Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

HTML conversions sometimes display errors due to content that did not convert correctly from the source. This paper uses the following packages that are not yet supported by the HTML conversion tool. Feedback on these issues are not necessary; they are known and are being worked on.

  • failed: dirtytalk

Authors: achieve the best HTML results from your LaTeX submissions by following these best practices.

License: CC BY-SA 4.0
arXiv:2309.00326v2 [hep-th] 09 Feb 2024
\setdescription

leftmargin=12.5pt


Formulation of Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld theory

Rabin Banerjee11{}^{1}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 111DAE Raja Ramanna fellow    Soumya Bhattacharya11{}^{1}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT    Bibhas Ranjan Majhi22{}^{2}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 11{}^{1}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPTDepartment of Astrophysics and High Energy Physics, S.N. Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Kolkata 700106, India rabin@bose.res.in soumya557@bose.res.in 22{}^{2}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, Assam, India bibhas.majhi@iitg.ac.in
Abstract

In this paper, we formulate, for the first time, in a systematic manner, Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld action in detail. Exploiting maps connecting Lorentz relativistic and Galilean relativistic vectors, we construct the two limits (electric and magnetic) of Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld action from usual relativistic Born-Infeld theory. An action formalism is thereby derived. From this action, equations of motion are obtained either in the potential or field formulation. Galilean version of duality transformations involving the electric and magnetic fields are defined. They map the electric limit relations to the magnetic ones and vice-versa, exactly as happens for Galilean relativistic Maxwell theory. We also explicitly show the Galilean boost and gauge invariances of the theory in both limits.

I Introduction

The low energy effective description of a system is usually explained by the study of a non-relativistic (NR) field theory. Non-relativistic limit of classical field theories received considerable attention recently. It has found applications in various diverse branches of theoretical physics like holography [1], non-relativistic diffeomorphism invariant theories [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], condensed matter physics [8, 9], fluid dynamics [10, 11] and gravitation [12, 13] to name a few. This formulation is tricky and altogether different from the relativistic case. The absolute nature of time in the non-relativistic limit leads to the lack of a single non-degenerate metric which poses some additional difficulties. It is very interesting to understand Galilean invariance and its role in field theories, especially in gauge theories [14]. The basic construction of Galilean electrodynamics was first given by Le Bellac and Levy-Leblond [15] back in 1970’s. This was done in the field formulation. A similar field based analysis was done in [16] using embedding techniques. Further directions in this type of analysis were provided in [17]. A systematic covariant construction of the action principle of Galilean relativistic Maxwell theory was given in [18] and a covariant action formulation of Galilean relativistic Proca theory was provided in [19]. Bellac and Levy-Leblond [15] (and others as well) only consider contravariant components. This becomes necessary (considering both covariant and contravariant components) here since we have given an action formulation. Our approach is to deduce the non-relatvistic expressions from the relativistic action using the scalings. In this sense our approach is general that can be developed either in terms of potentials or (electric and magnetic) fields. This is not possible in other approaches.

The principal motivation of the present paper is to investigate Galilean versions of non-linear theories of electromagnetism. Among various possibilities, the Born-Infeld (BI) theory [20] is of particular importance. This is because the inclusion of electron’s self energy demands non-linearity in the electromagnetic theory. In that case the effective action includes non-linear terms apart from the standard Maxwell term. Such an action is well known as Born–Infeld (BI) action [20] and gave birth to the field of nonlinear electrodynamics. Also, such a theory is a low-energy effective action for the electromagnetism of D𝐷Ditalic_D-brane. In fact we can use the effective action of an open string ending on D𝐷Ditalic_D-brane to identify the electromagnetism of D𝐷Ditalic_D-brane [21]. One indeed can show that a n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional BI action, leads to Monge-gauge-fixed (p+1)𝑝1(p+1)( italic_p + 1 ) dimensional Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action under dimensional reduction, which for p=1𝑝1p=1italic_p = 1 yields the string action [22]. On the other hand BI action is also derivable from that of the open string action [23]. In recent times non-relativistic string theory attracted considerable attention [24]. It is well known that consideration of infinite boost limit in the compactification direction of string theory leads to non-relativistic (NR) behavior [25]. However, this NR theory is a unitary and ultraviolet (UV) complete string theory, containing a Galilean-like global symmetry in flat spacetime. Moreover the spectrum of string excitations satisfy Galilean-invariant dispersion relation. Such a theory is familiar as the NR version of string theory. People found various important theoretical aspects of this stringy limit of string theory (see [26], for a concrete discussion on this direction). For instance, we mention here one of them. The low-energy effective theory corresponding to this NR version yields a Newton-like theory of gravity. Because of its UV completeness, one expects that one can provide a UV completion of the associated theory of gravity. Therefore NR string can be a successful candidate for a NR theory of quantum gravity and hence may shed light on the ultimate relativistic quantum theory of gravity. Looking at these possibilities, people found interests in the NR version of string theories. Henceforth a huge surge of investigations and efforts emerge to achieve a correct version of NR limit [26]. Furthermore we mentioned that BI theory has a close connection with theories of string. Moreover NR DBI action that arises as the NR limit of string theory describes how strings couple to string Newton–Cartan (SNC) geometry. As a result following the importance of NR strings, one must be interested to analyse the NR limit of BI theory. Therefore understanding the non-relativistic regime of BI theory serves a two-fold purpose. In one direction we will be able to know about the non-relativistic nature of non-linear electrodynamics and on the other side, various non-relativistic features of open-string can be illuminated.
Given the importance of the BI theory, we are going to construct a Galilean relativistic version of the leading order BI theory. One can take the limit directly in the full non-linear action. However our purpose is not just to take the limit but to express everything in non-covariant terms using electric/magnetic fields and pursue with the analysis. It becomes technically rather complicated. Hence, as a tractable model, the leading order expansion was treated. The duality symmetry of the leading order relativistic BI theory has been discussed in [28]. We systematically construct the Galilean relativistic action for both electric and magnetic limits, respectively. We derived the equations of motion in terms of Galilean potentials. We then move to the field formulation and recast the equations of motion in terms of Galilean electric and magnetic fields. We write down a Galilean version of the duality relations. We have found that under these duality relations the equations of motion in the electric limit go to the Bianchi identities of the magnetic limit and the Bianchi identities of the electric limit map to the equations of motion in the magnetic limit. Similarly magnetic limit equations map to that of the electric limit case. We also show the inavariance of the lagrangian under the Galilean boost and gauge transformations.
The paper is organised as follows: the mapping relations between Lorentz and Galilean vectors are briefly discussed in section II. The relativistic BI theory and duality symmetry, in leading order, has been discussed in terms of electric and magnetic fields in section III. In section IV we give a Galilean covariant action principle for the Born-Infeld theory. The equations of motion in terms of fields are shown in section V. We discuss the Galilean version of the duality symmetry in section VI. We show that two Galilean limits (electric and magnetic) are swapped under these duality transformations. In section VII the invariance of the Galilean lagrangian under Galilean boost has been shown. The gauge invariance of the lagrangian is shown in section VIII. Finally conclusions have been given in section IX.

II Maps relating Lorentz and Galilean vectors

Here we briefly review the basic construction of the scaling relations between special relativistic and Galilean relativistic quantities. We first consider the two Galilean limits (electric and magnetic) for vector quantities. So first let us take the contravariant vectors. Under Lorentz transformations, with boost velocity uisuperscript𝑢𝑖u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the time-like and the space-like components of a vector Vμsuperscript𝑉𝜇V^{\mu}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT transforms as (also considering u<<cmuch-less-than𝑢𝑐u<<citalic_u < < italic_c, so γ1𝛾1\gamma\to 1italic_γ → 1)

V0=V0ujcVjsuperscript𝑉0superscript𝑉0subscript𝑢𝑗𝑐superscript𝑉𝑗V^{\prime 0}=V^{0}-\frac{u_{j}}{c}V^{j}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (1)
Vi=ViuicV0superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖𝑐superscript𝑉0V^{\prime i}=V^{i}-\frac{u^{i}}{c}V^{0}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2)

Galilean vectors v0,visuperscript𝑣0superscript𝑣𝑖v^{0},~{}v^{i}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are introduced by the scaling,222Notation: Here relativistic vectors are denoted by capital letters (V0,Visuperscript𝑉0superscript𝑉𝑖V^{0},~{}V^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT etc) and Galilean vectors are denoted by lowercase letters (v0,visuperscript𝑣0superscript𝑣𝑖v^{0},~{}v^{i}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT etc)

V0=cv0,Vi=viformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑉0𝑐superscript𝑣0superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖V^{0}=cv^{0},\,\,\,\,V^{i}=v^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_c italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3)

