Derivative of lagrangian density

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical derivation of the Lagrangian density in the context of Klein-Gordon theory, specifically focusing on the differentiation of the Lagrangian with respect to the derivatives of the field variable. Participants explore different interpretations of the relationship between the covariant and contravariant derivatives of the field.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two options for the derivative of the Lagrangian, expressing confusion over whether to treat the covariant and contravariant derivatives as independent or related.
  • Another participant asserts that option 2 is correct, noting that while the derivatives are not equal, they are related by a sign, similar to differentiating a negative function.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the derivatives are not independent and illustrates this by rewriting the Lagrangian using the metric, leading to a different expression for the derivative.
  • One participant questions the analogy of their example involving a function of multiple variables, seeking clarification on the independence of variables in the context of partial derivatives.
  • Another participant simplifies the discussion by considering a one-dimensional case, suggesting that the derivative with respect to time should yield a straightforward result.
  • There is a reiteration of the relationship between the derivatives and the metric, with a participant expressing continued confusion over the analogy used in the discussion.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of independent choices in the context of a second-order differential equation, suggesting that multiple derivatives can be treated as independent variables at a point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of covariant and contravariant derivatives, with no consensus reached on the correct approach to the differentiation of the Lagrangian density. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore various interpretations and analogies.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on different mathematical interpretations and analogies, which may lead to confusion regarding the independence of variables in partial derivatives. The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationships between derivatives in the context of field theory.

kawillzocken
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i have a mathematical question which is quite similar to one asked before, still a bit different
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...agrangian-density-for-real-k-g-theory.781472/the first term of KG-Lagrangian is: \frac{1}{2}(\partial^{\mu} \phi)(\partial_{\mu} \phi)
when i try do find \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)}, i have two different options, where of course only one can be right.

1) \partial^{\mu} \phi and \partial_{\mu} \phi are different things, so one gets: \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)} = \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu} \phi

2) \partial_{\mu} \phi = \eta_{\mu \nu} \partial^{\nu} \phi \rightarrow \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)} = \frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)}(\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu \nu}(\partial^{\nu} \phi)(\partial^{\mu} \phi)) = \partial_{\mu} \phi

i am confused. several sources tell me that 2) is right, but my understanding of partial derivative tells me to do 1).

as i think of it, one may not simply put equations into others when doing the partial derivative, because it then changes. like z(x, y(x)) = 2x + y(x). partial derivative with respect to x gives 2, but it changes when i put in y(x).

help please :)
thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Option 2 is correct. The quantities ##\partial_\mu\phi## and ##\partial^\mu\phi## may not be equal, but they do not correspond to different degrees of freedom (they are related by a sign). Compare this to differentiating ##-x## with respect to ##x##, ##-x## is not equal to ##x##, but it is directly dependent.
 
kawillzocken said:
i have a mathematical question which is quite similar to one asked before, still a bit different
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...agrangian-density-for-real-k-g-theory.781472/the first term of KG-Lagrangian is: \frac{1}{2}(\partial^{\mu} \phi)(\partial_{\mu} \phi)
when i try do find \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)}, i have two different options, where of course only one can be right.

1) \partial^{\mu} \phi and \partial_{\mu} \phi are different things, so one gets: \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial^{\mu}\phi)} = \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu} \phi

No, they are definitely not independent. If you write it with the metric, then this becomes more obvious:

\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu} (\partial_{\mu} \phi\ \partial_{\nu} \phi)

So \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial^{\sigma} \phi)} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu} (\delta^\sigma_\mu \partial_{\nu} \phi + \delta^\sigma_\nu \partial_{\mu} \phi) = \frac{1}{2} (g^{\sigma \nu} \partial_{\nu} \phi + g^{\mu \sigma} \partial_{\mu} \phi) = \frac{1}{2} (\partial^{\sigma} \phi + \partial^{\sigma} \phi) = \partial^{\sigma} \phi
 
i do not say they are independent. y(x) and x are not indepentent either, still in a partial derivative of z with respect to x, one does not consider the y(x).

so orodruin, i see that they are related by the metric. y(x) is also related to x by its defining function. so i do still not get the point, where my z-function analogy is failing.
do y and x correspond to different degrees of freedom in z?

regards, kawillzocken
 
kawillzocken said:
i do not say they are independent. y(x) and x are not indepentent either, still in a partial derivative of z with respect to x, one does not consider the y(x).

so orodruin, i see that they are related by the metric. y(x) is also related to x by its defining function. so i do still not get the point, where my z-function analogy is failing.
do y and x correspond to different degrees of freedom in z?

regards, kawillzocken

Let's make it a lot simpler, by considering only 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension. Then the lagrangian is:

\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x})

I think it's pretty obviousthat \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t})} = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}. Right?
 
kawillzocken said:
i do not say they are independent. y(x) and x are not indepentent either, still in a partial derivative of z with respect to x, one does not consider the y(x).

so orodruin, i see that they are related by the metric. y(x) is also related to x by its defining function. so i do still not get the point, where my z-function analogy is failing.
do y and x correspond to different degrees of freedom in z?

regards, kawillzocken

In a second-order differential equation for \phi (which is what the lagrangian equations of motion produce), to know \phi everywhere, it is good enough to specify \phi, \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}, \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}, \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} at a single point (x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0). Those are 5 completely independent choices.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K