Partial derivative with respect to metric tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the partial derivative of a Lagrangian density with respect to the metric tensor in the context of field theory. Participants explore the application of differentiation rules, particularly the product rule, and the implications of the symmetry of the metric tensor on the results. The conversation includes mathematical reasoning and attempts to clarify the steps involved in deriving expressions related to the metric tensor and the field strength tensor.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a Lagrangian density and seeks clarification on the differentiation of a product involving the metric tensor.
  • Another participant suggests using the product rule of differentiation and mentions the potential for clever renaming of summation indices.
  • A participant provides a detailed calculation of the derivative, incorporating the symmetry of the metric tensor and leading to a complex expression involving the field strength tensor.
  • Subsequent replies discuss the equivalence of certain terms and the importance of tracking indices in anti-symmetric tensors.
  • Participants engage in correcting and refining each other's expressions, emphasizing the need for careful handling of indices and the implications of symmetry in the calculations.
  • There is a suggestion to simplify expressions by using the symmetry of the metric tensor to combine terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the handling of indices and the correctness of certain steps in the derivation. While some participants agree on the use of symmetry and product rules, others challenge specific interpretations and calculations, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings regarding the application of the product rule, the treatment of indices in anti-symmetric tensors, and the assumptions made about the symmetry of the metric tensor. Some mathematical steps remain unresolved or are subject to differing interpretations.

Nazaf
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
[itex]\mathcal{L}_M(g_{kn}) = -\frac{1}{4\mu{0}}g_{kj} g_{nl} F^{kn} F^{jl} \\<br /> <br /> \frac{\partial{\mathcal{L}_M}}{\partial{g_{kn}}}=-\frac{1}{4\mu_0}F^{pq}F^{jl} \frac{\partial}{\partial{g_{kn}}}(g_{pj}g_{ql})=+\frac{1}{4\mu_0} F^{pq} F^{lj} 2 \delta^k_p \delta^n_j g_{ql}[/itex]

I need to know how [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial{g_{kn}}}(g_{pj}g_{ql}) = <br /> 2\delta^k_p \delta^n_j g_{ql}[/itex]. Can you explain how the final result on the right side was obtained?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would suggest that you use the product rule of differentiation. You should be getting two terms and they can be written the same way by clever use of renaming summation indices and the symmetries of the problem.
 
Orodruin said:
I would suggest that you use the product rule of differentiation. You should be getting two terms and they can be written the same way by clever use of renaming summation indices and the symmetries of the problem.
I already tried. Here is what I got:

[itex] \frac{\partial}{\partial g_{kn}} (g_{pj}g_{ql}) = \frac{\partial g_{pj}}{ \partial g_{kn}} g_{ql} + g_{pj} \frac{\partial g_{ql}}{\partial g_{kn}}[/itex]
Because the metric tensor is symmetric:

[itex] g_{pj} = \frac{1}{2} (a_{pj} + a_{jp})[/itex]

[itex] \frac{\partial}{\partial g_{kn}} (g_{pj}g_{ql}) = \frac{1}{2} (\delta_{p}^{k} \delta_{j}^{n} + \delta_{j}^{k} \delta_{p}^{n}) g_{ql} + \frac{1}{2} (\delta_{q}^{k} \delta_{l}^{n} + \delta_{l}^{k} \delta_{q}^{n}) g_{pj}[/itex]

Now trying to contract the above expression with [itex] F^{pq} F^{jl}[/itex]

[itex] \begin{align} -\frac{1}{4\mu_0}F^{pq} F^{jl} \frac{\partial}{\partial{g_{kn}}}(g_{pj} g_{ql}) & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \frac{1}{2} \left( F^{pq} F^{jl} \delta^k_p \delta^n_jg_{ql} + F^{pq} F^{jl} \delta^k_j \delta^n_p g_{ql} + F^{pq} F^{jl}\delta^k_q \delta^n_l g_{pj} + F^{pq} F^{jl} \delta^k_l\delta^n_q g_{pj} \right) \\ & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \frac{1}{2} \left( F^{kq} F^{nl}g_{ql} + F^{nq} F^{kl}g_{ql} + F^{pk} F^{jn}g_{pj} + F^{pn} F^{jk}g_{pj} \right) \\ \end{align}[/itex]

Interchanging the dummy indexes in the 3rd and 4th terms
[itex]p\Longleftrightarrow q[/itex] and [itex]j\Longleftrightarrow l[/itex]

[itex] = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \frac{1}{2} \left( F^{kq} F^{nl}g_{ql} + F^{nq} F^{kl}g_{ql} + F^{qk} F^{ln}g_{ql} + F^{qn} F^{lk}g_{ql} \right)[/itex]

and because [itex]F^{ab}[/itex] is an anti-symmetric tensor (i.e. [itex]F^{ab} = -F^{ba}[/itex]):

[itex] \begin{align} & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \frac{1}{2} \left( 2 F^{kq} F^{nl}g_{ql} + 2 F^{nq} F^{kl}g_{ql} \right) \\ & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \left( F^{kq} F^{nl}g_{ql} + F^{nq} F^{kl}g_{ql} \right) \\ & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \left( F^{kq} F^{n}_q + F^{nq} F^{k}_q \right) \\ \end{align}[/itex]

I don't see how this matches the origianl expression in my post.
 
Well, to start with, both of your terms are the same (use ##A_\mu B^\mu = A^\mu B_\mu## ... and keep track of which order your indices of F are in, it is anti-symmetric so it makes a lot of difference). Then use the ##\delta##s and the metric from your original expression to rewrite it.
 
Which terms are the same?
Can you explain more?
 
##F^{kq} F^{n}{}_q + F^{nq} F^{k}{}_q = 2 F^{kq} F^{n}{}_q ##

This relation should be fairly straight-forward. Then use your ##\delta##s in the first expression.
 
Orodruin said:
##F^{kq} F^{n}{}_q + F^{nq} F^{k}{}_q = 2 F^{kq} F^{n}{}_q ##

This relation should be fairly straight-forward. Then use your ##\delta##s in the first expression.

I see. Is the following correct?

[itex] F^{kq} F^{n}_q + F^{nq} F^{k}_q = F^{kq} F^{n}_q + \delta^k_n \delta^n_k F^{nq} F^{k}_q \\<br /> = F^{kq} F^{n}_q + F^{nq} F^{n}_q [/itex]
 
Last edited:
No, you have three of the same index in the second term in the second step. I suggest that you instead start from your second to last expression, perform the sum over ##\ell## in one of the terms and over ##q## in the other, then you rename the summation index in one of the terms to the same name as the summation index in the other. And again: Be careful with the positions of the indices in ##F## when they are up and down.
 
I understand. How about the following?
[itex] \begin{align} & -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \left( F^{kq} F^{nl}g_{ql} + F^{nq} F^{kl}g_{ql} \right) \\ & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \left( F^{kq} F^{ns}g_{qs} + F^{ns} F^{kl}g_{sl} \right) \\ & = -\frac{1}{4\mu_0} \left( F^{kl} F^{ns}g_{ls} + F^{ns} F^{kl}g_{sl} \right) \\ \end{align}[/itex]
 
  • #10
That looks fine. You can now use the symmetry of the metric to write both as one term.
 
  • #11
So it was just a matter of exchanging the indices q and l in either one of terms, right?
 
  • #12
Basically, or if you will, just changing which of the qs were up and down in the expression where you had used the metric to change indices.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K