This particular map corresponds to the case V0Vi=cv0visuperscript𝑉0superscript𝑉𝑖𝑐superscript𝑣0superscript𝑣𝑖\frac{V^{0}}{V^{i}}=c~{}\frac{v^{0}}{v^{i}}divide start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_c divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG in the c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞ limit. This yields largely timelike vectors and is called ’electric limit’. Now using eqn 3 in eqns 1 and 2 we get

v0=v0superscript𝑣0superscript𝑣0v^{\prime 0}=v^{0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4)
vi=viuiv0superscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑣0v^{\prime i}=v^{i}-u^{i}v^{0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (5)

These equations define the usual galilean transformations.
We next consider the magnetic limit which corresponds to largely spacelike vectors

V0=v0c,Vi=viformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑉0superscript𝑣0𝑐superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖V^{0}=-\frac{v^{0}}{c},\,\,\,\,V^{i}=v^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (6)

Now using 6 in 1 and 2 we get

v0=v0+ujvjsuperscript𝑣0superscript𝑣0subscript𝑢𝑗superscript𝑣𝑗v^{\prime 0}=v^{0}+u_{j}v^{j}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (7)
vi=visuperscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖v^{\prime i}=v^{i}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (8)

which is again a Galilean transformation, although the corresponding group is not an invariance group of classical mechanics [14, 15]. Expectedly, the role of time-like and space-like vectors has been reversed from the earlier case.
Similarly one can show that the covariant vectors transform under Lorentz transformations in the low velocity limit as

V0=V0+uicVisubscriptsuperscript𝑉0subscript𝑉0superscript𝑢𝑖𝑐subscript𝑉𝑖V^{\prime}_{0}=V_{0}+\frac{u^{i}}{c}V_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (9)
Vi=Vi+uicV0subscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑢𝑖𝑐subscript𝑉0V^{\prime}_{i}=V_{i}+\frac{u_{i}}{c}V_{0}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (10)

Now we take the electric limit in the following way [18],

V0=v0c,Vi=viformulae-sequencesubscript𝑉0subscript𝑣0𝑐subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖V_{0}=\frac{v_{0}}{c},\,\,\,\,V_{i}=v_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (11)

Using 11 in 9 and 10 we get

v0=v0+uivisubscriptsuperscript𝑣0subscript𝑣0superscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖\displaystyle v^{\prime}_{0}=v_{0}+u^{i}v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (12)
vi=visubscriptsuperscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖\displaystyle v^{\prime}_{i}=v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (13)

which are again Galilean transformations.
Likewise, in the magnetic limit the covariant vectors scale as

V0=cv0,Vi=viformulae-sequencesubscript𝑉0𝑐subscript𝑣0subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖V_{0}=-cv_{0},\,\,\,\,V_{i}=v_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_c italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (14)

Using 14 in 9 and 10 we get

v0=v0superscriptsubscript𝑣0subscript𝑣0v_{0}^{\prime}=v_{0}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (15)
vi=viuiv0subscriptsuperscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑣0v^{\prime}_{i}=v_{i}-u_{i}v_{0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (16)

The complete mapping relations are summarised in the table 1.

Table 1: Mapping relations
LimitLimit{\rm Limit}roman_Limit ContravariantmappingContravariantmapping{\rm Contravariant~{}~{}mapping}roman_Contravariant roman_mapping CovariantmappingCovariantmapping{\rm Covariant~{}~{}mapping}roman_Covariant roman_mapping
ElectriclimitElectriclimit{\rm Electric~{}~{}limit}roman_Electric roman_limit V0cv0,Viviformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑉0𝑐superscript𝑣0superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖V^{0}\to c~{}v^{0},\,\,V^{i}\to v^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_c italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT V0v0c,Viviformulae-sequencesubscript𝑉0subscript𝑣0𝑐subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖V_{0}\to\frac{v_{0}}{c},\,\,V_{i}\to v_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
MagneticlimitMagneticlimit{\rm Magnetic~{}~{}limit}roman_Magnetic roman_limit V0v0c,Viviformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑉0superscript𝑣0𝑐superscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖V^{0}\to-\frac{v^{0}}{c},\,\,V^{i}\to v^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → - divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT V0cv0.Viviformulae-sequencesubscript𝑉0𝑐subscript𝑣0subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖V_{0}\to-c~{}v_{0}.\,\,V_{i}\to v_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → - italic_c italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

Note that the electric limit of contravariant vectors yields conventional galilean transformations (see (3) to (5)). This is the large time like limit. For the magnetic limit roles of space and time are reversed. Now we have large space like (contravariant) vectors leading to unconventional galilean transformations (7) and (8). For covariant components a similar reasoning with appropriate modifications follow. In this case the magnetic limit of covariant vectors should yield conventional galilean transformations which prompts the scaling (11). Now this is the large time like limit for covariant components. It may be noted that these sets of transformations satisfy the norm preserving condition V0V0+ViVi=v0v0+vivisubscript𝑉0superscript𝑉0subscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑣0superscript𝑣0subscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖V_{0}V^{0}+V_{i}V^{i}=v_{0}v^{0}+v_{i}v^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Such is very much implicit as the norm for Lorentz vector, given by V0V0+ViVisubscript𝑉0superscript𝑉0subscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑉𝑖V_{0}V^{0}+V_{i}V^{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, will take the form in Galilean limit such that each term will be replaced by the Galilean counter parts v0v0subscript𝑣0superscript𝑣0v_{0}v^{0}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and vivisubscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}v^{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

III Born-Infeld theory in the leading order

The Born-Infeld lagrangian is expressed in terms of the square root of a determinant as

=1g2(det(ημν+gFμν)1),1superscript𝑔2detsubscript𝜂𝜇𝜈𝑔subscript𝐹𝜇𝜈1\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{g^{2}}\Big{(}\sqrt{-{\rm det}(\eta_{\mu\nu}+gF_{\mu\nu})% }-1\Big{)}~{},caligraphic_L = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( square-root start_ARG - roman_det ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_g italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG - 1 ) , (17)

which in the leading order reduces to the following form [28]

=14F2g2(F2)2+4g2(FFFF)μμ.14superscript𝐹2superscript𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝐹224superscript𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝜇𝜇\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F^{2}-g^{2}(F^{2})^{2}+4g^{2}(FFFF)^{\mu}_{~{}\mu}~{}.caligraphic_L = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F italic_F italic_F italic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (18)

In the above we denoted F2=FμνFμνsuperscript𝐹2superscript𝐹𝜇𝜈subscript𝐹𝜇𝜈F^{2}=F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (AB)νμ=AμλBλνsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝐵𝜇𝜈superscript𝐴𝜇𝜆subscript𝐵𝜆𝜈(AB)^{\mu}_{~{}\nu}=A^{\mu\lambda}B_{\lambda\nu}( italic_A italic_B ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In principle one can take the NR limit directly in (17). However then the analysis becomes technically rather complicated, as our purpose is not just to take the limit but to express everything in noncovariant terms using electric/magnetic fields and pursue with the analysis. It is then advantageous to consider a tractable model. Therefore the leading order expansion of theory is being treated here. Using the leading order lagrangian (18) we can write the equations of motion and the Bianchi identities respectively in a covariant form as

μGμν*=0,μFμν*=0,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜇superscriptsuperscript𝐺𝜇𝜈0subscript𝜇superscriptsuperscript𝐹𝜇𝜈0\partial_{\mu}{}^{*}G^{\mu\nu}=0,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\partial_{\mu}{}^{*}F^{\mu% \nu}=0~{},∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , (19)

where the dual tensor is defined as,

Gμν*=12ϵμνρλGρλ;superscriptsuperscript𝐺𝜇𝜈12superscriptitalic-ϵ𝜇𝜈𝜌𝜆subscript𝐺𝜌𝜆{}^{*}G^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}G_{\rho\lambda}~{};start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν italic_ρ italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; (20)
Gμν=Fμν*+8g2F2(Fμν*)+32g2(FFF)μν*.G^{\mu\nu}={}^{*}F^{\mu\nu}+8g^{2}F^{2}({}^{*}F^{\mu\nu})+32g^{2}{}^{*}(FFF)^{% \mu\nu}~{}.italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT * end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F italic_F italic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (21)

The set of equations in (19) is preserved under the following discrete duality transformations

FG,GF.formulae-sequence𝐹𝐺𝐺𝐹F\to G,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}G\to-F~{}.italic_F → italic_G , italic_G → - italic_F . (22)

Since we are eventually going to discuss Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld theory, it is useful to recast the above results in their non-covariant forms using electric and magnetic fields.
Equations of motion:
The first relation in (19) yields

