# For the Yang-Mills field strength defined as a commutator, why does the $A_\nu\partial_\mu - A_\mu\partial_\nu$ term vanish?

In basically every QFT book the Yang-Mills strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$ is defined as $$F_{\mu\nu}=[D_\mu,D_\nu]$$ where $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative $$D_\mu=\partial_\mu-A_\mu$$ and $A_\mu$ is the Yang-Mills gauge field.

Explicitly working out the commutator most books obtain (see Peskin 15.15, Srednicki 69.14) $$F_{\mu\nu}=-\partial_\mu A_\nu +\partial_\nu A_\mu-[A_\mu,A_\nu]$$

However when I work out the commutator I get an extra term $$A_\nu\partial_\mu-A_\mu\partial_\nu$$

This term isn't mentioned in any of the resources I've come across and I don't know what to do with it. Obviously it vanishes somehow. So,

Question; Why does this term vanish?

• If you like this question you may also enjoy reading this Phys.SE post. – Qmechanic Jun 1 '16 at 12:24

Note that, for example, \begin{align} [A_\mu,\partial_\nu]f&=A_\mu\partial_\nu f-\partial_\nu(A_\mu f)\\ &=A_\mu\partial_\nu f-\partial_\nu(A_\mu)f-A_\mu\partial_\nu f\\ &=-f\partial_\nu A_\mu\,. \end{align} So you don't get terms like $A_\mu\partial_\nu$.
• This is fine in Peskin's case, where they consider $[D_\mu,D_\nu]$ acting on some other field, but in other texts it's just $[D_\mu,D_\nu]$. Do we always implicitly assume it's acting on some field/function? – Okazaki Jun 1 '16 at 15:44
• @ryanp16 When you deal with derivatives in commutator, it is always assumed that is is acting on some kind of functions or fields. For example, after eq. (58.11) in Srednicki, he said that "We can also express the field strength in terms of the covariant derivative by noting that $$[D_\mu,D_\nu]\Psi(x)=−ieF_{\mu\nu}(x)\Psi(x).$$ We can write this more abstractly as $$F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{i}{e}[D_\mu,D_\nu],$$ where, again, the ordinary derivative in each covariant derivative acts on anything to its right." – Frame Jun 1 '16 at 23:54