Energy-Momentum tensor components for complex Klein-Gorden field

AI Thread Summary
The stress-energy tensor for the complex Klein-Gordon field is expressed as T^{\mu\nu}=(\partial^{\mu}\phi)^{\dagger}(\partial^{\nu}\phi)+(\partial^{\mu}\phi)(\partial^{\nu}\phi^{\dagger})-\mathcal{L}g^{\mu\nu}. The component T^{0i} is derived by substituting time and spatial indices, resulting in T^{0i}=-[(\partial_{t}\phi)^{\dagger}\nabla^{i}\phi+(\partial_{t}\phi)\nabla^{i}\phi^{\dagger}]. A query arises regarding the relationship between \partial^{t}\phi and \partial_{t}\phi, specifically whether they are negatives of each other. Additionally, the Lagrangian density term drops out because g^{\mu\nu} is diagonal, leading to off-diagonal elements being zero for T^{0i}. Understanding these components is crucial for analyzing the energy-momentum tensor in quantum field theory.
Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hey guys,

So I have the stress energy tensor written as follows in my notes for the complex Klein-Gordon field:

T^{\mu\nu}=(\partial^{\mu}\phi)^{\dagger}(\partial^{\nu}\phi)+(\partial^{\mu}\phi)(\partial^{\nu}\phi^{\dagger})-\mathcal{L}g^{\mu\nu}

Then I have the next statement that T^{0i} is given by

T^{0i}=-[(\partial_{t}\phi)^{\dagger}\nabla^{i}\phi+(\partial_{t}\phi)\nabla^{i}\phi^{\dagger}]

And I was wondering how this comes about. I can sort of see what's happened here. Obviously you replace mu and nu with 0 and i respectively to split the spatial and time derivatives. However I have a couple of questions:

1) is it true that \partial^{t}\phi=-\partial_{t}\phi?
2) why does the Lagrangian density at the end, \mathcal{L}g^{\mu\nu} drop out?

Thanks a lot guys :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay maybe I know why the Lagrangian density drops out...is it cos g^{\mu\nu} is diagonal and so g^{0i}, for i = 1, 2, 3, are off-diagonal elements which are 0?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top