E+16g2(E(E2B2))+32g2B(EB)=0;𝐸16superscript𝑔2𝐸superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵232superscript𝑔2𝐵𝐸𝐵0\displaystyle\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}+16g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\cdot\Big{(}\vec{E}(E% ^{2}-B^{2})\Big{)}+32g^{2}\vec{B}\cdot\vec{\nabla}(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})=0~{};over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) = 0 ; (23)

and

tE+(×B)16g2t(E(E2B2))32g2t(B(EB))16g2×(B(E2B2))32g2×(E×(E×B))32g2×(B2B)=0.subscript𝑡𝐸𝐵16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡𝐸superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵232superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡𝐵𝐸𝐵16superscript𝑔2𝐵superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵232superscript𝑔2𝐸𝐸𝐵32superscript𝑔2superscript𝐵2𝐵0\begin{split}-\partial_{t}\vec{E}+(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{B})-16g^{2}\partial_% {t}\Big{(}\vec{E}(E^{2}-B^{2})\Big{)}-32g^{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\vec{B}(\vec{E% }\cdot\vec{B})\Big{)}&\\ -16g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{B}(E^{2}-B^{2})\Big{)}-32g^{2}\vec{% \nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{E}\times(\vec{E}\times\vec{B})\Big{)}-32g^{2}\vec{% \nabla}\times(B^{2}\vec{B})=0~{}.\end{split}start_ROW start_CELL - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG + ( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) ) end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) = 0 . end_CELL end_ROW (24)

Here the electric and magnetic fields are defined as,

Ei=F0i=0AiiA0,superscript𝐸𝑖superscript𝐹0𝑖superscript0superscript𝐴𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝐴0\displaystyle E^{i}=F^{0i}=\partial^{0}A^{i}-\partial^{i}A^{0},italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
Bi=12ϵijkFjk=ϵijkjAk.superscript𝐵𝑖12superscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝐹𝑗𝑘superscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗subscript𝐴𝑘\displaystyle B^{i}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk}F_{jk}=\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_{j}% A_{k}~{}.italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (25)

Note that eqns 23 and 24 incorporate nonlinear terms apart from the standard Maxwell ones.

Bianchi identities:
The other relation in (19) leads to two of the standard Maxwell’s four equations:

×E=Bt;𝐸𝐵𝑡\displaystyle\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E}=-\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}~{};over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG = - divide start_ARG ∂ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ; (26)
B=0.𝐵0\displaystyle\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{B}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG = 0 . (27)

Expectedly, the Bianchi identities retain their usual Maxwell form. The equations of motion in the limit g0𝑔0g\to 0italic_g → 0 also reproduce the desired Maxwell equations. The duality relations (22) can be expressed explicitly in the component form as well.
Duality relations:
The first one in (22) implies the following two mappings:

EB16g2(E2B2)B32g2E×(E×B)32g2B2B;𝐸𝐵16superscript𝑔2superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵2𝐵32superscript𝑔2𝐸𝐸𝐵32superscript𝑔2superscript𝐵2𝐵\displaystyle\vec{E}\to\vec{B}-16g^{2}(E^{2}-B^{2})\vec{B}-32g^{2}\vec{E}% \times(\vec{E}\times\vec{B})-32g^{2}B^{2}\vec{B}~{};over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG → over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ; (28)
BE16g2(E2B2)E32g2(EB)B.𝐵𝐸16superscript𝑔2superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵2𝐸32superscript𝑔2𝐸𝐵𝐵\displaystyle\vec{B}\to-\vec{E}-16g^{2}(E^{2}-B^{2})\vec{E}-32g^{2}(\vec{E}% \cdot\vec{B})\vec{B}~{}.over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG → - over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG . (29)

Whereas the last one signifies

B16g2(E2B2)B32g2E×(E×B)32g2B2BE;𝐵16superscript𝑔2superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵2𝐵32superscript𝑔2𝐸𝐸𝐵32superscript𝑔2superscript𝐵2𝐵𝐸\displaystyle\vec{B}-16g^{2}(E^{2}-B^{2})\vec{B}-32g^{2}\vec{E}\times(\vec{E}% \times\vec{B})-32g^{2}B^{2}\vec{B}\to-\vec{E}~{};over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG → - over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ; (30)
E+16g2(E2B2)E+32g2(EB)BB.𝐸16superscript𝑔2superscript𝐸2superscript𝐵2𝐸32superscript𝑔2𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵\displaystyle\vec{E}+16g^{2}(E^{2}-B^{2})\vec{E}+32g^{2}(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B})% \vec{B}\to\vec{B}~{}.over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG → over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG . (31)

It can be shown that the two sets of dualities given above i.e. (28), (29) and (30), (31) are consistent among each other. Also in the limit g0normal-→𝑔0g\to 0italic_g → 0 corresponding to Maxwell theory, the results yield the well known duality maps,

EB,BEformulae-sequence𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐸\vec{E}\to\vec{B},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\vec{B}\to-\vec{E}over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG → over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG → - over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG (32)

using either set. Under these duality relations the equations of motion i.e. (23) and (24) will go to the Bianchi identities (27) and (26) respectively, and vice-versa.

IV Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld theory: action principle

Here we wish to systematically build up a Galilean relativistic version of the Born-Infeld theory. Let us now start from the relativistic Born-Infeld theory described by the Lagrangian given in (18). Below we consider two Galilean limits separately.

IV.1 Electric limit

The calculation will be done following a particular general idea. Before taking c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞ limit, we will write down all the terms (if that term has any possible c𝑐citalic_c dependence) in any mathematical expression in terms of c𝑐citalic_c. So relativistic four vectors can be written in terms of Galilean vectors with possible c𝑐citalic_c dependence using Table 1 and the partial derivatives i.e. 0,i,0,isuperscript0superscript𝑖subscript0subscript𝑖\partial^{0},~{}\partial^{i},~{}\partial_{0},~{}\partial_{i}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will follow the relation: 0=0=1ctsuperscript0subscript01𝑐subscript𝑡\partial^{0}=-\partial_{0}=-\frac{1}{c}\partial_{t}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and i=isuperscript𝑖subscript𝑖\partial^{i}=\partial_{i}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. These are dictated by the relations x0=x0=ct,xi=xiformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑥0subscript𝑥0𝑐𝑡superscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥𝑖x^{0}=-x_{0}=ct,x^{i}=x_{i}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_c italic_t , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Finally the c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞ limit will be considered. Then using the relations given in Table 1 we can express the terms in (18) as

F2cElectric limit2ia0(taiia0)+f2,𝑐Electric limitsuperscript𝐹22superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0superscript𝑓2\displaystyle F^{2}\xrightarrow[\text{$c\to\infty$}]{\text{Electric limit}}-2% \partial^{i}a^{0}\Big{(}\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0}\big{)}+f^{2},% \hskip 72.26999ptitalic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_UNDERACCENT italic_c → ∞ end_UNDERACCENT start_ARROW overElectric limit → end_ARROW end_ARROW - 2 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (33)

and

(FFFF)μμcElectric limit2la0ka0(la0tal)(ka0tak)+4ia0(tamma0)(ff)im𝑐Electric limitsubscriptsuperscript𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝜇𝜇2superscript𝑙superscript𝑎0superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑙subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑙subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘4superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑚subscript𝑚subscript𝑎0subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑖\displaystyle(FFFF)^{\mu}_{~{}\mu}\xrightarrow[\text{$c\to\infty$}]{\text{% Electric limit}}2\partial^{l}a^{0}\partial^{k}a^{0}(\partial_{l}a_{0}-\partial% _{t}a_{l})(\partial_{k}a_{0}-\partial_{t}a_{k})+4\partial^{i}a^{0}(\partial_{t% }a_{m}-\partial_{m}a_{0})(ff)^{m}_{~{}i}( italic_F italic_F italic_F italic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_UNDERACCENT italic_c → ∞ end_UNDERACCENT start_ARROW overElectric limit → end_ARROW end_ARROW 2 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+(ffff)ii;subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖\displaystyle+(ffff)^{i}_{~{}i}~{};+ ( italic_f italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; (34)

where we denoted f2=fijfijsuperscript𝑓2superscript𝑓𝑖𝑗subscript𝑓𝑖𝑗f^{2}=f^{ij}f_{ij}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So in the electric limit we can write down the Galilean relativistic action as

Se=e𝑑td3x,subscript𝑆𝑒subscript𝑒differential-d𝑡superscript𝑑3𝑥S_{e}=\int\mathcal{L}_{e}dtd^{3}x~{},italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x , (35)

where the Lagrangian takes the following form

e=12ia0(taiia0)14f2g2(2ia0(taiia0)+f2)2+subscript𝑒12superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎014superscript𝑓2limit-fromsuperscript𝑔2superscript2superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0superscript𝑓22\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{e}=\frac{1}{2}\partial^{i}a^{0}\Big{(}\partial_{t}a_% {i}-\partial_{i}a_{0}\big{)}-\frac{1}{4}f^{2}-g^{2}\Big{(}-2\partial^{i}a^{0}% \Big{(}\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0}\big{)}+f^{2}\Big{)}^{2}+\hskip 57.8% 1621ptcaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 2 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT +
4g2(2la0ka0(la0tal)(ka0tak)+4ia0(tamma0)(ff)im+(ffff)ii).4superscript𝑔22superscript𝑙superscript𝑎0superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑙subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑙subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘4superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑚subscript𝑚subscript𝑎0subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖\displaystyle 4g^{2}\Big{(}2\partial^{l}a^{0}\partial^{k}a^{0}(\partial_{l}a_{% 0}-\partial_{t}a_{l})(\partial_{k}a_{0}-\partial_{t}a_{k})+4\partial^{i}a^{0}(% \partial_{t}a_{m}-\partial_{m}a_{0})(ff)^{m}_{~{}i}+(ffff)^{i}_{~{}i}\Big{)}~{}.4 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( italic_f italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (36)

