Derivative of d'Alambert operator?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the differentiation of the d'Alembert operator applied to a scalar field, specifically the expression \partial_{\mu}\Box\phi. It is clarified that the d'Alembertian operator, defined as \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}, results in a scalar, and differentiating it yields a vector. The participants emphasize that using the same Greek letters can lead to confusion. The conclusion is that there is no inherent reason for the expression to be zero identically. Understanding the relationship between scalars and vectors in this context is crucial for accurate calculations.
Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hi guys,

So I've ended up in a situation where I have \partial_{\mu}\Box\phi. where the box is defined as \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}. I'm just wondering, is this 0 by any chance...?

Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You shouldn't use same greek letters. Because the d'Alembertian of a scalar field is a scalar and when you differentiate that, you'll get a vector. So you should write \partial_\nu \Box \phi=\partial_\nu (\partial^\mu \partial_\mu \phi). I don't see a reason that makes it zero identically!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top