Understanding the Math Behind Homework Equations

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the mathematical expressions related to the Hamiltonian density in field theory, specifically focusing on the terms involving derivatives of a scalar field, φ, and their implications in the context of variational calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the derivation of the Hamiltonian density and question the presence of a negative sign in the derivative expression. They discuss vector identities and the implications of terms vanishing under certain conditions, such as at infinity.

Discussion Status

There is an active exploration of the mathematical relationships and identities involved. Some participants have provided insights into the treatment of terms in the Hamiltonian density, while others are clarifying their understanding of which terms can be disregarded based on their properties.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the properties of scalar fields and their behavior at infinity, as well as the context of Schwartz space in relation to test functions.

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
4K
  • · 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
4K