Towards formulating an invariant Lagrangian

Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
Assuming a Lagrangian proportional to the following terms:

##L \sim ( \partial_\mu \sigma) (\partial^\mu \sigma) - g^{m\bar{n}} g^{r\bar{p}} (\partial_\mu g_{mr} ) ( \partial^\mu g_{\bar{n}\bar{p}} ) ~~~~~ \to (1) ##

Where ##\mu =0,1,2,3,4## and m, n,r, p and ##\bar{n}, \bar{p}, \bar{m}## and ##\bar{r}## = 1,2,3 ( complex coordinates )

Now if I have a complex matrix

##G_{a \bar{b}} \sim g^{m\bar{n}} g^{r\bar{p}} (\partial_a g_{mr} ) ( \partial_{\bar{b}} g_{\bar{n}\bar{p}} ) ~~~~~~~~ \to (2) ##

where ##a, \bar{b}= 1, ..., h_{2,1}##and ##h_{2,1}## is an arbitrary large number.

The question now, can I sub. by ##G_{a \bar{b}}##from equ. (2) into equ. ( 1) ? with the summation on the derivatives has different degrees of freedom? Literally, can I write the Lagrangian as:

##L \sim ( \partial_\mu \sigma) (\partial^\mu \sigma) - G_{a \bar{b}} G^{a \bar{b}} ##?

Any help appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe I am misunderstanding your notation, but just ##G_{a\bar{b}}G^{a\bar{b}}## written out is not the term you are replacing in the lagrangian (even ignoring the different number of terms that would be summed), so how are you supposing this should work?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K