On differentiation and indices in field theory

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding index manipulations in field theory, particularly the relationship between raised and lowered indices. A key point is the rule that if an index is lowered in the denominator, it corresponds to a raised index elsewhere. The example provided illustrates how differentiating the Lagrangian leads to a conserved current, revealing the necessity of raising the index for Lorentz invariance. The term (∂μφ)² is clarified as (∂μφ)(∂μφ), emphasizing the importance of proper index notation. Overall, the conversation enhances comprehension of index conventions in the context of quantum 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 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top