Equation of motion for interacting fields

>>S/Z<<
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



2N classical, real, scalar fields \phi_i (x^{\nu}) \psi_i (x^{\nu}) ,where i=1,...,N

I have to find the equations of motions for \phi_i (x^{\nu}) \psi_i (x^{\nu})

Lagrange density is given by

L= \sum_{i=1}^N (\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu} \phi_i \partial^{\mu} \phi_i+\partial_{\mu} \psi_i \partial^{\mu} \psi_i-m^2(\phi_i \phi_i + \psi_i \psi_i) - \lambda \phi_i \psi_i))

Homework Equations



Euler-Lagrange equation

\partial_{\mu} \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_{\mu} \phi_i)} - \frac{\partial L_0}{\partial \phi_i} = 0

The Attempt at a Solution



The problem for me is the interaction term? Can I just put in the Euler-Lagrange equation as well, or what do I do with it? I found some equations by disregarding the interaction term

\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} \phi_i + m^2 \phi_i = 0
\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} \psi_i + m^2 \psi_i = 0

Is this right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's easier to read the math if you actually wrap it in [tex ] and [ /tex] tags :wink: I've done that in the quote below for everyone's reference:
>>S/Z<< said:

Homework Statement



2N classical, real, scalar fields \phi_i (x^{\nu}), \psi_i (x^{\nu}), where i=1,...,N

I have to find the equations of motions for \phi_i (x^{\nu}), \psi_i (x^{\nu})

Lagrange density is given by

L= \sum_{i=1}^N (\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{mu} \phi_i \partial^{\mu} \phi_i+\partial_{mu} \psi_i \partial^{\mu} \psi_i-m^2(\phi_i \phi_i + \psi_i \psi_i) - \lambda \phi_i \psi_i))

Homework Equations



Euler-Lagrange equation

\partial_{\mu} \frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial_{\mu} \phi_i)} - \frac{\partial L_0}{\partial \phi_i} = 0

The Attempt at a Solution



The problem for me is the interaction term? Can I just put in the Euler-Lagrange equation as well, or what do I do with it? I found some equations by disregarding the interaction term

\partial_{mu} \partial^{\mu} \phi_i + m^2 \phi_i = 0
\partial_{mu} \partial^{\mu} \psi_i + m^2 \psi_i = 0

Is this right?
You may recognize the equations you found as the Klein-Gordon equation which governs the evolution of a free scalar field. So it is exactly what you'd expect to find if you discard the interaction term, i.e. pretend that the fields do not interact. But it's not the answer you need. You can't just disregard that term and pretend that it doesn't change anything.

Just include the interaction term in the Lagrangian, as you do with the other terms.
 
diazona said:
It's easier to read the math if you actually wrap it in [tex ] and [ /tex] tags :wink: I've done that in the quote below for everyone's reference:

Sorry about that! My first post so not familiar with it all yet

diazona said:
You may recognize the equations you found as the Klein-Gordon equation which governs the evolution of a free scalar field. So it is exactly what you'd expect to find if you discard the interaction term, i.e. pretend that the fields do not interact. But it's not the answer you need. You can't just disregard that term and pretend that it doesn't change anything.

Just include the interaction term in the Lagrangian, as you do with the other terms.

Okay so just use the Euler-Lagrange equation on the full Lagrange.

Thanks for the reply:)!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top