Functional Derivative: Computing the d'Alembert Solution

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around computing the functional derivative with respect to a real scalar field \(\phi(x)\) in the context of quantum field theory, specifically involving the d'Alembert operator \(\square\) and its application in an exponential integral form.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the computation of functional derivatives, questioning the treatment of the d'Alembert operator and its implications in the derivation process. There is a focus on the steps leading to confusion, particularly regarding the integration by parts and the handling of terms involving \(\square\).

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with participants offering guidance on the steps to take, particularly in integrating by parts and addressing the treatment of the d'Alembert operator. Some participants have expressed confusion about specific steps, while others have clarified the approach needed to arrive at the correct result.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the amount of direct assistance provided. There is an emphasis on understanding the underlying principles rather than simply obtaining the final answer.

parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
In the literature (Ryder, path-integrals) I have found the following relation for the functional derivative with respect to a real scalar field \phi(x):

i \dfrac{\delta}{\delta \phi(x)} e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) ( \square + m^2 ) \phi(x)} = ( \square + m^2 ) \phi(x) e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) ( \square + m^2 ) \phi(x)}

But how do I compute this? I am just confused about this d'Alembert operator \square and I never end up with the right solution as above.

Could anybody explain how to obtain this solution, please?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It would help if you show us your steps until the point where the d'Alembert operator is causing problems.

Using the Minkowski metric (+---) (c=1) the d'Alembert operator is given by \partial_{tt}-\partial_{xx}-\partial_{yy}-\partial_{zz}. With this you can evaluate the integral \int d^4 x \; \phi(x) \square \delta \phi(x) using partial integration. What do you know about the volume integrals that appear due to partial integration? Try it for \int d^4x \; \phi(x) \partial_{xx} \phi(x). The other terms work exactly the same.
 
Ok, my problem is the following. If I consider

i \dfrac{\delta}{\delta \phi(x)} e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) m^2 \phi(x)}

I could write the exponent as -i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} m \phi^{2} and use some kind of product rule and obtain:

i \dfrac{\delta}{\delta \phi(x)} e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) m^2 \phi(x)} = m^2 \phi(x) e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) m^2 \phi(x)}

Ok, that seems to be correct, but now I if want to compute

i \dfrac{\delta}{\delta \phi(x)} e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) \square \phi(x)}

I can not rewrite the exponent in such a form like above and otherwise I don't really know how to build the derivative.

I just differentiated the first \phi(x) and obtained


= \dfrac{1}{2} \square \phi(x) e^{-i \int \mathrm{d}^{4} x \frac{1}{2} \phi(x) \square \phi(x)}

where I have a factor 1/2 which is wrong, but I don't know how to derive this correctly.
 
You have treated \square \phi(x) as a constant now, but it is not a constant.

Take the variation of the argument of the exponent.

\delta \int d^4x \; \phi(x) \square \phi(x) = \int d^4x \; \left[ \delta \phi(x) \square \phi(x) +\phi(x) \square \delta \phi(x) \right]

Now integrate the second term by parts.
 
Ok, I integrated the second term by parts (2 times) and finally obtained the correct result.

Thanks a lot for your help :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K