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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The expression \partial_{\mu} \phi^{*}\partial^{\mu} \phi represents the summation of the squared derivatives of a scalar field \phi, specifically calculated as \Sigma_{\mu}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\phi \right)^{2}. This notation adheres to the summation convention, which requires one index to be raised and one to be lowered to ensure Lorentz invariance. The correct formulation is crucial for maintaining the integrity of mathematical expressions in the context of Lorentz transformations, as using both indices raised or lowered results in a malformed expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of scalar fields in physics
  • Familiarity with partial derivatives and their notation
  • Knowledge of Lorentz invariance and transformations
  • Basic concepts of tensor notation and index manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lorentz transformations in detail
  • Learn about tensor calculus and its applications in physics
  • Explore the implications of the summation convention in tensor notation
  • Investigate the role of the spacetime metric in maintaining Lorentz invariance
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying field theory, particularly those focusing on quantum field theory and general relativity.

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
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K