1
$\begingroup$

I'm having a probably dumb problem with the Euler-Lagrange equations and the dot-product in Minkowski spacetime. I know that some objects are defined naturally with lower-indexes, e.g. $\partial_{\mu}$ which in components reads $\partial_{\mu}=(\partial_0,\partial_1,\partial_2,\partial_3)$, so that $\partial^{\mu}=\left(\begin{array}{c} \partial_0\\ -\partial_1\\ -\partial_2\\ -\partial_3\end{array}\right)$ if $sgn(\eta)=(+,-,-,-)$. On the other hand, there are objects that are naturally defined as 4-vectors with upper-indexes, e.g. $x^{\mu}$ such that $x^{\mu}=\left(\begin{array}{c} x^0\\ x^1\\ x^2\\ x^3\end{array}\right)$ and then $x_{\mu} = (x^0,-x^1,-x^2,-x^3)$. Then, of course we will have that $\partial_{\mu}x^{\mu} = 4$ and not $\partial_{\mu}x^{\mu} = 1-3$. My problem comes now with the Euler-Lagrange equations $\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\varphi}-\partial_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)}\right)=0$. I would say without thinking that:

$\partial_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)}\right) = \partial_0\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{0}\varphi)}\right)-\partial_i\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_i\varphi)}\right)$

But that doesn't seem to be the case. See for example in page 32 in the following link

https://people.phys.ethz.ch/~babis/Teaching/QFT1/qft1.pdf

or the following link:

https://physicspages.com/pdf/Lancaster%20QFT/Lancaster%20Problems%2012.05.pdf

where both authors try to derive the Schrödinger equation from the Lagrangian. If you put the minus sign in the tensor contraction as I did, it is impossible to reach Schrödinger's equation. It looks like the correct calculation would be:

$\partial_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)}\right) = \partial_0\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{0}\varphi)}\right)+\partial_i\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_i\varphi)}\right)$

Does anyone know why this is so?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The correct relation is $$\partial_\mu \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu \phi)}\right)= \partial_0 \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_0 \phi)}\right)+\partial_i \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_i \phi)}\right).$$

Essentially you're asking if $$A_\mu B^\mu \overset{?}{=} A_0 B^0 + A_i B^i,$$ or $$A_\mu B^\mu \overset{?}{=} A_0 B^0 - A_i B^i;$$ and the correct answer is, of course, the former.

The way to see it is to write it down, explicitly, with the metric. $$\begin{array} &A_\mu B^\mu &=& \eta_{\mu\nu} A^\mu B^\nu \equiv \displaystyle\sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^{3} \eta_{\mu\nu} A^\mu B^\nu = \eta_{00}A^0B^0 + \eta_{01}A^0B^1 + \cdots + \eta_{33}A^3B^3 \\ &=&+A^0B^0 -A^1B^1-A^2B^2-A^3B^3 \\ &=&+A^0B^0 +A_1B^1+A_2B^2+A_3B^3.\end{array}$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, so, if I understand correctly, the thing with the scalar field with Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)(\partial^{\mu}\varphi)$ is that $\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)}=\partial^{\mu}\varphi$ and then: $\endgroup$ – Condereal Feb 10 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ \begin{align} \partial_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)}\right)&=\partial_{\mu}(\partial^{\mu}\varphi)\\ &= \partial_0\partial^0\varphi+\partial_1\partial^1\varphi+\partial_2\partial^2\varphi+\partial_3\partial^3\varphi\\ &= \partial_0\partial^0\varphi-\partial_1\partial_1\varphi-\partial_2\partial_2\varphi-\partial_3\partial_3\varphi \end{align} If that's the case, I think I've understood. $\endgroup$ – Condereal Feb 10 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's the case. The latter you can also write in a more human-readable form as $\ddot{\varphi}-\nabla^2\varphi$. $\endgroup$ – idiot stroszek Feb 10 at 18:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes of course, the notation you propose is less sofisticated (consequently readable) that the one I've written, but for the sake of understanding the procedure, I thought leaving the partial derivatives was instructive. $\endgroup$ – Condereal Feb 10 at 18:44

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.