Understanding the Math Behind Homework Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysicsGente
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homework
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Hamiltonian density \(\mathscr{H}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi^{2} + \vec{\nabla}\phi \cdot \vec{\nabla}\phi + m^{2}\phi^{2}\right)\) and its derivative \(\frac{\partial\mathscr{H}}{\partial\phi} = -\nabla^{2}\phi + m^{2}\phi\). Participants clarify the origin of the negative sign in the derivative and confirm that the \(\pi^2\) term vanishes when taking the \(\phi\) derivative, as it does not contain \(\phi\). The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding vector identities and the behavior of terms at infinity when analyzing Hamiltonian densities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Familiarity with vector calculus identities
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives in the context of field theory
  • Concept of Schwartz space in functional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Hamiltonian mechanics in depth
  • Learn about vector calculus identities and their applications
  • Explore the concept of Schwartz space and its relevance in physics
  • Investigate boundary conditions in field theory
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on field theory and Hamiltonian mechanics, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of mathematical physics concepts.

PhysicsGente
Messages
87
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



This is not really a problem but I was going over my lecture notes and I see \mathscr{H}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi^{2} + \vec{\nabla}\phi \cdot \vec{\nabla}\phi + m^{2}\phi^{2}\right) and \frac{\partial\mathscr{H}}{\partial\phi} = -\nabla^{2}\phi + m^{2}\phi

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I would think that \frac{\partial\mathscr{H}}{\partial\phi} = \nabla^{2}\phi + m^{2}\phi. But I don't know where the minus sign is coming from.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I just found a vector identity \vec{\nabla}\phi\cdot\vec{\nabla}\phi = \vec{\nabla}\cdot\left(\phi\vec{\nabla}\phi\right) - \phi\vec{\nabla}^{2}\phi. I now see how the result follow.

EDIT: I'm confused again. will the phi derivative of the first term vanish?
 
If by "the first term" you mean the \pi^2 term, then yes, the \phi derivative will kill that term; reason being \phi doesn't appear in that term, only its time derivative.

Edit: Sorry, I understand what you meant by "first term" now. The first term vanishes at infinity so you can ignore it.
 
Last edited:
The 3-divergence in the Hamiltonian density (i.e. the first term in the RHS of the equality in post #2) can be discarded, since by integration of full space gives 0, because scalar fields are normally taken from the Schwartz space of test functions.
 
dextercioby said:
The 3-divergence in the Hamiltonian density (i.e. the first term in the RHS of the equality in post #2) can be discarded, since by integration of full space gives 0, because scalar fields are normally taken from the Schwartz space of test functions.

Sonny Liston said:
If by "the first term" you mean the \pi^2 term, then yes, the \phi derivative will kill that term; reason being \phi doesn't appear in that term, only its time derivative.

Edit: Sorry, I understand what you meant by "first term" now. The first term vanishes at infinity so you can ignore it.
That makes sense. I also realized that it can be integrated by parts using the same reasoning of vanishing at the boundaries. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K