Question about d'Alembert operator

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the d'Alembert operator and the behavior of the expression ∂μ∂νφ when μ and ν are not equal. It is clarified that this operator is not identically zero, as it represents a second rank tensor that can yield non-zero results depending on the metric used. The Minkowski metric simplifies calculations, particularly in 1+1 dimensions, while the Hessian matrix is suggested as an alternative approach for understanding the derivatives. The participants also confirm that ∂μ∂νφ equals ∂ν∂μφ, indicating the symmetry of the operator. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the mathematical properties and implications of the operator in various dimensions.
Dixanadu
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Hey guys,

The expression \partial_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\phi is equal to \Box \phi when \mu = \nu. However when they are not equal, is this operator 0?

I'm just curious cos this sort of thing has turned up in a calculation of mine...if its 0 I'd be a very happy boy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That thing is in fact a second rank tensor which in 1+1 dimensions becomes:

<br /> \partial_\mu \partial^\nu \phi=\eta^{\nu \lambda}\partial_\mu\partial_\lambda \phi=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \eta^{00}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^0 \partial x^0}+\eta^{01}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^0 \partial x^1} \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta^{00}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^1 \partial x^0}+\eta^{01}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^1 \partial x^1} \\ \\ \eta^{10}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^0 \partial x^0}+\eta^{11}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^0 \partial x^1} \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta^{10}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^1 \partial x^0}+\eta^{11}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^1 \partial x^1} \end{array} \right)<br />

I think its obvious that there is no reason for it to be identically zero.
 
Usually ##\eta## is used for the Minkowski metric in Cartesian coordinates. Shyan wrote you a general expression for a general metric, in 2 dimensions. Usually we work in 4-dimensions, but by using the Minkowski metric, the expression is much simpler.

It is perhaps easier to deal with ##\partial_\mu\partial_\nu\phi## in which case, this is just the Hessian matrix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_matrix (replace f with ##\phi##)
 
Okay thank you. so would you say that \partial_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\phi=\partial^{\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi?
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top