- #1

- 426

- 26

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter kelly0303
- Start date

- #1

- 426

- 26

- #2

- 18,637

- 8,534

You can probably answer your own question by computing the energy density of your scalar field.

- #3

- 426

- 26

Sorry I did a mistake, the term mass should be + not - (in order to get spontaneous symmetry breaking). So the energy density would be $$H= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi)^2-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4$$. Is it obvious that the field must be constant?You can probably answer your own question by computing the energy density of your scalar field.

- #4

- 18,637

- 8,534

- #5

- 426

- 26

I am not sure I am. But we were told that the hamiltonian density is ##H=T+V## which corresponds to the energy density (when you integrate it you get the actual hamiltonian which gives the energy for well behaved potentials). Did I miss-understand that?

- #6

- 18,637

- 8,534

You are misinterpreting what ##T## is in this case so you have the wrong Hamiltonian. I suggest you look at the full expression for the energy-momentum tensor and extract the time-time component, which is the energy density.I am not sure I am. But we were told that the hamiltonian density is ##H=T+V## which corresponds to the energy density (when you integrate it you get the actual hamiltonian which gives the energy for well behaved potentials). Did I miss-understand that?

- #7

- 426

- 26

Oh, right! So I got this for the energy density: $$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4$$ Is it obvious that ##\phi## has to be a constant?You are misinterpreting what ##T## is in this case so you have the wrong Hamiltonian. I suggest you look at the full expression for the energy-momentum tensor and extract the time-time component, which is the energy density.

- #8

- 18,637

- 8,534

That is also wrong. You are now missing terms.

- #9

- 426

- 26

So the way I did it is to use $$T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_\mu\phi)}\partial_\nu\phi-g_{\mu\nu}L$$ which gives $$T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi-g_{\mu\nu}(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi)^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4)$$ $$T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \phi\partial_\nu \phi-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4$$ Now the energy density is given by $$T_{00}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_0 \phi\partial_0 \phi-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4$$ Where is my mistake? Thank you!That is also wrong. You are now missing terms.

- #10

- 18,637

- 8,534

$$

(\partial_0\phi)(\partial_0\phi) - \frac 12 g_{00} (\partial_\mu \phi)^2 = \frac 12 (\partial_0 \phi)^2.

$$

Edit: You are also doing some bad things with indices, like using ##\mu## both as a summation index and as a free index. Please see https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-10-commandments-of-index-expressions-and-tensor-calculus/

- #11

- 426

- 26

Ah, ok. So it should be like this: $$T_{00}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_0\phi\partial_0\phi+\frac{1}{2}( \partial_x\phi\partial_x\phi+\partial_y\phi\partial_y\phi+\partial_z\phi\partial_z\phi)-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4$$ I hope this is correct now. But still, why is this a minimum for constant ##\phi##? If the mass term would have been added and not subtracted, that would have made sense, but I am not sure I see it as obvious here? Thank you and sorry for taking so long!nottrue that

$$

(\partial_0\phi)(\partial_0\phi) - \frac 12 g_{00} (\partial_\mu \phi)^2 = \frac 12 (\partial_0 \phi)^2.

$$

Edit: You are also doing some bad things with indices, like using ##\mu## both as a summation index and as a free index. Please see https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-10-commandments-of-index-expressions-and-tensor-calculus/

- #12

- 18,637

- 8,534

- #13

- 426

- 26

But if you have something of the form $$g(x)=f'(x)^2+f(x)$$ the minimum of $$\int g(x)$$ is not necessary when ##f=ct##

- #14

- 18,637

- 8,534

That’s because ##f(x)## does not have a minimum. Your potential does.But if you have something of the form $$g(x)=f'(x)^2+f(x)$$ the minimum of $$\int g(x)$$ is not necessary when ##f=ct##

- #15

- 426

- 26

Hmm that makes it more clear. However, I am still a bit confused. The potential energy minimum is not necessarily attained for a constant value of ##\phi##, I mean ##\int V(x)##. So can't it happen that for some non-constant value of ##\phi## the kinetic term will indeed get bigger (as it is non-zero anymore) but the potential gets down by a higher amount and hence ##\int T+V## it's smaller overall? Intuitively makes sense that the more you move the more energy you have, but mathematically is not really obvious to me. Can I derive this using calculus of variation, something like ##\frac{\delta E}{\delta \phi}=0## and from here infer that ##\phi## is a constant?

- #16

- 18,637

- 8,534

Share:

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 633