My problem is about finding the spatial components of canonical momenta $\pi_{i j}=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{h}_{i j}}$ corresponding to the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian. I am using the metric convention $\eta_{\mu \nu}=(-,+,+,+,...)$. In this Lagrangian I have terms proportional to $\partial_{\mu}h^{\sigma \nu}$ and these terms will definitely make a contribution to the momenta. To find that contribution, I should first lower the indices. Since my field $h_{\mu \nu}$ is symmetric on its indices, I do the contraction in the following way:

$$ h^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left( \eta^{\mu \alpha}\eta^{\nu \beta} + \eta^{\mu \beta}\eta^{\nu \alpha} \right)h_{\alpha \beta}. $$

I have a big problem in evaluating two terms:

\begin{align} (1) & = \partial_{\mu}h_{\nu \lambda} \partial^{\nu}h^{\mu \lambda}, \\ (2) & = \partial_{\mu}h^{\mu \nu}\partial_{\nu}h. \end{align}

Let me take only the second one for simplicity. Here $h=h^{\mu}{}_{\mu} = \eta^{\mu \nu}h_{\mu \nu}$. So I have

\begin{align} (2) & = \partial_{\mu}h^{\mu \nu}\partial_{\nu}h = \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\left( \eta^{\mu \alpha}\eta^{\nu \beta} + \eta^{\mu \beta}\eta^{\nu \alpha} \right)\partial_{\mu}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} \\ & = \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\mu \alpha}\eta^{\nu \beta}\partial_{\mu}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\mu \beta}\eta^{\nu \alpha}\partial_{\mu}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda}. \end{align}

Summation over $\mu$ $(\mu = \{0,k\})$ gives

\begin{align} (2) = \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \alpha}\eta^{\nu \beta}\partial_{0}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{k \alpha}\eta^{\nu \beta}\partial_{k}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} \\ + \, \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \beta}\eta^{\nu \alpha}\partial_{0}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{k \beta}\eta^{\nu \alpha}\partial_{k}h_{\alpha \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda}. \end{align}

Now, after contraction over $\alpha$ in the first line and contraction over $\beta$ in the second line I get

\begin{align} (2) = -\frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\nu \beta}\partial_{0}h_{0 \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\nu \beta}\partial_{k}h_{k \beta}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} \\ - \, \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\nu \alpha}\partial_{0}h_{\alpha 0}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{\nu \alpha}\partial_{k}h_{\alpha k}\partial_{\nu}h_{\sigma \lambda}. \end{align}

To get a result for canonical momenta I should only keep the $\partial_0 h_{ij}$ terms. Hence I take $\nu = 0$ and don't bother the spatial indices, i.e; I automatically drop the $\nu = k$ terms. In that case

\begin{align} (2) = -\frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \beta}\partial_{0}h_{0 \beta}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \beta}\partial_{k}h_{k \beta}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} \\ - \, \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \alpha}\partial_{0}h_{\alpha 0}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\eta^{0 \alpha}\partial_{k}h_{\alpha k}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda}. \end{align}

Contraction over $\beta$ in the first line and contraction over $\alpha$ in the second line gives

\begin{align} (2) = \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\partial_{0}h_{0 0}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} - \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\partial_{k}h_{k 0}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} \\ + \, \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\partial_{0}h_{0 0}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda} - \frac{1}{2}\eta^{\sigma \lambda}\partial_{k}h_{0 k}\partial_{0}h_{\sigma \lambda}. \end{align}

Here, although I am not sure, I assume theory has a gauge $\partial_0 h_{00}=0$ so first terms in both of the lines drop. Lastly I take $\sigma = i, \; \lambda = j$ and I obtain

\begin{align} (2) & = - \frac{1}{2}\delta_{i j}\partial_{k}h_{k 0}\partial_{0}h_{i j} - \frac{1}{2}\delta_{i j}\partial_{k}h_{0 k}\partial_{0}h_{i j} \\ & = - \delta_{i j} \partial_{k}h_{0 k} \dot{h}_{i j}, \end{align}

by using $\eta^{i j}=\delta^{i j} = \delta_{i j}$. All these calculations seems correct to me but somehow I am making a mistake at some point. The correct result should be

$$ (2) = 2\delta_{i j} \partial_{k}h_{0 k} \dot{h}_{i j}, $$

so that I have

$$ \frac{\partial (2)}{\partial \dot{h}_{i j}} = 2\delta_{i j} \partial_{k}h_{0 k}, $$

which is what is found in the article I am studying. Thus I have a sign mistake and also a missing factor of $2$. I also have a similar problem with the first term $(1)$. Can anybody show the point I am missing and guide me on that?

EDIT: Today I have learned that instead of ignoring $\partial_0 h_{00}$ terms, it would be better to use $$h=\eta^{\mu \nu}h_{\mu \nu} = \eta^{00}h_{00} + \eta^{ij}h_{ij}= -h_{00} + \eta^{ij}h_{ij},$$ so that $$ h_{00}= \eta^{ij}h_{ij} - h.$$ The $h$ term will possibly make a contribution to some other term in canonical momenta as I am told. But I am still not able to find the correct result.


Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.