Now varying the action (35) with respect to a0,aj,a0,ajsubscript𝑎0subscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑎0superscript𝑎𝑗a_{0},~{}a_{j},~{}a^{0},~{}a^{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we get the following equations respectively,

iia0+8g2i(αia0)32g2i(ia0ka0(ka0tak)ja0(ff)ji)=0;subscript𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖𝛼superscript𝑖superscript𝑎032superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle\partial_{i}\partial^{i}a^{0}+8g^{2}\partial_{i}(\alpha\partial^{% i}a^{0})-32g^{2}\partial_{i}\Big{(}\partial^{i}a^{0}\partial^{k}a^{0}(\partial% _{k}a_{0}-\partial_{t}a_{k})-\partial^{j}a^{0}(ff)^{i}_{~{}j}\Big{)}=0~{};∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (37)
tja0ifij+8g2t(αja0)8g2i(αfij)+32g2t(ja0la0(la0tal)+la0(ff)lj)+subscript𝑡superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0subscript𝑖superscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡𝛼superscript𝑗superscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖𝛼superscript𝑓𝑖𝑗limit-from32superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0superscript𝑙superscript𝑎0subscript𝑙subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑙superscript𝑙superscript𝑎0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑗\displaystyle\partial_{t}\partial^{j}a^{0}-\partial_{i}f^{ij}+8g^{2}\partial_{% t}(\alpha\partial^{j}a^{0})-8g^{2}\partial_{i}(\alpha f^{ij})+32g^{2}\partial_% {t}\Big{(}\partial^{j}a^{0}\partial^{l}a^{0}(\partial_{l}a_{0}-\partial_{t}a_{% l})+\partial^{l}a^{0}(ff)_{l}^{~{}j}\Big{)}+∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) +
8g2i(4ia0(takka0)fjk4ja0(takka0)fik+2(fff)ji2(fff)ij)=0;8superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖4superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0superscript𝑓𝑗𝑘4superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0superscript𝑓𝑖𝑘2superscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑗𝑖2superscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle 8g^{2}\partial_{i}\Big{(}4\partial^{i}a^{0}(\partial_{t}a_{k}-% \partial_{k}a_{0})f^{jk}-4\partial^{j}a^{0}(\partial_{t}a_{k}-\partial_{k}a_{0% })f^{ik}+2(fff)^{ji}-2(fff)^{ij}\Big{)}=0~{};8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (38)
i(taiia0)+8g2i(α(taiia0))+32g2i(ja0(ia0tai)(ja0taj)+(takka0)(ff)ik)=0;superscript𝑖subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎032superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑘0\displaystyle\partial^{i}(\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0})+8g^{2}\partial^% {i}\Big{(}\alpha(\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0})\Big{)}+32g^{2}\partial^{% i}\Big{(}\partial^{j}a^{0}(\partial_{i}a_{0}-\partial_{t}a_{i})(\partial_{j}a_% {0}-\partial_{t}a_{j})+(\partial_{t}a_{k}-\partial_{k}a_{0})(ff)_{i}^{~{}k}% \Big{)}=0~{};∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_α ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (39)

and

ifij+8g2i(αfij)8g2i(4ka0(taiia0)fjk4ka0(tajja0)fik+2(fff)ji2(fff)ij)=0.superscript𝑖subscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖4superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑓𝑗𝑘4superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑓𝑖𝑘2subscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑗𝑖2subscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle\partial^{i}f_{ij}+8g^{2}\partial^{i}(\alpha f_{ij})-8g^{2}% \partial^{i}\Big{(}4\partial^{k}a^{0}(\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0})f_{% jk}-4\partial^{k}a^{0}(\partial_{t}a_{j}-\partial_{j}a_{0})f_{ik}+2(fff)_{ji}-% 2(fff)_{ij}\Big{)}=0~{}.∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_α italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 4 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (40)

In the above α𝛼\alphaitalic_α represents

α=2ia0(taiia0)+f2.𝛼2superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0superscript𝑓2\alpha=-2\partial^{i}a^{0}\Big{(}\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0}\big{)}+f^% {2}~{}.italic_α = - 2 ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (41)

IV.2 Magnetic limit

In the magnetic limit, using Table 1, we can write down the Galilean relativistic action as

Sm=m𝑑td3x,subscript𝑆𝑚subscript𝑚differential-d𝑡superscript𝑑3𝑥S_{m}=\int\mathcal{L}_{m}dtd^{3}x~{},italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x , (42)

where the Lagrangian takes the following form

m=12ia0(taiia0)14f2g2(2ia0(taiia0)+f2)+subscript𝑚12subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎014superscript𝑓2limit-fromsuperscript𝑔22subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscript𝑓2\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{m}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{i}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{i}-% \partial^{i}a^{0})-\frac{1}{4}f^{2}-g^{2}\Big{(}-2\partial_{i}a_{0}(\partial_{% t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})+f^{2}\Big{)}+\hskip 36.135ptcaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 2 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) +
4g2(2ia0ja0(taiia0)(tajja0)+4ka0(taiia0)(ff)ik+(ffff)ii).4superscript𝑔22subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑗superscript𝑎04subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑘subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖\displaystyle 4g^{2}\Big{(}2\partial_{i}a_{0}\partial_{j}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{% i}-\partial^{i}a_{0})(\partial_{t}a^{j}-\partial^{j}a^{0})+4\partial_{k}a_{0}(% \partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})(ff)_{i}^{~{}k}+(ffff)^{i}_{~{}i}\Big{)}~{}.4 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 4 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_f italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (43)

Now varying the action (42) with respect to a0,aj,a0,ajsubscript𝑎0subscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑎0superscript𝑎𝑗a_{0},~{}a_{j},~{}a^{0},~{}a^{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have the following set of equations respectively,

i(taiia0)+8g2i(α(taiia0))+32g2i(ja0(taiia0)(tajja0)+(talla0)(ff)li)=0;subscript𝑖subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎032superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑙superscript𝑙superscript𝑎0superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑖0\displaystyle\partial_{i}(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})+8g^{2}\partial_% {i}\Big{(}\alpha(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})\Big{)}+32g^{2}\partial_{% i}\Big{(}\partial_{j}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})(\partial_{t}a^% {j}-\partial^{j}a^{0})+(\partial_{t}a^{l}-\partial^{l}a^{0})(ff)_{l}^{~{}i}% \Big{)}=0~{};∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (44)
ifij+8g2i(αfij)8g2i(4ka0(taiia0)fjk4ka0(tajja0)fik+2(fff)ji2(fff)ij)=0;subscript𝑖superscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖𝛼superscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖4subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscript𝑓𝑗𝑘4subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑗superscript𝑎0superscript𝑓𝑖𝑘2superscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑗𝑖2superscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle\partial_{i}f^{ij}+8g^{2}\partial_{i}(\alpha f^{ij})-8g^{2}% \partial_{i}\Big{(}4\partial_{k}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0})f^{% jk}-4\partial_{k}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{j}-\partial^{j}a^{0})f^{ik}+2(fff)^{ji}-% 2(fff)^{ij}\Big{)}=0~{};∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 4 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (45)
iia0+8g2i(αia0)32g2i(ia0ka0(ka0tak)ja0(ff)ji)=0;superscript𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝑖subscript𝑎032superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle\partial^{i}\partial_{i}a_{0}+8g^{2}\partial^{i}(\alpha\partial_{% i}a_{0})-32g^{2}\partial^{i}\Big{(}\partial_{i}a_{0}\partial_{k}a_{0}(\partial% ^{k}a^{0}-\partial_{t}a^{k})-\partial_{j}a_{0}(ff)^{i}_{~{}j}\Big{)}=0~{};∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_α ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 ; (46)

and

tja0ifij+8g2t(αja0)8g2i(αfij)+32g2t(ja0ia0(taiia0)+ka0fjmfmk)+subscript𝑡subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0superscript𝑖subscript𝑓𝑖𝑗8superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡𝛼subscript𝑗subscript𝑎08superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖𝛼subscript𝑓𝑖𝑗limit-from32superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝑘subscript𝑎0subscript𝑓𝑗𝑚superscript𝑓𝑚𝑘\displaystyle\partial_{t}\partial_{j}a_{0}-\partial^{i}f_{ij}+8g^{2}\partial_{% t}(\alpha\partial_{j}a_{0})-8g^{2}\partial^{i}(\alpha f_{ij})+32g^{2}\partial_% {t}\Big{(}\partial_{j}a_{0}\partial_{i}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{% 0})+\partial_{k}a_{0}f_{jm}f^{mk}\Big{)}+∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_α italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) +
8g2i(4ia0(takka0)fjk4ja0(takka0)fik+2(fff)ji2(fff)ij)=0.8superscript𝑔2superscript𝑖4subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑘superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑓𝑗𝑘4subscript𝑗subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑘superscript𝑘superscript𝑎0subscript𝑓𝑖𝑘2subscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑗𝑖2subscript𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑗0\displaystyle 8g^{2}\partial^{i}\Big{(}4\partial_{i}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{k}-% \partial^{k}a^{0})f_{jk}-4\partial_{j}a_{0}(\partial_{t}a^{k}-\partial^{k}a^{0% })f_{ik}+2(fff)_{ji}-2(fff)_{ij}\Big{)}=0~{}.8 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 4 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 4 ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 ( italic_f italic_f italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (47)

