Equivalence of differential operator terms in action

Mithra
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, I'm sure I'm being very stupid here but I'm reading through notes which contain various actions for fields, most of which are very similar, however there is some discrepancies with the way differential operators are shown acting on the fields and I can't for the life of me work out which are equal to which so any advice would be great.

The three forms I can see are, for a real field \phi

<br /> 1) (∂^\mu \phi)(∂_\mu \phi)<br />

<br /> 2) ∂^\mu ∂_\mu |\phi|^2<br />

<br /> 3) \phi (∂^\mu ∂_\mu) \phi<br />

These seem to often be used in very similar places but I can't really see how they relate? This is likely painfully simple and I'm just overthinking it but even just pointing in the right direction would be great, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps it is clearer if we just write \partial_\mu \phi as the gradient \nabla\phi. In that case, the three expressions you have written are:
1) (\nabla\phi) \cdot (\nabla\phi)
2) \nabla^2 |\phi|^2
3) (\nabla^2\phi) \phi
where
\nabla \equiv \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right)
and
\nabla^2 \equiv \nabla \cdot \nabla = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}

It may also help you if you write out these expressions for a simple example, like \phi(x, y, z) = xyz.
 
I could be wrong, but I think (2) as you've written it doesn't describe a charged scalar field. I think you may have meant |\partial \phi|^{2}=(\partial^{\mu}\phi^{*})(\partial_{\mu}\phi). Anyways, (1) and (3) are equivalent as long as you remember that these quantities appear in an integral, so that \int d^{4}x (\partial^{\mu}\phi)(\partial_{\mu}\phi)=-\int d^{4}x\, \phi \partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\phi. This means that the action for a real scalar field can be written as S=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\, [(\partial \phi)^{2}-m^{2}\phi^{2}]=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x \, \phi(\partial^{2}+m^{2})\phi. (Note \partial^{2}\equiv\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu})
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top