Register to reply

Lagrangian density for fields

Share this thread:
spookyfish
#1
Oct24-13, 11:34 PM
P: 52
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
Symphony of nanoplasmonic and optical resonators produces laser-like light emission
Do we live in a 2-D hologram? New Fermilab experiment will test the nature of the universe
Duality principle is 'safe and sound': Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality
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: 52
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