Lorentz transformation of a scalar field

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the transformation properties of a scalar field under Lorentz transformations, specifically how a scalar field \(\phi\) transforms as \(\phi'(x) = \phi(\Lambda^{-1} x)\). The transformation of the derivative of the scalar field is shown to follow from the chain rule, leading to \((\partial_\mu \phi)(x) \to (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\mu (\partial_\nu \phi)(y)\). The explanation clarifies how different observers, Alice and Bob, relate their coordinates through Lorentz transformations while maintaining the same physical point in spacetime. The discussion concludes with the acknowledgment that the transformation properties hold for quantum fields as well, reinforcing the consistency of the derived formulas. Understanding these transformations is crucial for grasping the behavior of fields in quantum field theory.
soviet1100
Messages
50
Reaction score
16
Hello,

I'm reading Tong's lecture notes on QFT and I'm stuck on the following problem, found on p.11-12.

A scalar field \phi, under a Lorentz transformation, x \to <br /> \Lambda x, transforms as

\phi(x) \to \phi&#039;(x) = \phi(\Lambda^{-1} x)

and the derivative of the scalar field transforms as a vector, meaning

(\partial_\mu \phi)(x) \to (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\mu (\partial_\nu \phi) (y).

where y = \Lambda^{-1}x

Could someone please explain the steps above? If the transformation is an active one, meaning that the field itself is rotated, then how does x \to \Lambda x make sense. I don't get how he got the transformation property of the derivative either.
 
  • Like
Likes realanswers
Physics news on Phys.org
A (classical) scalar field assigns a number ##\Phi(P)## to each spacetime point ##P##. (I'll generalize to quantum fields at the end; it's easier to think about numbers for now.) Suppose that Alice uses coordinates ##x## to label a particular spacetime point ##P##, and that Bob uses coordinates ##x'## to label the same spacetime point, and that their coordinates are related by a Lorentz transformation: ##x'{}^\mu=\Lambda^\mu{}_\nu x^\nu##. Alice then uses a function ##\phi## of her coordinates for the field, with the property that ##\phi(x)=\Phi(P)## when ##x## is Alice's label for ##P##. Bob uses a different function ##\phi'## of his coordinates for the field, with the property that ##\phi'(x')=\Phi(P)## when ##x'## is Bob's label for ##P##. From this we have ##\phi'(x')=\phi(x)##. Since ##x'=\Lambda x##, we also have ##x=\Lambda^{-1}x'##. Substituting for ##x## in ##\phi'(x')=\phi(x)##, we get ##\phi'(x')=\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x')##. We now change the dummy label ##x'## to ##x##, and we get ##\phi'(x)=\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)##, which is Tong's first formula.

Tong's second formula then follows from the chain rule for derivatives. Let ##\partial_\mu## denote a derivative with respect to ##x^\mu##, and ##\bar\partial_\nu## denote a derivative with respect to ##y^\nu=(\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\rho x^\rho##. We want to compute ##\partial_\mu\phi'(x)##. Using ##\phi'(x)=\phi(y)## and the chain rule, we have ##\partial_\mu\phi'(x)=\partial_\mu\phi(y)=\bar\partial_\nu\phi(y)\partial_\mu y^\nu##. Then we have ##\partial_\mu y^\nu = \partial_\mu[(\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\rho x^\rho] = (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\rho \partial_\mu x^\rho = (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\rho \delta_\mu{}^\rho = (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\mu##. Hence we get ##\partial_\mu\phi'(x)=(\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\mu\bar\partial_\nu\phi(y)##, which is Tong's second formula.

Note that it is a property of the Lorentz transformation matrices that ##(\Lambda^{-1})^\nu{}_\mu=\Lambda_\mu{}^\nu##, so we can also write the second formula as ##\partial_\mu\phi'(x)=\Lambda_\mu{}^\nu\bar\partial_\nu\phi(y)##, which looks nicer to me.

In QFT, ##\Phi(P)## is an operator instead of a number, but the key formula ##\phi'(x')=\phi(x)=\Phi(P)## still holds, so all of the above goes through.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes realanswers, dtgiang, soviet1100 and 7 others
Ah, I see it now. Thanks a lot for the help.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K