I forgot what this is called and what is is written out.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LostConjugate
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation and interpretation of the D'Alembert Operator, particularly in the context of its representation in different dimensions and the implications of upper and lower indices in partial derivatives. The scope includes theoretical aspects of mathematical physics and notation conventions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that \(\partial_u \partial^u\) resembles a box symbol and asks for its written form in two dimensions.
  • Another participant states that \(\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} = \square^{2}\) or \(\square\) is used interchangeably, providing an example involving natural units.
  • A third participant identifies it as the D'Alembert Operator, describing it as a generalization of the Laplacian and providing a mathematical expression involving a space-negative metric.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the notation \(\partial_u \partial_u\) and questions the implication of upper indices on derivatives.
  • Another participant clarifies that \(\partial_{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\) represents the second partial derivative with respect to a single component, contrasting it with \(\partial^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}\), which sums over all possible values of \(\mu\).
  • This clarification is reiterated by a later post, emphasizing the distinction between the two forms and the interpretation of upper indices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the notation and implications of upper and lower indices in derivatives, indicating a lack of consensus on the interpretation of these mathematical symbols.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of different notations and the assumptions underlying the use of upper and lower indices in the context of the D'Alembert Operator.

LostConjugate
Messages
850
Reaction score
3
[tex]\partial_u \partial^u[/tex]

Isn't this like a box symbol? How is it written out again? You can write it out in 2 dimensions x,t no need to include all 3 spatial dimensions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]\partial _{\mu }\partial ^{\mu } = \square ^{2}[/itex] or [itex]\square[/itex]. Both notations are used (with and without the 2). As in, [itex]\square ^{2}A^{\mu } = \partial ^{2}_{t}A^{\mu } - \triangledown ^{2}A^{\mu }[/itex] in natural units.
 
It's the D'Alembert Operator, essentially the 3+1 generalization of the Laplacian. Using a space-negative metric:

[tex]\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}=\Box=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2[/tex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembertian
 
I am confused about why it is not written [tex]\partial_u \partial_u[/tex]

I thought an upper index on a derivative implied that [tex]\partial x^u[/tex] is in the numerator and not the denominator.
 
[itex]\partial _{\mu }\partial _{\mu }[/itex] is simply the second partial derivative with respect to a single component [itex]\mu[/itex] and won't give you the divergence which is [itex]\partial ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }[/itex] (notice that here you are summing over all the possible values of [itex]\mu[/itex], not just with respect to a single component like the other form). Don't try to write [itex]\partial ^{\mu }[/itex] as you would the right hand side of [itex]\partial _{\mu } = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu }}[/itex], it won't help. Just think of it as [itex]\partial ^{\mu } = g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\nu }[/itex].
 
WannabeNewton said:
[itex]\partial _{\mu }\partial _{\mu }[/itex] is simply the second partial derivative with respect to a single component [itex]\mu[/itex] and won't give you the divergence which is [itex]\partial ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }[/itex] (notice that here you are summing over all the possible values of [itex]\mu[/itex], not just with respect to a single component like the other form). Don't try to write [itex]\partial ^{\mu }[/itex] as you would the right hand side of [itex]\partial _{\mu } = \frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu }}[/itex], it won't help. Just think of it as [itex]\partial ^{\mu } = g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\nu }[/itex].

Oh, right. Thanks everyone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K