We observe that the electric limit equations of motion ((37) - (40)) and magnetic limit equations of motion ((44) - (47)) satisfy a symmetry property. Under an interchange of covariant and contravariant indices, the results for electric limit go to magnetic limit and vice versa.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜{\rm{\bf Contravariant\longleftrightarrow Covariant}}\Longleftrightarrow{\rm{% \bf Electric\longleftrightarrow Magnetic}}bold_Contravariant ⟷ bold_Covariant ⟺ bold_Electric ⟷ bold_Magnetic

V Galilean electric and magnetic fields

Here we introduce the Galilean limit of electric and magnetic fields and write down the equations of motion for Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld theory, obtained in the previous section, in terms of these fields. Note that relativistic electric and magnetic fields are defined in (25).

V.1 Electric limit

Using the maps given in table 1 we can write the contravariant and covariant components of the electric field as

Ei=1ctaicia0,Ei=(1ctai1cia0).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝑖1𝑐subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖𝑐superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝐸𝑖1𝑐subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖1𝑐subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0\displaystyle E^{i}=-\frac{1}{c}\partial_{t}a^{i}-c\partial^{i}a^{0},~{}~{}~{}% ~{}E_{i}=\Big{(}\frac{1}{c}\partial_{t}a_{i}-\frac{1}{c}\partial_{i}a_{0}\Big{% )}~{}.italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_c ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (48)

Also we define the Galilean electric and magnetic fields as

ei=limcEic=ia0,bi=limcBi=ϵkijjak,ei=limccEi=(taiia0),bi=limcBi=ϵijkjak.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑐superscript𝐸𝑖𝑐superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑐superscript𝐵𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑐𝑐subscript𝐸𝑖subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑐subscript𝐵𝑖superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗subscript𝑎𝑘e^{i}=\lim_{c\to\infty}\frac{E^{i}}{c}=-\partial^{i}a^{0},\,\,\,~{}b^{i}=\lim_% {c\to\infty}B^{i}=\epsilon^{ij}_{~{}k}\partial_{j}a^{k},~{}~{}~{}~{}e_{i}=\lim% _{c\to\infty}cE_{i}=(\partial_{t}a_{i}-\partial_{i}a_{0}),\,\,\,~{}~{}b_{i}=% \lim_{c\to\infty}B_{i}=\epsilon_{i}^{~{}jk}\partial_{j}a_{k}~{}.italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG = - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (49)

Note that the contravariant component eisuperscript𝑒𝑖e^{i}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the electric limit represents the electric field as given by Bellac and Levy-Leblond. On the other hand, the covariant component eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the magnetic limit also represents the electric field. They have similar gauge transformation properties. Here in this paper we have given a systematic action formalism for Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld theory. To construct the Galilean relativistic action we need both covariant and contravariant vectors since these are distinct entities in the Galilean theory, not being connected by any metric. If we replace the covariant components by contravariant ones in the electric limit case we will end up with the magnetic limit case and vice-versa. This fact manifests itself only if we consider the covariant and contravariant sectors separately as we have done here.The interplay between the covariant and the contravaraint indices that leads to an interchange of the electric and the magnetic limits of the theory is a new feature observed first in the Galilean Maxwell case in reference [18] as well as here. Now regarding the physical meaning of covariant electric field eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (or magnetic field bisubscript𝑏𝑖b_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) one can say that the covariant electric field (or magnetic field) in the electric limit behaves identically to contravariant electric field (or magnetic field) in the magnetic limit and vice-versa. Now we write the field equations that we derived in the previous section in terms of the Galilean electric and magnetic fields. Using the maps given in Eq. (49) we express (37) as

iei+16g2i((e2b2)ei)+32g2bii(ejbj)=0,subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2superscript𝑒𝑖32superscript𝑔2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗0\partial_{i}e^{i}+16g^{2}\partial_{i}\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})e^{i}\Big{)}+32g^{2}b% ^{i}\partial_{i}(e^{j}b_{j})=0~{},∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 , (50)

where e2=eieisuperscript𝑒2superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖e^{2}=e^{i}e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, b2=bibisuperscript𝑏2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖b^{2}=b^{i}b_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Similarly (38) takes the form as follows:

tei+(×b)i16g2t((e2b2)ei)32g2t(bi(ekbk))16g2[×((e2b2)b)]isubscript𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2superscript𝑒𝑖32superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡superscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘16superscript𝑔2superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2𝑏𝑖\displaystyle-\partial_{t}e^{i}+(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{b})^{i}-16g^{2}% \partial_{t}\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})e^{i}\Big{)}-32g^{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}b^{i}(e% ^{k}b_{k})\Big{)}-16g^{2}[\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})\vec{b}\Big{)}% ]^{i}- ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
32g2[×(e×(e×b))]i32g2[×(b2b)]i=0.32superscript𝑔2superscriptdelimited-[]𝑒𝑒𝑏𝑖32superscript𝑔2superscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝑏2𝑏𝑖0\displaystyle-32g^{2}[\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{e}\times(\vec{e}\times\vec% {b})\Big{)}]^{i}-32g^{2}[\vec{\nabla}\times(b^{2}\vec{b})]^{i}=0~{}.- 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (51)

In an identical manner we can recast equations (39) and (40) in terms of Galilean covariant electric and magnetic fields, defined in Eq. (49). We are not presenting them here as one can can easily check that they are of same form as those in magnetic limit, with the covariant fields replaced by contravariant fields (as defined in (58)). This we leave for the next subsection. This fact verifies our observation which is mentioned at the end of Sect. IV, that under the interchange of covariant and contravariant indices electric limit goes to magnetic limit and vice-versa.

We next write the Bianchi identities using fields. We can see from relativistic Born-Infeld theory that Bianchi identities ((26) and (27)) retain the same form as that of Maxwell case. So in the Galilean limit these Bianchi identities reduce to those of Galilean relativistic Maxwell theory, shown in [18]. First, using the field definitions given in (49) we can write

×e=ϵkijjek=ϵkijjka0=0.𝑒subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑒𝑘subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑘superscript𝑎00\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{e}=\epsilon^{ij}_{~{}~{}k}\partial_{j}e^{k}=\epsilon^{% ij}_{~{}~{}k}\partial_{j}\partial^{k}a^{0}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (52)

The same result follows by starting from (26), after an appropriate insertion of c𝑐citalic_c (the velocity of light in free space),

×E=1cBt𝐸1𝑐𝐵𝑡\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG (53)

and then using (49) followed by c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞,

×e=1c2bt0.𝑒1superscript𝑐2𝑏𝑡0\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{e}=-\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial\vec{b}}{\partial t}% \to 0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG → 0 . (54)

Similarly one finds,

b=ibi=0.𝑏subscript𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖0\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{b}=\partial_{i}b^{i}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (55)

On the other hand if we start with the relativistic equations directly, then using the mapping relation summarised in table 2 in (23) we have

ciei+16g2ci(ei(e2b2))+32g2cbii(ekbk)=0,𝑐subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2𝑐subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏232superscript𝑔2𝑐superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘0\displaystyle c~{}\partial_{i}e^{i}+16g^{2}c~{}\partial_{i}(e^{i}(e^{2}-b^{2})% \Big{)}+32g^{2}c~{}b^{i}\partial_{i}(e^{k}b_{k})=0~{},italic_c ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 , (56)

which in the c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞ will give rise to (50). Similarly from (24) we can reproduce (51) in the c𝑐c\to\inftyitalic_c → ∞ limit. This shows the internal consistency of the results.

