Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm trying to understand why you can't write down a first order equation of motion for a scalar field in special relativity.

Suppose $\phi(x)$ a scalar field, $v^{\mu}$ a 4-vector. According to my notes a quantity of form $v^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\phi(x)$ will not be Lorentz invariant.

But explicitly doing the active transformation the quantity becomes

$$\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu} v^{\nu}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}_{\mu}\partial_{\rho}\phi(y) = v^{\nu}\partial_{\nu}\phi(y)$$

where $y=\Lambda^{-1}x$ and the partial differentiation is w.r.t. $y$. This seems to suggest that the quantity is a Lorentz scalar, so could be used to construct a Lorentz invariant first order equation of motion.

I'm clearly making a mistake here. But I don't see what I've done wrong. Am I wrong to think that $v$ transforms nontrivially under the active transformation? Maybe it shouldn't transform at all because it's just a vector, not a vector field?

Many thanks in advance for your help!

share|cite|improve this question
Your notes seem wrong. If $v^\mu$ is a 4-vector, then $v^\mu \partial_\mu = v \cdot \partial$ is indeed a Lorentz scalar. – Vibert Dec 23 '12 at 22:43
@Vibert - then we could get a first order equation of motion for a scalar field though... Isn't that a problem? – Edward Hughes Dec 23 '12 at 22:52
You would only be able to get $v^\mu = x^\mu$ (what else?), and I don't think such a term could come from applying Euler-Lagrange to a translation-invariant Lagrangian. It's probably a good exercise to see if it's possible! – Vibert Dec 23 '12 at 22:59
Why can't you choose $v^{\mu}$ to be another arbitrary four vector? – Edward Hughes Dec 23 '12 at 23:02
@Vibert $v^\mu=x^\mu$ is no less arbitrary than $v^\mu=(1,2,3,\text{cos}(x^2))$ since the origin is arbitrary anyway. – sjasonw Dec 23 '12 at 23:07
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The function $v^a \partial_a \phi$ is a scalar field. Nonetheless, an equation like this is ugly because $v^a$ points in some "preferred" direction.

Here's another point of view, and I think this gets at what you were saying about "no first order equations". Suppose that $v^a$ is not a vector but is instead just a collection of four fixed real numbers. Suppose we consider the equation $\sum _\mu v^\mu \partial_\mu \phi=0$ now. This equation is not Lorentz invariant anymore since the numbers $v^\mu$ don't change.

Another approach: think of $v^a$ as a new spacetime-dependent vector field. Then, $v^a \partial_a \phi=0$ is Lorentz invariant equation, but it involves two fields. This is nicer than choosing a preferred direction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Aha this is the insight I was looking for. Think I was on the right lines in the question when I said it didn't transform because it wasn't a field. Cheers! – Edward Hughes Dec 23 '12 at 23:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.