3
$\begingroup$

Here I'll work in flat 4-dimensional Minkwoski space, but using arbitrary coordinates (described by some metric $g_{\mu\nu}$).

Suppose we've got two complex-valued scalar functions $f$ and $g$ which solve the Klein-Gordon equation (ie. $(\Box_{x} + m^2) f(x)=(\Box_{x} + m^2) g(x) = 0$). Then we define the following current: $$ J^{\mu}(f,g)(x) = - i \left[ f^{\ast}(x) \frac{\partial g(x)}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial f^{\ast}(x)}{\partial x} g(x)\right] $$

This is a conserved current, in the sense that it solves the continuity equation $J^{\mu}(f,g)_{;\mu} =0$, or in arbitrary coordinates: $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{ - \det(g) }} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} \bigg( \sqrt{ - \det(g) } J^{\mu}(f,g)(x) \bigg) \ = \ 0 $$

Using this we construct the Klein-Gordon inner product as: $$ \langle f,g\rangle = \int_{\Sigma} d^3\Sigma_{\mu}\ J^{\mu}(f,g) $$

Where $\Sigma$ is a space-like hypersurface and $d^{3}\Sigma_{\mu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma} dx^{\alpha} \wedge dx^{\beta} \wedge dx^{\gamma}$ being the 3-dimensional volume element ($\epsilon$ being the Levi-Cevita tensor).

The claim made in Takagi's `Vacuum noise and stress induced by uniform accelerator: Hawking-Unruh effect in Rindler manifold of arbitrary dimensions' is that the KG inner product is independent of the choice of space-like hypersurface $\Sigma$ used to integrate it.

The reason for this is that $J^{\mu}(f,g)$ is a conserved current which means Gauss' theorem may be applied.

My Question How do you prove that the KG inner product is independent of $\Sigma$?

Chapter 2.8 of Hawking and Ellis' book `Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time' has a bit on Gauss' theorem in arbitrary coordinates, where it's said that: $\int_{\partial U} d^3\Sigma_{\mu}\ X^{\mu} = \int_{U} d^4x\ X^{\mu}_{\ ;\mu}$ for a vector field $X^{\mu}$. But if we set $X^{\mu} \mapsto J^{\mu}(f,g)$, then the divergence is vanishing which would seem to imply the KG inner product being $0$! My diff geo is not great though and am probably mis-interpreting something - can somebody point out what is my error in this line of logic?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have the feeling this is a duplicate of Inner product on space of mode functions for a scalar field. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jul 14 '18 at 22:09
  • $\begingroup$ You’re proven that the integral over a closed surface is zero. That implies that the integrals over two different spacelike hypersurfaces are the same. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jul 14 '18 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ It’s the same proof that a force being conservative implies work is path independent. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jul 14 '18 at 22:11
2
$\begingroup$

In your last paragraph you almost get it right. You definitely need to use that if $U$ is a region in spacetime, then $$ \int_{\partial U} d^3 \Sigma_\mu \, J^\mu = \int_U d^4 x \; \nabla_\mu J^\mu = 0 $$ since $J$ is a conserved current.

You want to prove the following: if $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are two different timeslices, then the integral of $J^\mu$ over $\Sigma_1$ is equal to the integral over $\Sigma_2$. For instance, let $\Sigma_2$ be $\Sigma_1$ moved up by an arbitrary distance. Let $U$ be the volume in between the timeslices. Then on top the top/bottom the volume $U$ is bounded by $\Sigma_{1,2}$, and in the spatial directions $U$ is bounded by some 3d surface $V$. Now you assume that the integrand decays rapidly near spatial infinity, such that $$ \int_V d^3x \, J^\mu \stackrel{\text{assumption}}{=} 0. $$ Then the above Stokes theorem tells you that $$ 0 = \int_U d^4 x \; \nabla_\mu J^\mu = \left[ \int_{\Sigma_1} - \int_{\Sigma_2} \pm \int_V \right] J^\mu. $$ Using our assumption about the decay of $J$ at infinity, we find $$ \int_{\Sigma_1} J = \int_{\Sigma_2} J $$ as desired.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That's fantastic! Thanks very much. I'm curious about the relative minus sign in $\int_{\Sigma_{1}}-\int_{\Sigma_{2}}$. The orientation of the entire volume bounded by the two sheets stays the same because of this `-' sign right? $\endgroup$ – Greg.Paul Jul 14 '18 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ And one more thing - the Gauss theorem usually assumes that the region $U$ is compact (and so bounded). Is the additional assumption that the integral at spatial infinity vanishes essentially fixing the fact that the volume bounded by the two sheets $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$ is obviously not bounded? $\endgroup$ – Greg.Paul Jul 14 '18 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ As for your first question, the orientation in Stokes' theorem has to be taken as "all outward". So on the top surface, the element $d\Sigma_\mu$ points upward, whereas on the bottom surface it points down. You want to compare the integrals where $d\Sigma_\mu$ points in the same direction on both slices, that's why I added a relative sign. $\endgroup$ – TempAccount2020 Jul 15 '18 at 1:43
  • $\begingroup$ want to remove this comment $\endgroup$ – TempAccount2020 Jul 15 '18 at 1:45

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.