Help with Vector Notation: \partial_{\mu} \phi^{*}\partial^{\mu} \phi

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical interpretation of the expression \(\partial_{\mu} \phi^{*}\partial^{\mu} \phi\) in the context of scalar fields and vector notation, particularly focusing on the implications of index placement and summation conventions in Lorentz invariant formulations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the expression and its calculation, with one participant attempting to relate it to summation over repeated indices. Questions are raised about the implications of using different index placements and the conditions for Lorentz invariance.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the notation and the necessity of having one upper and one lower index for proper summation. There is an acknowledgment of the importance of Lorentz invariance in the context of the discussion, though no consensus has been reached on all aspects.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of vector notation and the conventions of index placement in the context of scalar fields, with an emphasis on ensuring proper mathematical expressions that adhere to physical principles.

Onamor
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Not a particularly direct question, just something I don't mathematically understand and would very much appreciate help with.

For some scalar field \phi, what would \partial_{\mu} \phi^{*}\partial^{\mu} \phi mean in mathematical terms. ie how would I calculate it?

From what I understand its basically \Sigma_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\phi \right)^{2} because of the complex conjugate in the scalar field, and you sum over repeated indexes.

Also, just to ask, why wouldn't I write this \partial^{\mu} \phi^{*} \partial^{\mu} \phi? Is it because I wouldn't then be allowed to sum over the \mu index?
Or is it something to do with a contraction being Lorentz invariant?

Thanks for any help, let me know if I haven't been clear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\partial_\mu \phi^* \partial^\mu \phi is the same as \eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \phi^* \partial_\nu \phi where
\partial_\mu = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}and repeated indices imply summation, so you have
\partial_\mu \phi^* \partial^\mu \phi = - \left\lvert\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^0}\right\rvert^2+\sum_i \left\lvert\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^i}\right\rvert^2
In general, you shouldn't have a repeated index with both raised or both lowered. They should always come one up and one down, otherwise you have a malformed expression on your hands.
 
Onamor said:
Also, just to ask, why wouldn't I write this \partial^{\mu} \phi^{*} \partial^{\mu} \phi? Is it because I wouldn't then be allowed to sum over the \mu index?
Or is it something to do with a contraction being Lorentz invariant?

To complement vela's response: the answers are yes and yes.
Summation convention only applies to one upper and one lower index, and the whole idea is that doing this that given some objects behaving properly under Lorentz-transformations, the notation almost forces you into creating new objects behaving properly under Lorentz-transformations, rather than some arbitrary mathematical expression.
As vela shows, it means that if you use the simple trick of "one upper + one lower" index what you are actually doing is making sure you use the spacetime metric in precisely the places you need to get Lorentz-invariance right.
 
Thank you both, very helpful as always.
Much appreciated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K