Conserved currents in Mandl & Shaw (section 2.4)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jmlaniel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Currents
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the use of functional derivatives in the context of conserved quantities as presented in "Quantum Field Theory" by Mandl & Shaw (2nd edition), specifically in section 2.4. The equation for a conserved quantity is given as \(\frac{\delta f^\alpha}{\delta x^\alpha} = 0\), contrasting with the more commonly found expression \(\frac{\partial f^\alpha}{\partial x^\alpha} = 0\). Participants seek clarification on the appropriateness of using functional derivatives in this context and how to derive equation (2.36a) from it, emphasizing the importance of understanding the distinction between functional and partial derivatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian density in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with functional derivatives and their definitions
  • Knowledge of Noether's theorem and its implications for conserved quantities
  • Basic grasp of vector calculus and Gauss' theorem
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Noether's theorem in detail
  • Learn about the applications of functional derivatives in quantum field theory
  • Examine the differences between functional and partial derivatives in physics
  • Explore examples of conserved quantities in various physical systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on quantum field theory, Lagrangian mechanics, and the mathematical foundations of conservation laws.

jmlaniel
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I am currently reading "Quantum Field Theory" by Mandl & Shaw (2nd edition). In section 2.4, they give an equation for obtaining a conserved quantity (which leave the Lagrangian density invariant) :

\frac{\delta f^\alpha}{\delta x^\alpha} = 0 (2.36 in Mandl & Shaw)

In other textbooks that I have consulted, I usually find the following expression for a conserved quantity :

\frac{\partial f^\alpha}{\partial x^\alpha} = 0

I would like to know why is Mandl & Shaw using what seems to be a functional derivative instead of a simple partial derivative.

Furthermore, does anyone know how to work with the functional derivative used by Mandl & Shaw and how to obtain equation (2.36a) with it? Can I treat it as a simple derivative? It seems wrong to do so...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it is a mistake. You don’t take functional derivative with respect to coordinates. If that section of the book is about Noether’s theorem, then the following might help you understand the connection functional and partial derivatives;
Let s(x) be a space-like hyper surface passes through a specific point x. Let us define a 4-vector differential area at the point x by
<br /> ds^{\mu}=(dx^{1}dx^{2}dx^{3},dx^{0}dx^{1}dx^{2},dx^{0}dx^{1}dx^{3},dx^{0}dx^{2}dx^{3})<br />
Now, let Q be a functional of a surface s. The functional derivative at a point x is defined by
<br /> \frac{\delta Q<s>}{\delta s(x)}= \lim_{v(x) \rightarrow 0} \frac{Q[\bar{s}]-Q<s>}{v(x)}<br /> </s></s>
where v(x) is the volume enclosed between the two surfaces \bar{s} and s.
Now let Q be given by
Q<s>= \int_{s} ds_{\mu} f^{\mu}(x),</s>
where f_{\mu}(x) is some smooth vector field, then according to Gauss’ theorem we find
\frac{\delta Q}{\delta s}= \lim_{v \rightarrow 0} \frac{\int_{\bar{s}}ds_{\mu}f^{\mu}(x) - \int_{s} ds_{\mu}f^{\mu}(x)}{v(x)}=\partial_{\mu}f^{\mu}
Using this, Schwinger was able to prove the following (very, very useful) identity
<br /> \int ds_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}F(x) = \int ds_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}F(x),<br />
where
|\vec{x}|^{2}F(x)\rightarrow 0,\ \ \mbox{as}\ \ |\vec{x}| \rightarrow \infty

sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K