I am really confused by the sub and upperscript notation sometimes. It might be really trivial but I have a difficult time interpreting the following things in for example this Lagrangian


I know how the repeating of the index implies a dot product between two four vectors, but what if there is no repeating of index and the $\partial_\mu\phi$ is not multiplied with anything, what is $\partial_\mu\phi$? Is it a four vector? Or is it a scalar? And in the case of $\phi$ being a vector field, i.e $\phi=(\phi_1,...,\phi_n)$ how should I then interpret $\partial_\mu\phi$, is it $(\partial_\mu\phi_1,...,\partial_\mu\phi_n)$ and is then each component of the vector field now a four vector or a scalar? It is all really confusing for me...

For example in the following lagrangian


In this case $\phi_a$ is a scalar field, but we can define $\phi=(\phi_1,...,\phi_N)$ as a vector field, can I then rewrite the above lagrangian as (T means transpose):


So in a nutshell, what does $\partial_\mu\phi$ on it's own mean?

  • $\begingroup$ Why would you think $\partial_\mu \phi$ is a scalar? It has an explicit space-time index... $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 4 '15 at 15:35

The derivative $\mathrm{d}\phi$ is a proper (co)vector:

$$ \left(\begin{matrix}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x^1} \\ \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x^2} \\ \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x^3} \\ \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x^4}\end{matrix}\right)$$

with components $\partial_\mu \phi$ and $\partial^\mu \phi = g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu \phi$.

This works also in other than four dimensions, naturally.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I think OP also wants a physical interpretation of $\partial_\mu\phi$. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Mar 4 '15 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ @0celo7: OP is out of luck then, I ain't got one :) $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 4 '15 at 17:25

Rule of thumb is that things with indices are tensors, the order being given by the number of free indices you have. By free index I mean any index for an object which is not repeated, hence not involved in a sum (or contraction). For example $$g_{\mu\nu}$$ indicates a covariant tensor of order (or rank) 2. If this represents a metric, its inverse is the contravariant tensor of order 2 $g^{\mu\nu}$. Indices can get mixed up, like in $T_\mu^\nu$, which is a tensor of rank (1,1) meaning that it is contravariant of order 1 in the superscript index and covariant of order 1 in the subscript index. Another example is the Riemann curvature tensor $${R^\mu}_{\nu\rho\sigma},$$ which is a $(3,1)$-tensor.

Remark Observe that the index notation might be misleading, as there are objects with space-time indices which are not tensors. Typical examples are the coordinates themselves $x^\mu$, which do not transform tensorially under generic coordinate changes, and the Christoffel symbols ${\Gamma^\mu}_{\nu\rho}$.

Concerning the OP, $\partial^\mu$, despite being a differential operator rather than a tensor, can be interpreted as one because if its transformation law (in flat-spacetime with vanishing connection). When applied to a generic tensor it will increase its contravariant rank by 1. $\partial_\mu$ does the same with the covariant rank, so that if you take a scalar (i.e. a (0,0) tensor) $\partial_\mu\phi$ is a covariant vector, or a (1,0)-tensor. Similarly $\partial^\mu\phi$ is a contravariant vector, i.e. a (0,1)-tensor. The expression $\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi$ has no free index, like $\phi$ itself, therefore it is a scalar, i.e. a (0,0)-tensor.

Remark For geometrical reasons, the right thing to consider is $\partial_\mu$, which are the formal component of the exterior derivative $\text d$. You get $\partial^\mu$ by contracting with the metric tensor (cf. ACuriousMind's answer), where again you have only one free index, in accordance to what has been state above.

When you have something like $\partial_\mu\phi_a$, you have mixed indices which refer to different spaces. Greek letters are usually used to denote tensor fields in the (co)tangent bundle to Minkowksi space-time, while other indices usually refer to internal degrees of freedom and leave in other fibre bundles over space-time (e.g. a spinor bundle for spinors). Their behaviour follow pretty much the same rules as the other indices, except that they indicate that the object lives in many different fibres over space-time.

| cite | improve this answer | |

I'm going to go a bit overboard here and give you the sketch of how vectors are geometrically constructed, since I think it's helpful to know. While writing this I found I was phrasing things very carefully, which means: you may need to reread parts of this in a quiet corner if it doesn't all make sense at first.

