Tensor indices (proving Lorentz covariance)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating the Lorentz covariance of the Proca field's Euler-Lagrange equation. The user initially struggles with a transformation involving the field and its derivatives, specifically needing to show that a certain expression simplifies correctly under Lorentz transformations. After some confusion regarding the treatment of derivatives and the coordinate frames, the user realizes the mistake was in approaching the problem as if it were related to the Lagrangian density rather than the field itself. Ultimately, the issue is resolved, confirming the importance of consistent frame usage in tensor equations. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in proving Lorentz covariance in field theory.
VintageGuy
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
So, I need to show Lorentz covariance of a Proca field E-L equation, conceptually I have no problems with this, I just have to make one final step that I cannot really justify.

Homework Equations



"Proca" (quotation marks because of the minus next to the mass part, I saw on the internet there is also the plus convention) field is defined as:
{\cal L}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}m^2V_{\mu}V^{\mu}
where V_{\mu} is the massive field, and F_{\mu\nu} the appropriate analogy to the EM field tensor. This leads to E-L:
\partial^{\mu}F_{\mu\nu}-m^2V_{\nu}=0

The Attempt at a Solution



So when I transform the equation according to: V^{\mu}(x) \rightarrow V'^{\mu}(x')=\Lambda^{\mu}_{\,\, \nu}V^{\nu}(x), everything turns out okay but this one part that looks like: -\partial^{\mu}\Lambda_{\nu}^{\,\, \alpha}\partial_{\alpha}V_{\mu}(x), and fr the proof to be over I need it to look like:

-\partial^{\mu}\Lambda_{\nu}^{\,\, \alpha}\partial_{\alpha}V_{\mu}(x)=-\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\nu}V'_{\mu}(x')

and I can't seem to wrap my head around it, there must me something I'm not seeing...

EDIT: initialy I transformed the derivatives as well, these are derivatives of the field over the "old" coordinates (x not x')
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VintageGuy said:
EDIT: initialy I transformed the derivatives as well, these are derivatives of the field over the "old" coordinates (x not x')
You should keep doing that. Otherwise your equations are expressed in some weird combination of frames.
 
  • Like
Likes VintageGuy
Orodruin said:
You should keep doing that. Otherwise your equations are expressed in some weird combination of frames.

I just figured it out, for some reason I was approaching the equation as though it was the Lagrangian density... Thanks, solved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K