I am currently studying the behavior of a scalar field $\phi$ under a Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$. However I am having trouble understanding why the following holds true:

$$\partial_{\mu}\left(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)\right) = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{~~\mu}~(\partial_{\nu}\phi)\left(\Lambda^{-1}x\right).$$

This should should probably follow from the chain rule with $\Lambda$ being a linear transformation but I can't quite figure out why this is.

  • $\begingroup$ Your using two different notations, do you mean $\left(\partial_{\mu}\phi\right)(\Lambda^{-1}x) = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{~~\mu}~(\partial_{\nu}\phi)\left(\Lambda^{-1}x\right)$? $\endgroup$ – Ali Caglayan May 9 '16 at 20:04
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of A few questions on passive vs active Lorentz transformations $\endgroup$ – Ali Caglayan May 9 '16 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ No I am meaning it as noted in the question which is also consistent to the notation in "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin, Schroeder. Note that $\vec{\nabla}(f\circ g)(x)\ne (\vec{\nabla} f)(g(x))$. $\endgroup$ – Simon Fromme May 9 '16 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Use index notation, remembering that $\partial^{\mu}x_{\nu}=\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}.$ $\endgroup$ – AGEscovar May 9 '16 at 20:17

This is a simple application of the chain rule $$ \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} \phi \big( \Lambda_\nu{}^\mu x^\nu \big) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} \big( \Lambda_\rho{}^\nu x^\rho \big) \left[ \frac{ \partial }{ \partial y^\nu } \phi (y) \right]_{y^\mu = \Lambda_\nu{}^\mu x^\nu} = \Lambda_\mu{}^\nu \left[ \frac{ \partial }{ \partial y^\nu } \phi (y) \right]_{y^\mu = \Lambda_\nu{}^\mu x^\nu} ~. $$


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.