Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Lorentz transforming differential operators on scalar fields
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Theage, post: 4981143, member: 535333"] [h2]Homework Statement [/h2] I'm reading Peskin and Schroeder to the best of my ability. Other than a few integration tricks that escaped me I made it through chapter 2 with no trouble, but the beginning of chapter three, "Lorentz Invariance in Wave Equations", has me stumped. They are going through a proof that the Klein-Gordon equation [itex](\partial_\mu\partial^\mu+m^2)\phi=0[/itex] is Lorentz invariant, and I can't understand for the life of me how they came up with the transformations of differential operators. [h2]Homework Equations[/h2] [tex]\partial_\mu\phi(x)\to\partial_\mu(\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x))=(\Lambda^{-1})^\nu_{\,\,\mu}(\partial_\nu\phi)(\Lambda^{-1}x)[/tex] [h2]The Attempt at a Solution[/h2] I understand (at least intuitively) how a scalar field should transform on its own, which makes it easy to transform the mass term in the KG Lagrangian (we're working with no potential or interaction terms) which is proportional to the square of the field. The second equality in the equation above is the problem. At first I thought it had something to do with conjugation by the inverse of the transformation in question, but this doesn't seem right. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Lorentz transforming differential operators on scalar fields
Back
Top