0
$\begingroup$

I have two questions, and I'll address them while explaining my calculation and my, probably banal, uncertainties.

We're basically deriving the Energy-Momentum tensor for a scalar field from Noether theorem in a similar way of the one exposed in Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol I, pag. 311.

Consider the lagrangian density of a complex scalar field:

$$ \mathscr{L} \, =\, -\partial^{\mu} \phi^* \partial_{\mu} \phi - m^2 \phi \phi^* $$

and the following transformation

$$ \phi \rightarrow \phi(x) - a^\mu (x) \partial_\mu\phi(x) \\ \phi^* \rightarrow \phi^*(x) - a_\mu (x) \partial^\mu\phi^*(x) $$

My professor writes that, beside the terms proportional to $a$ (which I have still to prove to myself give $\eta^{\mu \nu} \mathscr{L}$, with $\eta$ the metric), the variation of the Lagrangian is

$$ (\partial_\mu a_\nu)(\partial^{\mu} \phi^* \partial^{\nu} \phi + \partial^{\nu} \phi^* \partial^{\mu} \phi) $$

While I obtain

$$ (\partial_\mu a^\nu)(\partial^{\mu} \phi^* \partial_{\nu} \phi )\, + \, (\partial^\mu a_\nu) (\partial^{\nu} \phi^* \partial_{\mu} \phi) $$

I strongly feel that they could be the same but I don't know how to play with indices to reach the same result. Can someone help me with ths? That was my first question.

The second one is about I derived that result.

Following Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol I, pag. 311, I have that the variation of the lagrangian, under the transformation written above, is (varying $\phi$ and $\phi^*$ independently)

$$ \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi} (- a^\nu \partial_\nu \phi) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi^*} (a_\nu \partial^\nu \phi) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \partial_\mu (a^\nu \partial_\nu \phi) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial^\mu \phi^*)} \partial^\mu (a_\nu \partial^\nu \phi^*) $$

Now I have a problem with the last 2 terms, why introducing the second and different index $\mu$? I just don't get it why it has to be a different index, can somebody explain that to me?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

First answer: if $\eta$ is Minkowski metric, then the coordinate derivative of it vanishes, i.e. $$ \partial_\rho\eta_{\mu\nu}=0. $$ Hence, we can raise and lower the same indices, e.g. $$ \begin{align} (\partial_\mu a^\nu)(\partial^\mu\phi^\ast \partial_\nu\phi)&=(\partial_\mu (\eta^{\nu\rho} a_\rho))(\partial^\mu\phi^\ast \partial_\nu\phi)\\ &=(\partial_\mu a_\rho)\eta^{\nu\rho}(\partial^\mu\phi^\ast \partial_\nu\phi)\\ &=(\partial_\mu a_\rho)(\partial^\mu\phi^\ast \eta^{\nu\rho} \partial_\nu\phi)\\ &=(\partial_\mu a_\rho)(\partial^\mu\phi^\ast \partial^\rho\phi), \end{align} $$ which is after renaming the repeated index $\rho$ to $\nu$ we get the same expression.

Second answer: the index of derivation must be always different from that of Lagrangian, because otherwise we lose information.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, now that I notice, using the metric was the obvious thing to do. In which sense we lose information? I don't think I'm really getting it both physically and mathematically $\endgroup$ – Run like hell Nov 29 '16 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Runlikehell Suppose following example: $\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial_\mu \phi)}(\partial_\mu\phi)=1$. This is just one possible result. If instead we calculate this with different index, we get $\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial_\nu \phi)}(\partial_\mu\phi)=\delta^\nu_\mu$, which is more general that the first case. It seems this is not so important, but it may play crucial role in many cases. $\endgroup$ – Immanuel Nov 29 '16 at 20:58
1
$\begingroup$

As for your first question, per definition $a_\mu b^\mu = a_\mu b_\nu \eta^{\mu \nu} = a^\mu b_\mu$, where $\eta$ is the metric -> you can hence always shift indices up/and down if you sum over them.

Regarding your second question, expressions of the form $a_\nu \partial^\nu$ can be regarded as a scalar. You just need to introduce a further index if you want to take more directional derivatives …

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, now that I notice, using the metric was the obvious thing to do, could you elaborate the second answer more? I'm not so sure I got it, instead I'm pretty sure I'm not getting it. $\endgroup$ – Run like hell Nov 29 '16 at 20:39
1
$\begingroup$

May I also add that $\eta^{\nu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}=\eta^{\rho\nu}\eta_{\nu\sigma}=\delta^\rho_\sigma$ and e.g $\delta^\rho_\sigma a^\sigma=a^\rho$ plus that $\partial_\mu a^\nu=\eta^{\nu\sigma}\partial_\mu a_\sigma$. They may (or may not) come in handy.

$\endgroup$

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.