1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I 4 vector upper and lower indices

  1. Oct 12, 2016 #1
    I'm working through some intro QFT using Peskin accompanied by David Tong's notes, and have a question over notation. From Peskin I have:

    [tex]
    x^\mu=x^0+x^1+x^2+x^3=(t,\mathbf{x})
    [/tex]
    and
    [tex]
    x_\mu=g^{\mu\nu}x^\nu=x^0-x^1-x^2-x^3=(t,-\mathbf{x})
    [/tex]
    so
    [tex]
    p_\mu p^\mu=g^{\mu\nu}p^\mu p^\nu=E^2-|\mathbf{p}|^2
    [/tex] with
    [tex]
    \partial_\mu=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}=\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^0},\mathbf{\nabla}\bigg)
    [/tex]

    Does this mean that:

    [tex]
    \partial^\mu=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_\mu}=\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^0},-\mathbf{\nabla}\bigg)
    [/tex]

    and if so, is there any reason why the upper/lower index flips when expressing a derivative compared with when writing just a normal vector? It's a bit of a pain when you're starting out so I'm guessing there must be a good reason for it that emerges later.

    I'd also like someone to just confirm that I've taken this derivative properly (might seem a bit laboured but I want to make triple sure I've got the notation correct right away):

    If we have a Lagrangian density of

    [tex]
    L=\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi
    [/tex]


    the derivative with respect to dphi is:


    [tex]
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_\mu\phi)}=\frac{\partial}{\partial_\mu}\bigg(\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi\bigg)=\frac{\partial}{\partial_\mu}\bigg(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi\bigg)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial_\mu}\bigg(\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi\bigg)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial_\mu}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2
    [/tex]

    [tex]
    =g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi=\partial^\mu\phi
    [/tex]

    Thanks as always to you good folk.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2016 #2
    The answer is correct - but your working needs some work - you are introducing too many repeated indices that mess up with the summation convention and confuse you. It is probably a fortunate coincidence in this case that your sloppy working produces the correct result!

    In particular,
    [tex]g^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu = \partial^\nu \neq \partial^\mu[/tex]

    It is good bookkeeping practice to avoid conflicts between indices that are not related - i.e. you should rename the dummy indexes so they do not coincide. As an illustration of the correct way you should do this calculation:
    [tex]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} = \frac{\partial}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \left[\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\alpha} \phi\,\partial_{\alpha} \phi\right] = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \left[g^{\alpha \beta} \partial_{\beta} \phi\,\partial_{\alpha} \phi \right]
    = \frac{1}{2} g^{\alpha \beta} \left[\delta^{\mu}_{\,\beta} \, \partial_{\alpha} \phi + \partial_{\beta} \phi\, \delta^{\mu}_{\,\alpha}\right]\\
    = \frac{1}{2} \left[ g^{\alpha \mu}\, \partial_{\alpha} \phi + g^{\mu \beta}\, \partial_{\beta} \phi \right] = \partial^{\mu} \phi
    [/tex]
    This may seem awfully tedious, and as you get more familiar, there is a tendency to simply skip steps, but for more complicated scenarios, it is extremely important that we keep track of the indices very carefully.
     
  4. Oct 26, 2016 #3
    Thanks for this - its kind of bizarre that I have never come across this kind of thing explicitly in my courses, and I'm finding it really hard to find clear online material on it as well.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted