Lorentz transformation of a scalar field

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
Hi, the following is taken from Peskin and Schroeder page 36:

##\partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \rightarrow \partial_{\mu}(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)) = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{\mu}(\partial_{\nu}\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x)##

It describes the transformation law for a scalar field ##\phi(x)## for an active transformation.

I would like to work out the intermediate steps by myself as they are missing from the textbook. Can you please correct any mistakes I make?

##\partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \rightarrow \partial_{\mu}(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)) = \frac{\partial(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x))}{\partial x^{\mu}} = \frac{\partial (\Lambda^{-1}x)^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} \frac{\partial \phi((\Lambda^{-1}x))}{\partial (\Lambda^{-1}x)^{\nu}} = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{\mu}(\partial_{\nu}\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x)##.

Am I correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
failexam said:
Hi, the following is taken from Peskin and Schroeder page 36:

##\partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \rightarrow \partial_{\mu}(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)) = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{\mu}(\partial_{\nu}\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x)##

It describes the transformation law for a scalar field ##\phi(x)## for an active transformation.

I would like to work out the intermediate steps by myself as they are missing from the textbook. Can you please correct any mistakes I make?

##\partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \rightarrow \partial_{\mu}(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)) = \frac{\partial(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x))}{\partial x^{\mu}} = \frac{\partial (\Lambda^{-1}x)^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} \frac{\partial \phi((\Lambda^{-1}x))}{\partial (\Lambda^{-1}x)^{\nu}} = (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}_{\mu}(\partial_{\nu}\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x)##.

Am I correct?
Yes. Personally I find this convention very confusing; a scalar transforms under x --> x' as

##
\phi(x) \rightarrow \phi'(x')
##
So
##
\partial_{\mu} \phi(x) \rightarrow \partial'_{\mu} \phi'(x') = \frac{\partial x^{\rho}}{\partial x^{'\mu}} \partial_{\rho} \phi'(x')
##

But whatever suits you, of course; I guess it comes down to the 'passive v.s. active'-discussion.
 
All right, so ##\partial_{\mu}(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)) = \frac{\partial(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x))}{\partial x^{\mu}}## because only ##\phi## is a function of ##\Lambda^{-1}x##.

But then, ##(\partial_{\nu}\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x) = \frac{\partial \phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)}{\partial (\Lambda^{-1}x)^{\nu}}##, all of ##\partial_{\nu} \phi## is a function of ##(\Lambda^{-1}x)##.

Am I correct?
 
Was your computation from the passive point of view?
 
I use x- primes for your Lamda-x. And yes, my approach is usually called the passive one.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top