Register to reply

Lagrangian density for fields

Share this thread:
spookyfish
#1
Oct24-13, 11:34 PM
P: 53
This is probably a minor point, but I have seen in some QFT texts the Euler-Lagrange equation for a scalar field,

[tex] \partial_{\mu} \left(\frac{\delta \cal{L}}{\delta (\partial_{\mu}\phi)}\right) - \frac{\delta \cal L}{\delta \phi }=0 [/tex]

i.e. [itex] \cal L [/itex] is treated like a functional (seen from the [itex] \delta [/itex] symbol). But why would it be a functional? Functonals map functions into numbers, and in our case [itex] \cal L [/itex] is a function of the fields (and their derivatives).
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Engineers develop new sensor to detect tiny individual nanoparticles
Tiny particles have big potential in debate over nuclear proliferation
Ray tracing and beyond
fzero
#2
Oct25-13, 12:01 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 2,602
If you want to be completely rigorous, the action is the true functional. The variational derivatives of the Lagrangian (density) should be considered distributions.
spookyfish
#3
Oct25-13, 08:46 AM
P: 53
But why should there be a functional derivative of [itex] \cal L [/itex]? we have [itex] \cal L [/itex] which is a function of [itex] (\phi, \partial_\mu \phi) [/itex] and we differentiate (as a function) with respect to [itex] \partial_\mu \phi [/itex]

Bill_K
#4
Oct25-13, 09:18 AM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
Bill_K's Avatar
P: 4,160
Lagrangian density for fields

Quote Quote by spookyfish View Post
This is probably a minor point, but I have seen in some QFT texts the Euler-Lagrange equation for a scalar field,

[tex] \partial_{\mu} \left(\frac{\delta \cal{L}}{\delta (\partial_{\mu}\phi)}\right) - \frac{\delta \cal L}{\delta \phi }=0 [/tex]

i.e. [itex] \cal L [/itex] is treated like a functional (seen from the [itex] \delta [/itex] symbol). But why would it be a functional? Functonals map functions into numbers, and in our case [itex] \cal L [/itex] is a function of the fields (and their derivatives).
If they wrote it that way it's a misprint. The derivatives should be ∂'s, not δ's.
fzero
#5
Oct25-13, 10:46 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 2,602
Quote Quote by spookyfish View Post
But why should there be a functional derivative of [itex] \cal L [/itex]? we have [itex] \cal L [/itex] which is a function of [itex] (\phi, \partial_\mu \phi) [/itex] and we differentiate (as a function) with respect to [itex] \partial_\mu \phi [/itex]
It's common to abuse the notation and use ##\delta## for these derivatives in order to distinguish them from the coordinate derivatives ##\partial_\mu##.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Why is the lagrangian polynomial in fields and derivatives Quantum Physics 2
Lagrangian for E and B fields, not vector potential? Classical Physics 1
Lagrangian density Advanced Physics Homework 2
Lagrangian for fields AND particles? Classical Physics 1
Lagrangian density of the EM field Classical Physics 16