A Derivation of energy-momentum tensor in "QFT and the SM" by Schwartz

Hill
Messages
735
Reaction score
575
TL;DR Summary
How the contraction leads to ##g_{\mu \nu}## rather than ##\delta_{\mu \nu}##?
My question is about this step in the derivation:
1708892121220.png

When the ##\partial_\nu \mathcal L## in 3.33 moves under the ##\partial_\mu## in 3.34 and gets contracted, I'd expect it to become ##\delta_{\mu \nu} \mathcal L##. Why is it rather ##g_{\mu \nu} \mathcal L## in the 3.34?
(In this text, ##g_{\mu \nu}=\eta_{\mu \nu}##)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that eq.(3.34) contains a typo and you're (nearly) correct: in standard tensor notation, the ##g_{\mu\nu}## in (3.34) should actually be ##\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}##.
 
renormalize said:
I think that eq.(3.34) contains a typo and you're (nearly) correct: in standard tensor notation, the ##g_{\mu\nu}## in (3.34) should actually be ##\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}##.
Yes. The derivative has a lower mu in the denominator and hence acts like an upper index. This means the mu on the metric should also be upper, making it a kronecker delta.
 
Be careful when using this book as Schwartz employs a strange convention for contracting Lorentz tensors - namely, he ignores the positioning of the tensor indices (i.e., whether they are "upper" or "lower" indices), as he explains in this passage:

Zrzut ekranu z 2024-02-25 22-27-37.png


With this convention you get ambiguous expressions such as ##\partial_\mu (g_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{L})##, which you've encountered here, and which are impossible to interpret as they stand. Besides, there is always the possibility of there being a typo in a particular formula. All this can lead to unnecessary frustration, so it is best that you supplement the Schwartz's text with other books on QFT that you can always consult. Never let a textbook gaslight you while studying! :-p
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes Demystifier, Hill and jbergman
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top