Quantum Theory: derive EoM of action for a 'general' potential

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the equations of motion (EoM) for a field variable ##\phi## and its complex conjugate ##\phi^*## within the context of quantum theory and action principles. The problem involves working with a potential ##V(\phi, \phi^*)## and applying the Euler-Lagrange equations to obtain the EoM.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the EoM using the Euler-Lagrange equations but expresses uncertainty about handling the potential term ##V(\phi \phi^*)##. Participants question the necessity of knowing the specific form of the potential to proceed further.
  • Some participants suggest alternative approaches to differentiate the potential and explore the implications of the functional expansion in the context of the action.
  • There is discussion on the implications of the transformation of the field variable and its effect on the conserved current, leading to questions about the equality of partial derivatives of the potential.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations and approaches to the problem. Some guidance has been provided regarding the need for a specific form of the potential to advance the derivation, while others are examining the implications of functional expansions and transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that without a specific potential, such as ##\lambda \phi^4##, it is challenging to derive explicit results. There is also a recognition of the complexity introduced by treating the potential as a function of two variables, which complicates the Taylor expansion process.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Action attached:

everybodywantsapieceoftheaction.png


To find the EoM of ##\phi ## / ##\phi^* ##

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Without deriving from first principles, using E-L equations I have:

## \partial_{u}\frac{\partial L}{\partial_u \phi} - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \phi} =0 ## to get the EoM for ## \phi * ##

So I get:

## -\partial_u \partial^u \phi* +m^2\phi*+ \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi*} =0 ## (1)

MY QUESTION

Deriving this from first principles I am unsure how to work with the ## V(\phi \phi*) ## term to get the ##\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi*}## in the EoM .

I.e deriving EoM via ##S'=S+\delta S+O(\delta^2 S)## via plugging in ##\phi \to \phi + \delta \phi ##
I get ## V(\phi \phi*) \to V(\phi^*\delta \phi + \phi \delta \phi^* ) ##

Now to get the EoM I want to factor out ##\delta \phi ## and ##\delta \phi^* ## from ##V(\phi*\delta \phi + \phi \delta \phi^* ) ## to get the EoM for ##\phi*## and ##\phi## respectively, arguing that the integrand multiplying the (e.g) ##\delta \phi ## must vanish since ##\delta \phi ## is arbitrary.

So using the equation (1) above, i.e. sort of cheating and not from first principles I suspect I should be able to show that,

## V(\phi*\delta \phi + \phi \delta \phi* ) = V(\phi*\delta \phi)+V(\phi \delta \phi* )= \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi*}\delta\phi + \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi}\delta\phi* ##

I am unsure how to show this explicitly. my thoughts are perhaps integration by parts, but i',m confused with this working with the implicit expression of ##V##

Any help greatly appreciated. thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to be given a V(phi) to be able to go further. Often V(phi) = lambda phi^4 is chosen. Your approach is correct, but you need more information to get an explicit answer.
 
Why would you not just be able to do \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi} = V'(\phi^* \phi) \phi^*? Also, shouldn't it be V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* + \phi^* \delta \phi + \delta \phi \delta \phi^*)-V(\phi \phi^*) =V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* + \phi^* \delta \phi + \delta \phi \delta \phi^*)-V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* )+ V(\phi \phi^*+\phi \delta \phi^*)-V(\phi \phi^*)?
 
All you write is correct, but I don't see how much farther you can go without knowing the exact form of the potential.
 
Dazed&Confused said:
Why would you not just be able to do \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi} = V'(\phi^* \phi) \phi^*? Also, shouldn't it be V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* + \phi^* \delta \phi + \delta \phi \delta \phi^*)-V(\phi \phi^*) =V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* + \phi^* \delta \phi + \delta \phi \delta \phi^*)-V( \phi \phi^* + \phi \delta \phi^* )+ V(\phi \phi^*+\phi \delta \phi^*)-V(\phi \phi^*)?

ahhh I see, yeh it should.
and what is the purpose of including the two middle terms in the last equality?
 
binbagsss said:
ahhh I see, yeh it should.
and what is the purpose of including the two middle terms in the last equality?

This is the beginning of writing it out as two derivatives, the physicist's way. Simply divide and multiply each by \delta \phi and \delta \phi^* respectively and take the infinitesimal limit.
 
Dazed&Confused said:
This is the beginning of writing it out as two derivatives, the physicist's way. Simply divide and multiply each by \delta \phi and \delta \phi^* respectively and take the infinitesimal limit.
I'm stuck:

##\frac{V(\phi(\phi*+\delta\phi*)}{\delta \phi} \delta \phi - \frac{V(\phi(\phi*+\delta\phi*)}{\delta \phi*} \delta \phi* ##
Looking at the limit definition of a derivative I don't see how I get derivatives.

so I need to expand out the potential.
 
Dazed&Confused said:
Why would you not just be able to do \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi} = V'(\phi^* \phi) \phi^*?
sorry what is this, what does the ' denote? is this derivative wrt ##\phi*##?
 
Last edited:
In order to derive EoM from first principle I need functional expansion right?
Is this given by:

##S[\phi+\delta \phi ] = S[\phi] + \frac{\partial S[\phi]}{\partial \phi} \delta{\phi} ## to the desired order.

But where I've computed ##\delta S ## explicitly, where this i given by the prefactor of ##\delta{\phi}## above, except for ##V[\phi,\phi*]##
So similarly I have
##V[\phi,\phi*]=V[\phi,\phi*]+\frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi} \delta\phi + \frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi*} \delta\phi * [2] ##

------------------

I have just seen from the previous question that the Lagrangian given, under the transformation ##\phi \to \phi e^{i\epsilon} ## gives the same conserved current as it does without the potential. And in this case I know that ##\delta\phi=-\delta\phi* ## to ##O(\epsilon)=O(\delta)## (it's also obvious from ##V(\phi \phi*) ## without the expansion and keeping in exponential form where they cancel)..

Therefore looking at [2] I see that it must be that ##\frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi} \delta\phi + \frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi*} \delta\phi *=0##

##=-\frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi} \delta\phi* + \frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi*} \delta\phi *##

so it must be that ##\frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi}=\frac{\partial V[\phi,\phi*]}{\partial \phi*} ##

Is this true because rather than ##V[\phi,\phi*] ## we have ##V[\phi \phi*] ##
But then I should have a 1 variable taylor expansion rather than 2 variable as I treated it to get [2]?
How would I expand out something like ##V[\phi\phi* + \delta\phi* \phi + \delta \phi \phi*] ## treating ##\phi\phi*## as a single variable?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K