1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quick question: 4 gradient

  1. Sep 20, 2008 #1
    ok, quick and dirty and stupid question about calculation rules with 4 gradients:

    consider the Klein Gordon Lagrangian [tex]L_{KG} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_{\mu}\Phi\partial^{\mu} \Phi - \frac{1}{2} m^2 \Phi^2 [/tex].

    Why is

    [tex] \partial_{\mu} \left( \frac{\partial L_{KG} }{\partial(\partial_{\mu} \Phi)} \right) = \partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu} \Phi[/tex]

    Where does the factor 2 come from that cancels out the 1/2 ?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 20, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    have you taken the lagrangian and 4gradient from same source?

    I have always written KG lagrangian (density) as: [tex]L_{KG} = (\partial_{\mu}\Phi) ^{\dagger}\partial^{\mu} \Phi - m^2 |\Phi |^2 [/tex]

    Then the 4gradient is the one you have written.
  4. Sep 20, 2008 #3
    same source.

    the factors 1/2 are there throughout, and it certainly makes sense for the mass term where a factor 2 comes from differentiating.

    But where does the factor 2 come from when differentiating by [tex] \partial_{\mu} \Phi[/tex] ?? Probably I miss out a very simple thing...
  5. Sep 20, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I can't see where it comes from either, but then I often miss basic things.

    Is there some reason you feel the 2 should be there?
  6. Sep 20, 2008 #5
    well yes, since applying the Euler Lagrange equation on the KG Lagrangian should produce the KG equation:

    EL: [tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Phi} - \partial_{\mu} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_{\mu} \Phi} \right) = 0 [/tex]

    KG equation: [tex] (\square + m^2) \Phi(x, t) = 0 [/tex]
  7. Sep 20, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Maybe I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see the factor 2 comes from the product rule. It gives you 2 delta functions.
  8. Sep 20, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Ok, I see. Well, as I said above, I always miss obvious things: note that [itex]\partial^{\mu}\varphi[/itex] and [itex]\partial_{\mu}\varphi[/itex] are not independent, thus your derivative will include two terms. We can rewrite the Lagrangian as [tex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\varphi\partial_{\nu}\varphi-\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi^2[/tex]. Differentiating wrt [itex]\partial_{\mu}\varphi[/itex] then yields [tex]\frac{1}{2}\left[\partial_{\nu}\varphi g^{\mu\nu}+\delta_{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\varphi g^{\mu\nu}\left]=\frac{1}{2}\left[2\partial^{\mu}\varphi\left][/tex], which yields the result.

    Does that make sense?

    Edit: Looks like I was beaten to it!
  9. Sep 21, 2008 #8
    Thank you so much!

    I never really liked the covariant picture, although it looks very elegant. It always leads to me missing out basic things.
    I really have to dig into it now...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Quick question: 4 gradient
  1. A quick question (Replies: 7)