How to Derive the Klein-Gordon Equation from its Lagrangian Density?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Klein-Gordon equation from its Lagrangian density, specifically focusing on the expression provided in Srednicki's text. Participants are examining the implications of the variation of the action and the integration by parts required in the derivation process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the equation by manipulating the Lagrangian density and integrating by parts, leading to questions about the vanishing of certain integrals. Other participants question the handling of the variation operator and the assumptions made during integration.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the mathematical details of the derivation, with some providing clarifications on the application of integration by parts and the treatment of boundary conditions. There is a recognition of the need to correctly apply the product rule and the implications of the infinitesimal variations.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the assumptions regarding the behavior of fields at the boundaries of the integration region, as well as the treatment of infinitesimals in the context of the variation operator.

waht
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



I'm trying to derive the Klein-Gordon equation from its lagrangian density

\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \varphi \partial_{\mu} \varphi - \frac{1}{2} m^2 \varphi^2 + \Omega_0

(Srednicki p.24)


Homework Equations



S = \int d^4x \mathcal{L}

\delta S = 0


The Attempt at a Solution



So here is what I got so far,

\int d^4x \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} (\varphi + \delta\varphi) \partial_{\mu} (\varphi + \delta\varphi)- \frac{1}{2} m^2 (\varphi+\delta\varphi)^2 + \Omega_0 \right] = 0


\int d^4x \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi \partial_{\mu} \varphi -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \varphi \partial_{\mu} \delta\varphi - m^2 \varphi \delta\varphi \right] + \int d^4x \left[\partial^{\mu}\varphi \partial_{\mu} \varphi + \partial^{\mu}\delta\varphi \partial_{\mu} \delta\varphi + \Omega_0 \right] = 0

The answer in the book is the first integral on the left. But that would mean that the second integral has to vanish. If this is correct why does the second integral is zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The variation operator \delta is supposed to act like a derivative operator:

\delta(ab) = (\delta a)b + a \delta b

It looks like what happened is that you forgot two things. First, you need to subtract off the original function:

\delta f(\phi) = f(\phi + \delta \phi) - f(\phi)

and second, you forgot that \delta \phi[/tex], because it is an infinitesimal, is nilpotent:<br /> <br /> \delta \phi \delta \phi = 0
 
I get it now, didn't realize we have to subtract that off, now it works.

The second part requires integration by parts of the first two terms,

\int d^4x \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi \partial_{\mu} \varphi -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \varphi \partial_{\mu} \delta\varphi - m^2 \varphi \delta\varphi \right] = 0

to obtain

\int d^4x \left[+\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \varphi - m^2 \varphi \right] \delta\varphi = 0

If I do this to the first term

u = \partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi and v&#039; = \partial_{\mu} \varphi

du = 2 \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \delta\varphi and v = \varphi

then

(\partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi)\varphi - \int 2 \partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi

and the same to the second term and add it up, then I guess the constants with \delta\varphi should vanish, but I will get a constant of two in the integrand, which can't seem to get rid off.
 
When integrating by parts, you need to move the derivatives off of \delta \phi, not the other way around.

I'm not sure where you got the factor of 2 from in the first place. Integration by parts doesn't work exactly the same way in multi-dimensional integrals. What you need is a generalized divergence theorem, which you can derive from the product rule:

\partial_{\mu}(uv) = v \partial_{\mu} u + u \partial_{\mu} v

So

\int_R d^4x \; u \partial_{\mu} v = \int_R d^4x \; \partial_{\mu}(uv) - \int_R d^4x \; v \partial_{\mu} u = \int_{\partial R} d^3x \; uv - \int_R d^4x \; v \partial_{\mu} u

where \partial R means the boundary of the region of integration R. Generally the fields are assumed to vanish on the boundary, so the boundary integral also vanishes.
 
That's interesting. So if the boundary integral vanishes, this integral is antisymmetric with respect to u, and v.

\int_R d^4x \; u \partial_{\mu} v = -\int_R d^4x \; v \partial_{\mu} u

So when applying this to the original problem

\int d^4x \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi \partial_{\mu} \varphi -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\mu} \varphi \partial_{\mu} \delta\varphi - m^2 \varphi \delta\varphi \right] = 0


this kind of works by flipping u and v in the second term of the integral,

but when flipping u and v in the first term of the integral, \delta\varphi is still in front of the derivate,

u = \partial^{\mu} \delta\varphi

v = \varphi
 
Try looking at it again. I think you've confused yourself. You want to move the derivative off of \delta \phi, not the other way around.

u and v are just arbitrary objects.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K