Table 2: Fields in galilean limit
LimitsLimits{\rm Limits}roman_Limits ElectricfieldElectricfield{\rm Electric~{}field}roman_Electric roman_field MagneticfieldMagneticfield{\rm Magnetic~{}field}roman_Magnetic roman_field
ElectriclimitElectriclimit{\rm Electric~{}limit}roman_Electric roman_limit Eicei,Eieicformulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝑖𝑐superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝐸𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖𝑐E^{i}\to ce^{i},~{}E_{i}\to\frac{e_{i}}{c}italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_c italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG Bibi,Bibiformulae-sequencesuperscript𝐵𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝐵𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖B^{i}\to b^{i},~{}B_{i}\to b_{i}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
MagneticlimitMagneticlimit{\rm Magnetic~{}limit}roman_Magnetic roman_limit Eieic,Eiceiformulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖𝑐subscript𝐸𝑖𝑐subscript𝑒𝑖E^{i}\to\frac{e^{i}}{c},~{}E_{i}\to ce_{i}italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_c italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Bibi,Bibiformulae-sequencesuperscript𝐵𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝐵𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖B^{i}\to b^{i},~{}B_{i}\to b_{i}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

V.2 Magnetic limit

The contravariant and covariant components of the electric field can be written in this limit from the mapping relations in table 1 as

Ei=1ctai+1cia0,Ei=(1ctaicia0).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝑖1𝑐subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖1𝑐superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0subscript𝐸𝑖1𝑐subscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑖𝑐subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0E^{i}=-\frac{1}{c}\partial_{t}a^{i}+\frac{1}{c}\partial^{i}a^{0},~{}~{}~{}~{}~% {}~{}~{}E_{i}=\Big{(}\frac{1}{c}\partial_{t}a_{i}-c\partial_{i}a_{0}\Big{)}~{}.italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (57)

Correspondingly, the Galilean electric and magnetic fields are defined as,

ei=limccEi=(taiia0),bi=limcBi=ϵkijjakei=limcEic=ia0,bi=limcBi=ϵijkjak.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑐𝑐superscript𝐸𝑖subscript𝑡superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖superscript𝑎0superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑐superscript𝐵𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑐subscript𝐸𝑖𝑐subscript𝑖subscript𝑎0subscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑐subscript𝐵𝑖superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗subscript𝑎𝑘e^{i}=\lim_{c\to\infty}cE^{i}=-(\partial_{t}a^{i}-\partial^{i}a^{0}),\,\,\,~{}% ~{}b^{i}=\lim_{c\to\infty}B^{i}=\epsilon^{ij}_{~{}k}\partial_{j}a^{k}~{}~{}~{}% ~{}~{}~{}e_{i}=\lim_{c\to\infty}\frac{E_{i}}{c}=-\partial_{i}a_{0},\,\,\,~{}~{% }b_{i}=\lim_{c\to\infty}B_{i}=\epsilon_{i}^{~{}jk}\partial_{j}a_{k}~{}.italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG = - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (58)

Now we write the field equations that we derived earlier in terms of the Galilean electric and magnetic fields. From equation (44) using the mapping relation given in (58) we have

iei+16g2i(ei(e2b2))+32g2bii(ekbk)=0.subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏232superscript𝑔2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘0\partial_{i}e^{i}+16g^{2}\partial_{i}\Big{(}e^{i}(e^{2}-b^{2})\Big{)}+32g^{2}b% ^{i}\partial_{i}(e^{k}b_{k})=0~{}.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (59)

Similarly (45) yields

(×b)+16g2×((e2b2)b)32g2×(e(eb))=0.𝑏16superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2𝑏32superscript𝑔2𝑒𝑒𝑏0(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{b})+16g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})\vec{% b}\Big{)}-32g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{e}(\vec{e}\cdot\vec{b})\Big{)}=% 0~{}.( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ) = 0 . (60)

From the Bianchi identities we have the following two equations

(×e)i=ϵkijjek=tbi;superscript𝑒𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑡superscript𝑏𝑖(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{e})^{i}=\epsilon^{ij}_{~{}~{}k}\partial_{j}e^{k}=-% \partial_{t}b^{i}~{};( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; (61)

and

b=ibi=0.𝑏subscript𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖0\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{b}=\partial_{i}b^{i}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (62)

These equations can also be derived directly from the relativistic Maxwell equations, as we did for the electric case.

VI Duality transformations

The duality transformations given in (28) and (29) will take the following forms in the non-relativistic limit

eibi+16g2(e2b2)bi32g2ei(ekbk)superscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖16superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2superscript𝑏𝑖32superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑘superscript𝑏𝑘\displaystyle e^{i}\to b^{i}+16g^{2}(e^{2}-b^{2})b^{i}-32g^{2}e^{i}(e_{k}b^{k})italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (63)
biei16g2(e2b2)ei32g2(ekbk)bi.superscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2superscript𝑒𝑖32superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘superscript𝑏𝑖\displaystyle b^{i}\to-e^{i}-16g^{2}(e^{2}-b^{2})e^{i}-32g^{2}(e^{k}b_{k})b^{i% }~{}.italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (64)

The forms are different in the two limits although at first glance it might not appear. Note that these equations contain expressions like ekbksubscript𝑒𝑘superscript𝑏𝑘e_{k}b^{k}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ekbksuperscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘e^{k}b_{k}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which are distinct entities in the two limits. Using them in the electric and magnetic limits switches the expressions from one to the other. Now we use these duality relations in the electric and magnetic limit equations, obtained in the last section, separately and observe the consequences.

Let us start with the equations in electric limit. Using the non-relativistic duality relations (63) and (64) in (50) and keeping upto O(g2)𝑂superscript𝑔2O(g^{2})italic_O ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we get

b=ibi=0.𝑏subscript𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖0\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{b}=\partial_{i}b^{i}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (65)

Similarly use of them in (51) gives rise to

(×e)i=ϵkijjek=tbi.superscript𝑒𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑡superscript𝑏𝑖(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{e})^{i}=\epsilon^{ij}_{k}\partial_{j}e^{k}=-\partial_{% t}b^{i}~{}.( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (66)

Whereas under these duality transformations the first Bianchi identity (52) leads to

(×b)+16g2×((e2b2)b)32g2×(e(eb))=0,𝑏16superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2𝑏32superscript𝑔2𝑒𝑒𝑏0(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{b})+16g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})\vec{% b}\Big{)}-32g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{e}(\vec{e}\cdot\vec{b})\Big{)}=% 0~{},( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ) = 0 , (67)

while the second Bianchi identity (55) yields

iei+16g2i(ei(e2b2))+32g2bii(ekbk)=0.subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏232superscript𝑔2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑘subscript𝑏𝑘0\partial_{i}e^{i}+16g^{2}\partial_{i}(e^{i}(e^{2}-b^{2})\Big{)}+32g^{2}b^{i}% \partial_{i}(e^{k}b_{k})=0~{}.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (68)

Interestingly, these relations ((65) - (68)) exactly correspond to those in magnetic limit (see, (59) - (62)).

Now we will concentrate on the equations in magnetic limit. Using the non-relativistic duality relations (63) and (64) in (59) and keeping upto O(g2)𝑂superscript𝑔2O(g^{2})italic_O ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we get

b=ibi=0.𝑏subscript𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖0\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{b}=\partial_{i}b^{i}=0~{}.over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (69)

Again using of the duality relations in (60) will give rise to

(×e)i=ϵkijjek=0.superscript𝑒𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖𝑗𝑘subscript𝑗superscript𝑒𝑘0(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{e})^{i}=\epsilon^{ij}_{k}\partial_{j}e^{k}=0~{}.( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (70)

Under these the first Bianchi identity (61) reduces to

te+(×b)16g2t((e2b2)e)32g2t(b(eb))16g2×((e2b2)b)subscript𝑡𝑒𝑏16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2𝑒32superscript𝑔2subscript𝑡𝑏𝑒𝑏16superscript𝑔2superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2𝑏\displaystyle-\partial_{t}\vec{e}+(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{b})-16g^{2}\partial_% {t}\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})\vec{e}\Big{)}-32g^{2}\partial_{t}\Big{(}\vec{b}(\vec{e% }\cdot\vec{b})\Big{)}-16g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})\vec{b}\Big% {)}- ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG + ( over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ) - 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG )
32g2×(e×(e×b))32g2×(b2b)=0,32superscript𝑔2𝑒𝑒𝑏32superscript𝑔2superscript𝑏2𝑏0\displaystyle-32g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times\Big{(}\vec{e}\times(\vec{e}\times\vec{% b})\Big{)}-32g^{2}\vec{\nabla}\times(b^{2}\vec{b})=0~{},- 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG × ( over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) ) - 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) = 0 , (71)

while the second Bianchi identity (62) leads to

iei+16g2i((e2b2)ei)+32g2bii(ejbj)=0.subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖16superscript𝑔2subscript𝑖superscript𝑒2superscript𝑏2superscript𝑒𝑖32superscript𝑔2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑖superscript𝑒𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗0\partial_{i}e^{i}+16g^{2}\partial_{i}\Big{(}(e^{2}-b^{2})e^{i}\Big{)}+32g^{2}b% ^{i}\partial_{i}(e^{j}b_{j})=0~{}.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 32 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (72)

Here we see that these relations ((69)-(72)) exactly correspond to the results (50-55) found for the electric limit.

This shows that the results for the electric and magnetic limits are swapped under the non-relativistic duality transformations (63) and (64).

VII Invariance under Galilean boost transformations

Here we discuss the invariance of the Galilean Lagrangians under the Galilean boost transformation. We will consider both electric and magnetic limit cases separately.

