I feel a bit embarrassed that I can't figure this out on my own, but I am trouble deriving the equations of motion for the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{eff}=(\omega+eA_0)^2f(r)^2-(\partial_r f(r))^2-V(f)+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_r A_0(r))^2.$$ This effective Lagrangian comes from taking a Maxwell-scalar field theory and assuming a spherical ansatz for the scalar field and the $A_0$ component of the gauge field. If I treat $f(r)$ and $A_0(r)$ as the dynamical variables, then the Euler-Lagrange equations that yield the equations of motion should be \begin{align} 0&=\partial_\mu\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu f)}-\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial f}\\ 0&=\partial_\mu\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu A_0)}-\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A_0}\\ \end{align} and since the only dependence in the Lagrangian is on the radial coordinate $r$, this should just reduce to \begin{align}0&=\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial f'}\right)-\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial f}\\ 0&=\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A_0'}\right)-\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A_0}. \end{align} The terms are $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial f'}=-2f'$$ $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial f}=(\omega+eA_0)^2\cdot 2f-\frac{dV(f)}{df}$$ and $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A_0'}=A_0'$$ $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial A_0}=2ef(r)^2(\omega+eA_0).$$

Plugging these terms into the Euler-Lagrange equations just gives

\begin{align} 0&=f''(r)+f(r)(\omega+eA_0)^2-\frac{1}{2}\frac{dV(f)}{df}\\ 0&=A_0''(r)-2ef(r)^2(\omega+eA_0). \end{align}

The problem is that the correct equations of motion are apparently

\begin{align} 0&=f''(r)+\color{red}{2\frac{f'(r)}{r}}+f(r)(\omega+eA_0)^2-\frac{1}{2}\frac{dV(f)}{df}\\ 0&=A_0''(r)+\color{red}{2\frac{A_0'(r)}{r}}-2ef(r)^2(\omega+eA_0). \end{align} For example, this result is given as equations (7), (8) of of this paper (Gulamov 2015) and further corroborated by equations (4.1), (4.2) of this famous paper (Lee 1989).

I am obviously missing the $1/r$ terms, but I cannot see where this would come from. Can anyone provide see what I am missing in this simple derivation?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not accustomed to this notation, but isn't the $\partial_\mu \frac{\cdot}{\cdot}$ a divergence? Results of vector calculus operations in spherical coordinates are not trivial, maybe check the usual 3D versions? $\endgroup$
    – acarturk
    Nov 3 '19 at 18:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The terms in red are additional terms due to the curvature in spherical coordinates, i.e $\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2\frac{df}{dr}\right)=\frac{d^2f}{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{df}{dr}$, perhaps that gives you a lead $\endgroup$
    – nluigi
    Nov 3 '19 at 23:30


  1. Recall that the action $S=\int \! \mathbb{L}$ is an integral over the Lagrangian 4-form $\mathbb{L}~=~ d^4x~ {\cal L}$, where ${\cal L}$ is the Lagrangian density. It's a density in the sense that under a coordinate transformation $x\to x^{\prime}$, it transforms as ${\cal L}^{\prime}={\cal L}/J$ with the inverse Jacobian $J:=\det\frac{\partial x^{\prime}}{\partial x}$. It this way the action $S$ is a scalar/invariant under coordinate transformations.

  2. The inverse Jacobian from 3D rectangular to 3D spherical coordinates is $J^{-1}=\color{red}{r^2\sin\theta}$, so in spherical coordinates the Lagrangian density reads ${\cal L}^{\prime}=\color{red}{r^2\sin\theta} ~{\cal L}$.

  3. Now because of OP's spherical ansatz, the factor $\color{red}{\sin\theta}$ is not important, but the factor $\color{red}{r^2}$ is, and it leads to the sought-for correct EL equations.


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.