On differentiation and indices in field theory

Nauj Onerom
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm self-studying field theory and trying to solidify my understanding of index manipulations. So I've been told that there is a general rule: " If the index is lowered on the 'denominator' then it's a raised index". My question is whether this is just a rule or something that can make sense mathematically. For example (taken from ch. 2 of P&S Intro to QFT), for a transformation $$\phi\rightarrow\phi + \alpha,$$ of the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2 ,$$ we get a conserved current

$$ j^{\mu} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu \phi)}.$$

If we differentiate normally we get $$\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu\phi)} = \partial_\mu\phi,$$ but this has a lowered index. How do I see that this is supposed to be raised? ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is meant by ##(\partial_\mu \phi)^2## is typically ##(\partial_\mu\phi)(\partial^\mu\phi)##. Otherwise the term would not be Lorentz invariant.
 
  • Like
Likes Nauj Onerom
Orodruin said:
What is meant by ##(\partial_\mu \phi)^2## is typically ##(\partial_\mu\phi)(\partial^\mu\phi)##. Otherwise the term would not be Lorentz invariant.
Very clear now, thanks !
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top