2
$\begingroup$

In the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation in Peskin and Schroeder, p.15, we have:

$$\delta S = \int d⁴x \left[ \frac{\partial L}{\partial \phi}\delta \phi -\partial_\mu \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_\mu) \phi}\right)\delta \phi + \partial_\mu \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \delta \phi \right)\right]. \tag{2.2} $$

They argue that the last term can be turned into a surface integral, and since the initial and final field configurations are given, $\delta \phi$ is zero at the temporal beginning and end of this region. If we restrict our considerations to deformations $\delta \phi$ that vanish on the spatial boundary of our region as well, then the surface term is zero.

So I guess they used the divergence theorem on the last term, but why doesn't this argument apply to the second term as well?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The second term is not of a divergence form because of $\delta\phi$ is not constant. $\endgroup$ – Gec Jan 21 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – fosheimdet Jan 21 at 20:55
3
$\begingroup$

The last term is a total divergence. The second one is not.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.