Are the following 2 equations lorentz invariant?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Lorentz invariance of two equations involving derivatives of a scalar field, specifically the expressions \(\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi\) and \(\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi\). Participants explore the implications of Lorentz transformations on these equations and the nature of scalar fields in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the second equation, \(\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi\), is Lorentz invariant because it represents the d'Alembertian operator, which is thought to be invariant under Lorentz transformations.
  • Others argue that the first expression, \(\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi\), is also Lorentz invariant, contingent on the properties of scalar fields and their transformations.
  • A participant notes that the invariance of the scalar field implies that both equations should be invariant under Lorentz transformations.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of correctly handling indices in Lorentz transformations and provides a mathematical framework for understanding the transformation properties.
  • There is a suggestion that the cancellation of transformation matrices occurs when rewriting the first expression in transformed coordinates, which supports its invariance.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the influence of the second scalar field in the first equation and its implications for Lorentz invariance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that both equations are likely Lorentz invariant, but there remains some uncertainty regarding the implications of the second scalar field in the first equation and the handling of indices in transformations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the need for careful treatment of indices in Lorentz transformations and the potential for confusion regarding the nature of scalar fields and their derivatives.

Dreak
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
[itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\phi[/itex][itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\phi[/itex]

and

[itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\phi[/itex]

with [itex]\phi[/itex](x) a scalar field
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose ##\partial_{\mu'}=\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}\partial_{\mu}## and ##\partial^{\mu'}=\Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}##.
Then
##\partial_{\mu'}\partial^{\mu'}\phi=\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}\partial_{\mu} \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi=\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'} \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi##.

So the scalar is invariant if ##\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}## is the inverse of ## \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}##.

Now, ##\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}## is not a tensor but a transformation matrix. It so happens that the inverse of the LT is found by reversing the sign of the boost velocity. This operation ##\Lambda_b^{b'}=\eta_{ba}\Lambda_{a'}^a\eta^{a'b'}## also reverses the sign. So for the Lorentz transformation ##\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}## is the inverse of ## \Lambda^{\mu'}_{\mu}##.
 
So the answer is yes?!
I actually thought the second one was lorentzinvariant because:

[itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\partial[/itex]μ is the d'Alembertian which I thought was Lorentzinvariant, while a scalar field is always Lorentzinvariant?

And what about the other equation? I'm not sure what the influence of the second scalar field in the equation yields.
 
Dreak said:
So the answer is yes?!
I actually thought the second one was lorentzinvariant because:

[itex]\partial[/itex]μ[itex]\partial[/itex]μ is the d'Alembertian which I thought was Lorentz invariant, while a scalar field is always Lorentz invariant?

And what about the other equation? I'm not sure what the influence of the second scalar field in the equation yields.
The answer is 'yes' for both equations. If you write out the first expression in terms of the transformed coords, there is another cancellation of ##\Lambda^\mu_{\mu'}\Lambda_\mu^{\mu'}##.

Rank-0 tensors ( ie no indexes) are always invariant. Differentiating a rank-0 tensor creates a new tensor with rank-1. Scalars formed by contractions of tensors are invariant.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you very much! :)
 
One should, however, be a bit more careful with the indices in the Lorentz transformations and write them also with proper order. Let
[tex]{\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}[/tex]
the Lorentz-transformation matrix for contravariant vector/tensor components, i.e.,
[tex]x'^{\mu}={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} x^{\nu}.[/tex]
A Lorentz transform obeys
[tex]\eta_{\mu \nu} {L^{\mu}}_{\rho} {L^{\nu}}_{\sigma}=\eta_{\rho \sigma},[/tex]
or
[tex]\eta_{\mu \nu} \eta^{\rho \alpha} {L^{\mu}}_{\rho} {L^{\nu}}_{\sigma}=\delta_{\sigma}^{\alpha}.[/tex]
This implies
[tex]\eta^{\rho \alpha} \eta_{\mu \nu} {L^{\mu}}_{\rho}={(L^{-1})^{\alpha}}_{\nu}={L_{\mu}}^{\alpha}.[/tex]
 
vanhees71 said:
One should, however, be a bit more careful with the indices in the Lorentz transformations and write them also with proper order. Let
[tex]{\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}[/tex]

...
Thanks for clarifying that.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K