Using the electric limit scaling given in table 1, we find that the Galilean electric and magnetic fields transform under the Galilean boost as follows

ei=ei,bi=bi(v×e)i,ei=ei+(v×b)i,bi=bi.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒𝑖formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑣𝑒𝑖formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑣𝑏𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖\displaystyle e^{\prime i}=e^{i},~{}~{}~{}b^{\prime i}=b^{i}-\Big{(}\vec{v}% \times\vec{e}\Big{)}^{i},~{}~{}~{}~{}e^{\prime}_{i}=e_{i}+\Big{(}\vec{v}\times% \vec{b}\Big{)}_{i},~{}~{}~{}b^{\prime}_{i}=b_{i}~{}.italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (73)

Now considering the variation we get

δei=0,δbi=(v×e)i,δei=(v×b)i,δbi=0.formulae-sequence𝛿superscript𝑒𝑖0formulae-sequence𝛿superscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑣𝑒𝑖formulae-sequence𝛿subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑣𝑏𝑖𝛿subscript𝑏𝑖0\delta e^{i}=0,~{}~{}\delta b^{i}=-\Big{(}\vec{v}\times\vec{e}\Big{)}^{i},~{}~% {}~{}~{}~{}\delta e_{i}=\Big{(}\vec{v}\times\vec{b}\Big{)}_{i},~{}~{}\delta b_% {i}=0~{}.italic_δ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , italic_δ italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_δ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_b end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_δ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (74)

We can write down the Lagrangian in terms of fields as

e=12(eieibibi)+4g2(eieibibi)2+4g2(2(eiei)(ejej)4(eiei)(bjbj)+4(eibi)(ejbj)+2(bibi)(bjbj)).subscript𝑒12superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖4superscript𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖24superscript𝑔22superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒𝑗subscript𝑒𝑗4superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖superscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗4superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗superscript𝑏𝑗2superscript𝑏𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗\mathcal{L}_{e}=\frac{1}{2}(e^{i}e_{i}-b^{i}b_{i})+4g^{2}(e^{i}e_{i}-b^{i}b_{i% })^{2}+4g^{2}\Big{(}2(e^{i}e_{i})(e^{j}e_{j})-4(e^{i}e_{i})(b^{j}b_{j})+4(e^{i% }b_{i})(e_{j}b^{j})+2(b^{i}b_{i})(b^{j}b_{j})\Big{)}~{}.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 4 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 4 ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 4 ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 2 ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) . (75)

Now computation of the variation of this Lagrangian by using (74) one can easily verify that

δe=0.𝛿subscript𝑒0\delta\mathcal{L}_{e}=0~{}.italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (76)

In a similar manner using the magnetic limit scaling given in table 1, we find that the

δm=0.𝛿subscript𝑚0\delta\mathcal{L}_{m}=0~{}.italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (77)

VIII Gauge invariance

It is well known that the relativistic Born-Infeld Lagrangian 18 is invariant under the following gauge transformation,

δAμ=μα,δAμ=μα,formulae-sequence𝛿subscript𝐴𝜇subscript𝜇𝛼𝛿superscript𝐴𝜇superscript𝜇𝛼\delta A_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\alpha,\,\,\,\delta A^{\mu}=\partial^{\mu}\alpha~% {},italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , (78)

where α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is an arbitrary function of spacetime. Below we will explore how the same is maintained at Galilean level. Here we can consider a relatively more general gauge transformation of the following form:

δAμ=μα,δAμ=μβ.formulae-sequence𝛿subscript𝐴𝜇subscript𝜇𝛼𝛿superscript𝐴𝜇superscript𝜇𝛽\delta A_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\alpha,\,\,\,\delta A^{\mu}=\partial^{\mu}\beta~{}.italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β . (79)

Note that in the relativistic theory the covaraint and contravariant vectors are related by a metric implying α=β𝛼𝛽\alpha=\betaitalic_α = italic_β. However, this is not true in Galilean limit due to the lack of a non-degenerate metric. Hence we are free to choose αβ𝛼𝛽\alpha\neq\betaitalic_α ≠ italic_β. We now discuss the electric and magnetic limit cases separately.

Electric limit
From (79) and using the mapping relations given in table 1 we deduce the following relations,

δA0=0αδa0=tα;𝛿subscript𝐴0subscript0𝛼𝛿subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡𝛼\displaystyle\delta A_{0}=\partial_{0}\alpha\implies\delta a_{0}=\partial_{t}% \alpha~{};italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ⟹ italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ; (80)
δAi=iαδai=iα;𝛿subscript𝐴𝑖subscript𝑖𝛼𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖𝛼\displaystyle\delta A_{i}=\partial_{i}\alpha\implies\delta a_{i}=\partial_{i}% \alpha~{};italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ⟹ italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ; (81)
δA0=0βcδa0=1ctβcδa0=0;𝛿superscript𝐴0superscript0𝛽𝑐𝛿superscript𝑎01𝑐subscript𝑡𝛽𝑐𝛿superscript𝑎00\displaystyle\delta A^{0}=\partial^{0}\beta\implies c\delta a^{0}=-\frac{1}{c}% \partial_{t}\beta\xrightarrow[\text{$c\to\infty$}]{\text{}}\delta a^{0}=0~{};italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β ⟹ italic_c italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_ARROW start_UNDERACCENT italic_c → ∞ end_UNDERACCENT start_ARROW overOVERACCENT → end_ARROW end_ARROW italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 ; (82)

and

δAi=iβδai=iβ.𝛿superscript𝐴𝑖superscript𝑖𝛽𝛿superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖𝛽\displaystyle\delta A^{i}=\partial^{i}\beta\implies\delta a^{i}=\partial^{i}% \beta~{}.italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β ⟹ italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β . (83)

These results are summarised in table 3. Varying the Lagrangian and using the results summarised in table 3 we can show that

δe=0.𝛿subscript𝑒0\delta\mathcal{L}_{e}=0~{}.italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (84)
Table 3: Variations of the Galilean potentials
VariableVariable{\rm Variable}roman_Variable ElectriclimitElectriclimit{\rm Electric~{}~{}limit}roman_Electric roman_limit MagneticlimitMagneticlimit{\rm Magnetic~{}~{}limit}roman_Magnetic roman_limit
a0superscript𝑎0a^{0}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT δa0=0𝛿superscript𝑎00\delta a^{0}=0italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 δa0=tβ𝛿superscript𝑎0subscript𝑡𝛽\delta a^{0}=\partial_{t}\betaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β
aisuperscript𝑎𝑖a^{i}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT δai=iβ𝛿superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖𝛽\delta a^{i}=\partial^{i}\betaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β δai=iβ𝛿superscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑖𝛽\delta a^{i}=\partial^{i}\betaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β
a0subscript𝑎0a_{0}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT δa0=tα𝛿subscript𝑎0subscript𝑡𝛼\delta a_{0}=\partial_{t}\alphaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α δa0=0𝛿subscript𝑎00\delta a_{0}=0italic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0
aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT δai=iα𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖𝛼\delta a_{i}=\partial_{i}\alphaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α δai=iα𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑖𝛼\delta a_{i}=\partial_{i}\alphaitalic_δ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α

Magnetic limit
Proceeding in a similar way as in the electric limit we can derive the variations of the Galilean potentials in the magnetic limit which are summarised in table 3. Using these results and considering the variation of the Lagrangian 43 we can show that

δm=0.𝛿subscript𝑚0\delta\mathcal{L}_{m}=0~{}.italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (85)

This shows that the Galilean version of BI theory, both in electric and magnetic limits, is gauge invariant. Observe that various limits are related as:

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜,αβ𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝛼𝛽{\rm{\bf Contravariant\longleftrightarrow Covariant}}\Longleftrightarrow{\rm{% \bf Electric\longleftrightarrow Magnetic},~{}~{}{\bf\alpha}\longleftrightarrow% {\bf\beta}}bold_Contravariant ⟷ bold_Covariant ⟺ bold_Electric ⟷ bold_Magnetic , italic_α ⟷ italic_β

IX Conclusions

Galilean relativistic electrodynamics always play an important role to describe electrodynamics of moving bodies with low velocities. This construction helps us to understand a wide range of physics phenomena that we experience in our day to day life [27]. So in that sense it is a more practical approach than relativistic electrodynamics which is not so well adapted and less efficient than the non-relativistic limits. While such limits have a domain of restricted validity, they are effective in the practical explanation of Galilean phenomena [27]. Electrodynamics of continuous media at low velocities provides a nice example where the efficacy of the two non-relativistic limits comes to the fore. In reference [27] two approximate Galilean sets of Maxwell equations in continuous media were postulated leading to the field transformations given in the table 4 for a velocity small compared to light. These relations, for both limits, agree with the expressions derived in reference [18] 333See the equations given in table V of reference [18] using our approach.

Table 4: Field transformations
ElectriclimitElectriclimit{\rm Electric~{}~{}limit}roman_Electric roman_limit MagneticlimitMagneticlimit{\rm Magnetic~{}~{}limit}roman_Magnetic roman_limit
ρe=ρesubscript𝜌𝑒subscriptsuperscript𝜌𝑒\rho_{e}=\rho^{\prime}_{e}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ρm=ρm+vjmc2subscript𝜌𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝜌𝑚𝑣subscriptsuperscript𝑗𝑚superscript𝑐2\rho_{m}=\rho^{\prime}_{m}+\frac{\vec{v}\cdot\vec{j}^{\prime}_{m}}{c^{2}}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
je=jevρesubscript𝑗𝑒subscriptsuperscript𝑗𝑒𝑣subscriptsuperscript𝜌𝑒\vec{j}_{e}=\vec{j}^{\prime}_{e}-\vec{v}\rho^{\prime}_{e}over→ start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT jm=jmsubscript𝑗𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝑗𝑚\vec{j}_{m}=\vec{j}^{\prime}_{m}over→ start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Be=Be+v×Eec2subscript𝐵𝑒subscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑒𝑣subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝑒superscript𝑐2\vec{B}_{e}=\vec{B}^{\prime}_{e}+\frac{\vec{v}\times\vec{E}^{\prime}_{e}}{c^{2}}over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG Bm=Bmsubscript𝐵𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑚\vec{B}_{m}=\vec{B}^{\prime}_{m}over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Ee=Eesubscript𝐸𝑒subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝑒\vec{E}_{e}=\vec{E}^{\prime}_{e}over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Em=Em(v×Bm)subscript𝐸𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝑚𝑣subscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑚\vec{E}_{m}=\vec{E}^{\prime}_{m}-(\vec{v}\times\vec{B}^{\prime}_{m})over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

In the same vein the study of Galilean relativistic nonlinear electrodynamics is also useful. This is further enhanced by its connection with Galilean relativistic string theory.
A systematic construction of the Galilean relativistic Born-Infeld (BI) theory using an action principle has been provided here. BI theory which is a non-linear theory of electromagnetism, plays an important role in the relativistic string theory as the electrodynamics on the D-brane is explained by the BI theory. The Galilean relativistic BI theory emerges in the studies of non-relativistic open strings. There is no systematic study of Galilean relativistic BI theory available in the literature. Here in this paper we have studied quite extensively the Galilean relativistic BI theory in the leading order and various symmetries involved with it.
We know that BI theory satisfies a duality symmetry. We have considered the leading order expressions. The conventional covariant expressions have been expressed in component forms using electric and magnetic fields. The duality symmetry was discussed in terms of these fields. We then discuss two Galilean limits (electric and magnetic) separately and write down the equations of motion in terms of potentials. We consider both contravariant and covariant potentials as they represent different quantities in the Galilean limit. We observe that under the interchange of covariant and contravariant indices the equations of motion in the electric limit go to that of magnetic limit and vice-versa. We then recast these equations of motion in terms of Galilean electric and magnetic fields. This is necessary for discussing the electric-magnetic duality. We express the duality relations in terms of Galilean electric and magnetic fields up to leading order. We show explicitly that under these duality transformations the electric and magnetic limit equations are swapped; i.e. electric limit equations of motion go to magnetic limit Bianchi identities and electric limit Bianchi identities go to magnetic limit equations of motion and vice-versa. This is an important feature and can be used to find new solutions in the magnetic limit from known solutions in the electric limit and vice-versa. Next we show that both electric and magnetic limit Lagrangians are invariant under Galilean boost transformations. In the end we show that these Galilean relativistic Lagrangians are gauge invariant. We believe our results are important and will shed some light on various aspects of non-relativistic string theory.
There have been studies on nonlinear electromagnetism defined on non-commutative spaces [28]. It will be quite interesting to study the Galilean relativistic aspects of nonlinear electromagnetism defined on non-commutative spaces using the method developed here. It is also interesting to study the effects of this electric-magnetic duality symmetry in non-relativistic string theory. We hope we will address these issues in near future.

X Acknowledgements

Two of the authors (RB and SB) acknowledge the support from a DAE Raja Ramanna Fellowship (grant no:
1003/(6)/2021/RRF/R&DII/4031100362021𝑅𝑅𝐹𝑅𝐷𝐼𝐼40311003/(6)/2021/RRF/R\&D-II/40311003 / ( 6 ) / 2021 / italic_R italic_R italic_F / italic_R & italic_D - italic_I italic_I / 4031, dated: 20/03/20212003202120/03/202120 / 03 / 2021). The other author (BRM) is supported by Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science &\&& Technology (DST), Government of India, under the scheme Core Research Grant (File no. CRG/2020/000616).

References

  • [1] M. Taylor, Non-relativistic holography, 0812.0530.
  • [2] O. Andreev, M. Haack and S. Hofmann, On nonrelativistic diffeomorphism invariance, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064012 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064012 [arXiv:1309.7231 [hep-th]].
  • [3] R. Banerjee, A. Mitra, P. Mukherjee, A new formulation of non-relativistic diffeomorphism invariance, Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014), [arXiv:1404.4491].
  • [4] R. Banerjee, A. Mitra, P. Mukherjee, Localization of the Galilean symmetry and dynamical realization of Newton-Cartan geometry, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 4, 045010, [arXiv:1407.3617].
  • [5] K. Jensen and A. Karch, Revisiting non-relativistic limits, JHEP 1504, 155 (2015). doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)155 [arXiv:1412.2738 [hep-th]].
  • [6] R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, New approach to non- relativistic diffeomorphism invariance and its applications, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 8, 085020 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.085020 [arXiv:1509.05622 [gr-qc]].
  • [7] R. Banerjee, S. Gangopadhyay and P. Mukherjee, On the question of symmetries in nonrelativistic diffeomorphism- invariant theories, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, no. 19n20, 1750115 (2017) doi:10.1142/S0217751X17501159 [arXiv:1604.08711 [hep-th]].
  • [8] D.T. Son and M. Wingate, General coordinate invariance and conformal invariance in nonrelativistic physics: Unitary Fermi gas, Annals. of. Physics. 321, 197-224 (2006).
  • [9] B. Grinstein and S. Pal, Existence and construction of Galilean invariant z2𝑧2z\neq 2italic_z ≠ 2 theories, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 12, 125006 (2018).
  • [10] A. Jain, Galilean anomalies and their effect on hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 6, 065007 (2016).
  • [11] R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, Subtleties of nonrelativistic reduction and applications, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.11.002, [arXiv: 1801.08373].
  • [12] K. Morand, Embedding Galilean and Carrollian geometries. I. Gravitational waves, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 61, 082502 (2020), arXiv:1811.12681 [hep-th].
  • [13] J. Read and N. J. Teh, The teleparallel equivalent of Newton–Cartan gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no. 18, 18LT01 (2018).
  • [14] N. D. Sengupta, On an Analogue of the Galilei Group, Nuovo Cim. 54 (1966) 512, DOI: 10.1007/BF02740871.
  • [15] M. L. Bellac and J.-M. Levy-Leblond, Galilean Electromagnetism, Nuovo Cimento 14B, 217 (1973) .
  • [16] E. S. Santos, M. de Montigny, F. C. Khanna and A. E. Santana, Galilean covariant Lagrangian models, J. Phys. A 37 (2004) 9771.
  • [17] C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P. M. Zhang, Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time, Class. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014) 085016 [1402.0657].
  • [18] R. Banerjee and S. Bhattacharya, New formulation of Galilean relativistic Maxwell theory, Phys. Rev. D. 107, 105022 (2023), [arXiv: hep-th/2211.12023].
  • [19] R. Banerjee and S. Bhattacharya, Action principle of Galilean relativistic Proca theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 916 (2023), [arXiv: hep-th/2303.13066].
  • [20] M. Born, L. Infeld, ”Foundations of the New Field Theory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 144 (1934) 425–451.
  • [21] C. Wang, “Born-Infeld Action and Its Applications,” available on: “https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups/theoretical-physics/msc/dissertations/2013/Cong-Wang-Dissertation.pdf”
  • [22] G. W. Gibbons, “Aspects of Born-Infeld theory and string / M theory,” AIP Conf. Proc. 589, no.1, 324-350 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106059 [hep-th]].
  • [23] A. A. Tseytlin, “Born-Infeld action, supersymmetry and string theory,” [arXiv:hep-th/9908105 [hep-th]].
  • [24] J. Gomis, Z. Yan and M. Yu, “Nonrelativistic Open String and Yang-Mills Theory,” JHEP 03, 269 (2021) [arXiv:2007.01886 [hep-th]].
  • [25] D. Bigatti, L. Susskind, “Review of Matrix Theory,” SU-ITP 97/51, [arXiv:hep-th/9712072].
  • [26] G. Oling, Z. Yan, “Aspects of Nonrelativistic Strings,” NORDITA 2022-006, [arXiv: hep-th/2202.12698].
  • [27] G. Rousseaux, “Forty years of Galilean Electromagnetism (1973–2013),” Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2013) 128: 81.
  • [28] R. Banerjee, “A Note on Duality Symmetry in Nonlinear Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 576 (2003) 237-242, [arXiv:hep-th/0308162].