Lorentz transformation of a scalar field

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top