Understanding Euler-Lagrange Equations: Lagrangian Density & Vector Field

Spinny
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Here's the problem. For a neutral vector field V_{\mu} we have the Lagrangian density

\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}V_{\nu})(\partial^{\mu}V^{\nu})+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}V^{\mu})(\partial_{\nu}V^{\nu})+\frac{1}{2}m^2V_{\mu}V^{\mu}

We are then going to use the Euler-Lagrange equations to show that (for m\neq 0)

\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}V^{\nu}+m^2V^{\nu} = 0 \quad;\quad \partial^{\mu}V_{\mu} = 0

Now, the Euler-Lagrange equation (as I found in the textbook) is

\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \varphi}-\partial_{\mu}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\varphi)} = 0

My problem here, with what at first glance would appear to be a rather simple problem, is that I'm confused by all the indices! I haven't a lot of experience working like this, in fact this is all new to me, so I don't quite know how or where to start.

I can, however, give a specific example of what I don't understand, just to get things started.

The first part seemed at first easy enough, as the Lagrangian only contains one part with V_{\mu} which is

\frac{1}{2}m^2V_{\mu}V^{\mu}

and from what I've understood V_{mu}V^{\mu} is just the square of each of the components of the vector, so that when you derivate it with respect to V_{\mu}, I thought you'd get something like

m^2V^{\mu}

but the text says m^2 V^{\nu} which brings up two question, first of all, why is it \nu and not \mu, and why is it an upper index, rather than a lower one?

Furthermore I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good book introductory book about tensor algebra and such, preferably one intended for physicists rather than mathematicians. (It doesn't have to be a book on just about tensors, as long as it contains a good introduction to tensors.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It matters whether you differentiate the scalar V_{\mu}V^{\mu} wrt the covector V_{\nu} or wrt the vector V^{\nu}. That's why the indices must be treated with great care.

Daniel.
 
Hi Spinny,

I worked my way through Schaum's Tensor Calculus which I found very good except for quite a few typos.

Regards


TerryW
 
Hello everyone, I’m considering a point charge q that oscillates harmonically about the origin along the z-axis, e.g. $$z_{q}(t)= A\sin(wt)$$ In a strongly simplified / quasi-instantaneous approximation I ignore retardation and take the electric field at the position ##r=(x,y,z)## simply to be the “Coulomb field at the charge’s instantaneous position”: $$E(r,t)=\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_{0}}\frac{r-r_{q}(t)}{||r-r_{q}(t)||^{3}}$$ with $$r_{q}(t)=(0,0,z_{q}(t))$$ (I’m aware this isn’t...
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
Back
Top