Equation Derivation in QFT book by D.MacMahonhow?

  • Thread starter Abolaban
  • Start date
  • #1
13
0
Hello,

I have encountered an equation in page 33 in the book of D.MacMahon titled QFT demystefied.

It is the third equation from the top....how did the sum appear as a middle step of the equation?

upload_2015-1-28_22-44-14.png


best regards.

Abolaban
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
Ok, so this is very bad notational form. He is using ##\mu## as the index of the ##\partial_\mu## at the same time as he is using it as a summation index in the Lagrangian. The middle step is simply wrong - you can never (ever ever) have an expression where you sum two terms with different free indices!

What should have been done is to pick a different summation index for the Lagrangian (or why not differentiate with respect to ##\partial_\rho\varphi##???). You can then apply the rules for a derivative of a product and note that ##\partial(\partial_\mu \varphi)/\partial(\partial_\rho \varphi) = \delta_\mu^\rho##.

Edit: To be clear, the end result is correct, the middle step is not.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
13
0
Thank you "Orodruin" for your answer....

where can one correctly learn about the usuage of such notations?
 
  • #4
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,373
459
where can one correctly learn about the usuage of such notations?
I don't know any book that would go into showing calculations as Demystified... In most of cases you have to be very careful yourself of the writer's steps and what he is actually doing... eg if you did the same calculation yourself, you wouldn't use same-indices with the derivatives.
 
  • #5
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,373
459
Edit: To be clear, the end result is correct, the middle step is not.
:D Correct by luck...
 
  • #6
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
If you are familiar with tensor notation, there really is not much more to it other than seeing ##\partial_\mu \varphi## for different values of ##\mu## as independent arguments of the Lagrangian. It should then be rather obvious that, for example, ##\partial(\partial_1\varphi)/\partial(\partial_1\varphi) = 1## and that ##\partial(\partial_1\varphi)/\partial(\partial_2\varphi) = 0##, etc.
 
  • #7
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
:D Correct by luck...
The best (i.e., worst) way of being correct. Although I think it is rather a case of "IknowwhatIshouldgetsoIwillbesloppyinthemiddlesteps"-syndrome.
 
  • #8
13
0
thanks "Oroduin" for your comment...

I have the following books, however, it is hard to recognize which could match the QFT tensor analysis...what do you recommend among them?

-Daniel Fleisch: A Student's Guide to Vectors and Tensors

-Derek F.Lawden: An Introduction to Tensor Calcul

-J.A.Schouten:Tensor Analysis for Physicists

-Mikhail Itskov: Tensor Algebra and Tensor Analysi

-Nadir Jeevanjee: An Introduction to Tensors

-Nazrul Islam: Tensors and their applications


Abolaban
 
  • #9
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
It is mainly a matter of understanding index notation, if you do that, you should be able to follow - of course assuming derivation is corrected to:
$$
\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial(\partial_\rho\varphi)} = \frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial_\rho\varphi)} g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_\mu\varphi)(\partial_\nu\varphi)
= g^{\mu\nu}[ \delta_\mu^\rho \partial_\nu\varphi + \delta_\nu^\rho\partial_\mu\varphi] = 2\partial^\rho\varphi
$$
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #10
13
0
"Orodruin" thanks for your further clarification....

I went through "Tensor analysis" in Math Meth for Physicists by Arfken and Weber pages 133 and beyond but I could not recognize how did you split that term into summation!?
 
  • #11
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
"Orodruin" thanks for your further clarification....

I went through "Tensor analysis" in Math Meth for Physicists by Arfken and Weber pages 133 and beyond but I could not recognize how did you split that term into summation!?
Do you understand the following result for ordinary derivatives of functions of one variable?
$$
\frac{d}{dx}f(x) g(x) = f'(x) g(x) + f(x) g'(x)
$$
 
  • #12
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,373
459
I went through "Tensor analysis" in Math Meth for Physicists by Arfken and Weber pages 133 and beyond but I could not recognize how did you split that term into summation!?
there will be more that look similar to this, but this is straightforward to see... equation 2.130b he uses the same "summation" thing, generally called the product rule...
 
  • #13
13
0
thanks for your replies...

yeah...you use this from vector analysis...dealing with tensors carry special flavours...so the tast might sometimes mix in one's tongue.

--equation 2.130b seems to carry different flavour...namely by Christoffel
 
  • #14
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,373
459
--equation 2.130b seems to carry different flavour...namely by Christoffel
flavour?

Well what he did was write [itex]\textbf{V} = V^i e_i [/itex]
and take the derivative [itex] \frac{d}{dq^j} \textbf{V} =\frac{d}{dq^j} (V^i e_i) =\frac{dV^i}{dq^j} e_i + V^i \frac{de_i}{dq^j} [/itex]

Especially at this point, it is just vector-analysis...
 
  • #15
13
0
yeah...you are correct....it is the same...however using sub and super scripts while dealing with McMahon's notation is sometimes confusing...
 
  • #16
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,373
459
He is using for both subscripts because he is taking the derivative with respect to the [itex] \partial_\mu \phi [/itex] (see the subsript).
The kinetic term can as well be written by using the metric:
[itex] (\partial_{\mu} \phi) g^{\mu \nu} (\partial_\nu \phi) = (\partial_\mu \phi) (\partial^\mu \phi ) =(\partial^\mu \phi ) (\partial_\mu \phi) [/itex]

But using just the metric he can easily use the:
[itex] \frac{\partial (\partial_{\nu} \phi) }{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} = \delta_{\nu}^\mu [/itex].

instead of having:

[itex] \frac{\partial (\partial^{\nu} \phi) }{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} = g^{\nu \rho} \delta_{\rho}^\mu[/itex].
 
  • #17
13
0
ok...now it is clear....thank you "ChrisVer"
 

Related Threads on Equation Derivation in QFT book by D.MacMahonhow?

Replies
4
Views
830
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
87
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
936
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top