manifold volumes. This time I’m going to use two and three parameter spatial volumes, again with the Geometric Algebra form of Stokes theorem.

Multiplication by a timelike unit vector transforms Maxwell’s equation from their relativistic form. When that vector is the standard basis timelike unit vector $$\gamma_0$$, we obtain Maxwell’s equations from the point of view of a stationary observer

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:40}
\lr{\partial_0 + \spacegrad} \lr{ \BE + c I \BB } = \inv{\epsilon_0 c} \lr{ c \rho – \BJ },

Extracting the scalar, vector, bivector, and trivector grades respectively, we have
\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:60}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \cdot \BE &= \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} \\
c I \spacegrad \wedge \BB &= -\partial_0 \BE – \inv{\epsilon_0 c} \BJ \\
\spacegrad \wedge \BE &= – I c \partial_0 \BB \\
c I \spacegrad \cdot \BB &= 0.
\end{aligned}

Each of these can be written as a curl equation

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:80}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \wedge (I \BE) &= I \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} \\
\inv{\mu_0} \spacegrad \wedge \BB &= \epsilon_0 I \partial_t \BE + I \BJ \\
\spacegrad \wedge \BE &= -I \partial_t \BB \\
\spacegrad \wedge (I \BB) &= 0,
\end{aligned}
}

a form that allows for direct application of Stokes integrals. The first and last of these require a three parameter volume element, whereas the two bivector grade equations can be integrated using either two or three parameter volume elements. Suppose that we have can parameterize the space with parameters $$u, v, w$$, for which the gradient has the representation

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:100}
\spacegrad = \Bx^u \partial_u + \Bx^v \partial_v + \Bx^w \partial_w,

but we integrate over a two parameter subset of this space spanned by $$\Bx(u,v)$$, with area element

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:120}
\begin{aligned}
d^2 \Bx
&= d\Bx_u \wedge d\Bx_v \\
&=
\PD{u}{\Bx}
\wedge
\PD{v}{\Bx}
\,du dv \\
&=
\Bx_u
\wedge
\Bx_v
\,du dv,
\end{aligned}

as illustrated in fig. 1.

fig. 1. Two parameter manifold.

Our curvilinear coordinates $$\Bx_u, \Bx_v, \Bx_w$$ are dual to the reciprocal basis $$\Bx^u, \Bx^v, \Bx^w$$, but we won’t actually have to calculate that reciprocal basis. Instead we need only know that it can be calculated and is defined by the relations $$\Bx_a \cdot \Bx^b = \delta_a^b$$. Knowing that we can reduce (say),

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:140}
\begin{aligned}
d^2 \Bx \cdot ( \spacegrad \wedge \BE )
&=
d^2 \Bx \cdot ( \Bx^a \partial_a \wedge \BE ) \\
&=
(\Bx_u \wedge \Bx_v) \cdot ( \Bx^a \wedge \partial_a \BE ) \,du dv \\
&=
(((\Bx_u \wedge \Bx_v) \cdot \Bx^a) \cdot \partial_a \BE \,du dv \\
&=
d\Bx_u \cdot \partial_v \BE \,dv
-d\Bx_v \cdot \partial_u \BE \,du,
\end{aligned}

Because each of the differentials, for example $$d\Bx_u = (\PDi{u}{\Bx}) du$$, is calculated with the other (i.e.$$v$$) held constant, this is directly integrable, leaving

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:160}
\begin{aligned}
\int d^2 \Bx \cdot ( \spacegrad \wedge \BE )
&=
\int \evalrange{\lr{d\Bx_u \cdot \BE}}{v=0}{v=1}
-\int \evalrange{\lr{d\Bx_v \cdot \BE}}{u=0}{u=1} \\
&=
\oint d\Bx \cdot \BE.
\end{aligned}

That direct integration of one of the parameters, while the others are held constant, is the basic idea behind Stokes theorem.

The pseudoscalar grade Maxwell’s equations from \ref{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:80} require a three parameter volume element to apply Stokes theorem to. Again, allowing for curvilinear coordinates such a differential expands as

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:180}
\begin{aligned}
d^3 \Bx \cdot (\spacegrad \wedge (I\BB))
&=
(( \Bx_u \wedge \Bx_v \wedge \Bx_w ) \cdot \Bx^a ) \cdot \partial_a (I\BB) \,du dv dw \\
&=
(d\Bx_u \wedge d\Bx_v) \cdot \partial_w (I\BB) dw
+(d\Bx_v \wedge d\Bx_w) \cdot \partial_u (I\BB) du
+(d\Bx_w \wedge d\Bx_u) \cdot \partial_v (I\BB) dv.
\end{aligned}

Like the two parameter volume, this is directly integrable

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:200}
\int
d^3 \Bx \cdot (\spacegrad \wedge (I\BB))
=
\int \evalbar{(d\Bx_u \wedge d\Bx_v) \cdot (I\BB) }{\Delta w}
+\int \evalbar{(d\Bx_v \wedge d\Bx_w) \cdot (I\BB)}{\Delta u}
+\int \evalbar{(d\Bx_w \wedge d\Bx_u) \cdot (I\BB)}{\Delta v}.

After some thought (or a craft project such as that of fig. 2) is can be observed that this is conceptually an oriented surface integral

fig. 2. Oriented three parameter surface.

Noting that

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:221}
\begin{aligned}
d^2 \Bx \cdot (I\Bf)
&= \gpgradezero{ d^2 \Bx I B } \\
&= I (d^2\Bx \wedge \Bf)
\end{aligned}

we can now write down the results of application of Stokes theorem to each of Maxwell’s equations in their curl forms

\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:220}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\oint d\Bx \cdot \BE &= -I \partial_t \int d^2 \Bx \wedge \BB \\
\inv{\mu_0} \oint d\Bx \cdot \BB &= \epsilon_0 I \partial_t \int d^2 \Bx \wedge \BE + I \int d^2 \Bx \wedge \BJ \\
\oint d^2 \Bx \wedge \BE &= \inv{\epsilon_0} \int (d^3 \Bx \cdot I) \rho \\
\oint d^2 \Bx \wedge \BB &= 0.
\end{aligned}
}

In the three parameter surface integrals the specific meaning to apply to $$d^2 \Bx \wedge \Bf$$ is
\label{eqn:stokesMaxwellSpaceTimeSplit:240}
\oint d^2 \Bx \wedge \Bf
=
\int \evalbar{\lr{d\Bx_u \wedge d\Bx_v \wedge \Bf}}{\Delta w}
+\int \evalbar{\lr{d\Bx_v \wedge d\Bx_w \wedge \Bf}}{\Delta u}
+\int \evalbar{\lr{d\Bx_w \wedge d\Bx_u \wedge \Bf}}{\Delta v}.

Note that in each case only the component of the vector $$\Bf$$ that is projected onto the normal to the area element contributes.