Stress Tensor in Classical Field Theory

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the stress tensor in classical field theory, specifically for a scalar field described by a given Lagrangian density. The original poster presents an equation of motion derived from the Euler-Lagrange equation and seeks to compute the stress tensor and its divergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the stress tensor from the Lagrangian density and questions the correctness of their expression for the stress tensor. They express uncertainty regarding the conservation of its divergence.
  • Some participants point out potential errors in the original poster's formulation and suggest corrections to the stress tensor expression.
  • Questions arise about specific steps in the derivation of the divergence of the stress tensor and the manipulation of indices.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's calculations and suggesting corrections. There is a focus on clarifying the formulation of the stress tensor and the conditions for its divergence to be zero. Multiple interpretations of the steps involved are being explored, and guidance is being offered without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

The original poster indicates a lack of experience with tensors and indices, which may be influencing their understanding of the problem. There is also mention of a potential sign error and concerns about the manipulation of the metric tensor.

Max Renn
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a problem in classical field theory.

I have a Lagrangian density \mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\lambda \phi \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{3}\sigma\phi^3. Upon solving the Euler-Lagrange equation for this density, I get an equation of motion for my scalar field \phi (x), where x = x^\mu is a space-time coordinate. I figured this is \Box \phi - \sigma \phi^2 = 0. Now, the problem begins.

I have to calculate the following stress tensor:

T^{\mu \nu} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)}\partial^\nu \phi - g^{\mu \nu}\mathcal{L}.

The metric tensor g^{\mu \nu} is the "energy-momentum" type, \mathrm{diag}(1, -1, -1, -1). Then I have to find its 4-divergence \partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} and show that it's conserved when \phi(x) obeys its equation of motion, i.e. that \partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = 0.

Now, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that

T^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu \phi \partial^\nu \phi + \frac{1}{3} g^{\mu \nu} \sigma \phi^3.

I have some serious doubts, however. If this is correct, I have another problem in that I can't seem to find a zero 4-divergence.

I'm quite new to this sort of thing and I have a feeling it's just a lack of practice with tensors and indices.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have a sign wrong and you didn't quite use that formula correctly: <br /> T^{\mu \nu} =\partial^\mu \phi \partial^\nu \phi - g^{\mu \nu}\left( \frac{1}{2}\partial^\lambda \phi \partial_\lambda \phi +\frac{1}{3} \sigma \phi^3\right)<br />
 
Oh! Is that the final form of the stress tensor? I wanted to clear up some things with the metric tensor, using some dubious manipulation of indices. That's ok (although the sign mistake is embarrassing). Thank you. This is my solution:

\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu ( \partial^\mu \phi \partial^\nu \phi ) - \partial_\mu g^{\mu \nu}\left( \frac{1}{2}\partial_\lambda \phi \partial^\lambda \phi +\frac{1}{3} \sigma \phi^3\right)

= (\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi) \partial^\nu \phi + (\partial_\mu \partial^\nu \phi) \partial^\mu \phi - g^{\mu \nu} \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi) \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\lambda \phi (\partial_\mu \partial^\lambda \phi) + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial_\mu (\phi^3) \right].

Since \Box \phi - \sigma \phi^2 = 0,

\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi - g^{\mu \nu} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \sigma \phi^2 \delta_{\mu \lambda} \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{2} \sigma \phi^2 \delta^\lambda_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial_\mu (\phi^3) \right]

= 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi - g^{\mu \nu} \left[ \sigma \phi^2 \partial_\mu \phi + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial_\mu (\phi^3) \right]

= 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi - \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\nu \phi - \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial^\nu (\phi^3)

= 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi - 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\nu \phi

=0

I have a couple of questions, though. Specifically, I'm uneasy about the step where I say \sigma \phi^2 (\partial^\mu \phi + \partial^\nu \phi) = 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi, where \partial^\nu (\phi (x^\mu)^3 = 3 \partial^\nu \phi and, on the last line, where \nu goes to \mu or vice versa to give zero.
 
Last edited:
Max Renn said:
Oh! Is that the final form of the stress tensor? I wanted to clear up some things with the metric tensor, using some dubious manipulation of indices. That's ok (although the sign mistake is embarrassing). Thank you. This is my solution:

\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu ( \partial^\mu \phi \partial^\nu \phi ) - \partial_\mu g^{\mu \nu}\left( \frac{1}{2}\partial_\lambda \phi \partial^\lambda \phi +\frac{1}{3} \sigma \phi^3\right)

= (\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi) \partial^\nu \phi + (\partial_\mu \partial^\nu \phi) \partial^\mu \phi - g^{\mu \nu} \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi) \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\lambda \phi (\partial_\mu \partial^\lambda \phi) + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial_\mu (\phi^3) \right]. ~~(*)

Since \Box \phi - \sigma \phi^2 = 0,

\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = 2 \sigma \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi - g^{\mu \nu} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \sigma \phi^2 \delta_{\mu \lambda} \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{2} \sigma \phi^2 \delta^\lambda_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial_\mu (\phi^3) \right]

You've got several mistakes here. The free index is \nu, so you should use the metric to raise the index in the second part of (*):

(\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi) \partial^\nu \phi + (\partial_\mu \partial^\nu \phi) \partial^\mu \phi - \left[ \frac{1}{2} (\partial^\nu \partial_\lambda \phi) \partial^\lambda \phi + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\lambda \phi (\partial^\nu \partial^\lambda \phi) + \frac{1}{3} \sigma \partial^\nu (\phi^3) \right]. ~~(**)

You also seemed to try to claim that \partial_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi=\delta_{\mu\lambda} \phi, which is completely unjustified.

Instead, you should note that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th terms of (**) are all of the same type, and adding up their coefficients gives zero. Then you want to show that the sum of the 1st and 5th terms is proportional to the equation of motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K