Lorentz transformation of a scalar field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Lorentz transformation of a scalar field, specifically focusing on the transformation law for the derivative of a scalar field under active transformations. Participants are exploring the intermediate steps involved in the transformation process as presented in a textbook reference.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the transformation law for a scalar field and seeks to verify their understanding of the intermediate steps involved in the transformation.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial computation but expresses confusion regarding the convention of active versus passive transformations, suggesting that the transformation of the scalar field should be viewed from a different perspective.
  • A later reply clarifies that the computation is based on the active viewpoint, while another participant indicates their preference for the passive approach, using different notation for the transformed coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conventions of active versus passive transformations, indicating that there is no consensus on which approach is preferable. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these conventions on the transformation process.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the implications of using active versus passive transformations, and there may be additional assumptions or definitions that are not explicitly stated in the discussion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K