Suppose that you have a set of scalar fields $\mathbf{S} \subseteq (\mathcal{M} \rightarrow \mathbb R) $ on an underlying set of "points" $\mathcal{M}$. This set S contains every scalar field that you are interested in. It's helpful to define some jargon: let an $n$-functor be a smooth functions in $\text C^\infty(\mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R)$. We can of course apply them to real values (which I'll denote with parentheses as $\Phi(\dots)$, but also we can use them to combine scalar fields, which I'll denote with square brackets as $\Phi[a, b, \dots]$ which is the function from any $p \in \mathcal M$ to $\Phi(a(p), b(p), \dots)$. Henceforth I will just call scalar fields scalars, since we're talking about field theory.

When we close S under $n$-functors for all $n$, we get a lot of stuff: first off we can add and multiply scalars since + and * are 2-functors; but we can even define a topology on $\mathcal M$ with those scalars which makes all of them continuous (the kernel topology; $s \subseteq \mathcal M$ is closed when $s = \operatorname{ker} \sigma$ for some $\sigma \in \mathbf S$), and we can use this topology to define whether $\mathcal M$ is connected or not, etc. If you go down this rabbit hole far enough, you get to specify criteria by which $\mathcal M$ is a "manifold". But let's get more concrete and specific.

Now in special relativity in particular, there are special fields $w, x, y, z$ which we use as global coordinates, meaning that every scalar $\phi$ in $\mathbf{S}$ can be written as a 4-functor $\Phi(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$ applied to those scalar fields; $\phi = \Phi[w, x, y, z].$ (In general relativity, you still have coordinates, but you will have to use the topology to define "neighborhoods" of a point and then say that for every point there is a neighborhood enclosing that point with a set of $d$ coordinates which distinguish points in that neighborhood.)

We can take your intuitive 3D notion of "vector fields" and associate them with derivations $D_v = v^\mu \partial_\mu$, so that we can define vectors (again dropping the word "field") in a purely geometric sense as the set of linear maps $V \in (\mathbf S \rightarrow \mathbf S)$ satisfying the chain rule: given a $k$-functor $\Phi(x_1\dots x_k)$ with partial derivatives $\Phi_{(i)} = \partial \Phi/\partial x_i$, then $$ V [\Phi[s_1\dots s_k]] = \sum_{i=1}^k ~ V[s_i] ~ \Phi_{(i)}[s_1\dots s_k]. $$ We can then identify the components of any vector field by applying it to our coordinates, so you see there is a two-way correspondence between these abstract mathematical operations on S and the lists-of-coordinates that you're used to.

We can write this space of derivations on $\mathbf S$ as $\mathbf S^\bullet$, and make independent copies of it for every symbol that we want to stick up top: this is known as "abstract index notation". We write elements of this set as symbols with a corresponding superscript; so $v^\alpha \in \mathbf S^\alpha$.

Then there are covectors, like the general gradient of a field, which are linear maps from vectors to scalars. For example, given a scalar $\phi$ there is a covector $\nabla\phi$ defined as $$\nabla\phi~(V) = V[\phi].$$ These we can denote by $\mathbf S_\bullet$ and we copy the space for every symbol. Now you know what $\partial_\mu \phi$ means; it is the copy of $\nabla \phi$ that lives in the space $\mathbf S_\mu$. It is a covector field. (Somewhat important: you don't quite know what $\partial_\mu v^\nu$ means yet. More complicated derivatives of this kind -- derivatives of vectors rather than scalars -- require some added geometric structure called a "connection" on the manifold.)

Finally we have the metric, which is a linear map from a pair of vectors to a scalar; this can be used to convert covectors to vectors.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Overkill, but beautiful overkill. One might mention that this is known in differential geometry as the statement that the vector fields on a manifold are derivations, if I see it correctly. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 4 '15 at 18:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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