1
$\begingroup$

I'm studying classical and quantum field theory, but evaluating derivatives of fields (scalar and/or vector) described with upper and lower indices is somewhat new to me. I'm trying to evaluate

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial A_\mu} (F_{\mu \nu}) \text{,} \tag{1}$$

where $$F_{\mu \nu}= \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}- \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}.\tag{2}$$

Just for confirmation, is the result of the above partial derivative just simply $- \partial_{\nu}$?

I'm trying to use the Euler-Lagrange equation of classical field theory to derive the equations of motion for a Lagrangian density that describes an abelian Higgs model with given potential $- \lambda(\phi^{\dagger} \phi - a^2)^2$ for $\lambda, a$ arbitrary constants and $\phi$ a complex-valued scalar field, but the evaluation of derivatives with upper and lower indices makes it a lot messier. Is there a better or quicker method?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comment to the question (v2): The first expression (1) with the partial derivative vanishes identically. Is that what you want to know? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 19 '15 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's right. $\endgroup$ – Libertron Sep 19 '15 at 17:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can't get easily around the upper and lower indices, as they encode transformation information that is relevant for relativistic invariance. $\endgroup$ – Sebastian Riese Sep 19 '15 at 18:04
3
$\begingroup$

First, you should be careful with your choice of indices. What you have written in Eq. 1 implies a summation over $\mu$ that I don't think you actually want. It is true that \begin{equation} \frac{\partial F_{\mu\nu}}{\partial A_{\sigma}}=0, \end{equation} but that is just because $F_{\mu\nu}$ depends on the derivatives of $A_{\mu}$ and not $A_{\mu}$ explicitly. Let's work out a more full example to see what's going on with the upper and lower indices. Suppose we have the Lagrangian \begin{equation} \mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}^2. \end{equation} Now, we want to calculate the Euler-Lagrange equations with respect to the gauge field $A_{\mu}$: \begin{equation} \partial_{\mu}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu})} =\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial A_{\nu}}. \end{equation} Recall that indices are raised and lowered using the metric (in this example Minkowski metric $\eta$) \begin{equation} A^{\mu} = \eta^{\mu\nu}A_{\nu}. \end{equation} Let's start by rewriting the Lagrangian \begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{L}&=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{4}\eta^{\mu\sigma}\eta^{\nu\rho}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\sigma\rho} \\ &= -\frac{1}{4}\eta^{\mu\sigma}\eta^{\nu\rho}(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}) (\partial_{\sigma}A_{\rho}-\partial_{\rho}A_{\sigma}) \end{split} \end{equation} Now, we are already using $\mu,\nu,\rho$ and $\sigma$ as dummy summation indices, so it would be unwise of us to reuse any of these when computing the Euler-Lagrange equations. We compute \begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\kappa}A_{\lambda})} &=-\frac{1}{4}\eta^{\mu\sigma}\eta^{\nu\sigma}\left[(\delta^{\kappa}_{\mu}\delta^{\lambda}_{\nu} - \delta^{\lambda}_{\mu}\delta^{\kappa}_{\nu})(\partial_{\sigma}A_{\rho}-\partial_{\rho}A_{\sigma}) \right. \\ &\left.+ (\delta^{\kappa}_{\sigma}\delta^{\lambda}_{\rho} - \delta^{\lambda}_{\sigma}\delta^{\kappa}_{\rho})(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}) \right] \\ &= -\frac{1}{4}\left[(\eta^{\kappa\sigma}\eta^{\lambda\rho}-\eta^{\kappa\rho}\eta^{\lambda\sigma})(\partial_{\sigma}A_{\rho}-\partial_{\rho}A_{\sigma}) \right. \\ & + \left. (\eta^{\mu\kappa}\eta^{\nu\lambda}-\eta^{\mu\lambda}\eta^{\nu\kappa}) (\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}) \right] \\ &= -(\partial^{\kappa}A^{\lambda} - \partial^{\lambda}A^{\kappa}) \\ &= -F^{\kappa\lambda} \end{split} \end{equation} And again \begin{equation} \frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial A_{\lambda}} = 0, \end{equation} since $F$ has no explicit dependence on $A$. Thus \begin{equation} \partial_{\kappa}F^{\kappa\lambda}=0. \end{equation}

$\endgroup$

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.