I Using 4-derivative

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the mathematical properties of the derivative operator ##\partial^\mu## and its application to the coordinate ##x_\nu##. The user derives that applying ##\partial^\mu## to ##x_\nu## results in ##\partial^\mu x_\nu = \delta_\nu^\mu##, indicating that the operation yields the identity matrix. There is a mention of the relationship between the metric tensor ##\eta## and the derivatives, with the user expressing their understanding through matrix representation. A comment suggests that while the derivations are correct, both ##\partial^\mu## and ##x_\mu## are considered less natural than their counterparts ##\partial_\mu## and ##x^\mu##. The discussion concludes with a preference for explicitly writing out the metric for clarity.
deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
Hi! I am trying to understand the object ##\partial^\mu##, and wanted to check if the result I am getting below is true.

The definition of ##\partial_\mu## is:

$$\partial_\mu = ( \frac \partial {\partial x^0} , \frac \partial {\partial x^1}, \frac \partial {\partial x^2},\frac \partial {\partial x^3})$$

We define ##\partial^\mu## as:

$$\partial^\mu = \eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu = (\frac \partial {\partial x^0} , -\frac\partial {\partial x^1} , -\frac \partial {\partial x^2}, -\frac \partial {\partial x^3})$$

In this case, if we were to apply ##\partial^\mu## to ##x_\nu##, we would get:

$$\partial^\mu x_\nu = (\eta^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho)x_\nu=\eta^{\mu\rho} \partial_\rho (\eta_{\nu\sigma} x^\sigma)$$

Since ##\eta##'s are just number, I rearrange the equation to be:

$$=\eta^{\mu\rho} \eta_{\nu\sigma} \partial_\rho x^\sigma$$

Here, my knowledge of indices and contraction ends and I try to think of the objects like matrices, in which case I write:

$$= \begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^0} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^0} \\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^1} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^1}\\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^2} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^2} \\ \frac {\partial x^0}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^1}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^2}{\partial x^3} & \frac {\partial x^3}{\partial x^3}\end{bmatrix} $$

Here, one can observe the last matrix reduces to the identity matrix, and the multiplication of two ##\eta##'s also reduces to the identity matrix, thus I get:

$$=\mathbb I$$

Are these steps correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems OK.
\partial^\mu x_\nu = \delta_\nu^\mu
 
It looks ok. I would only comment that both ##\partial^\mu## and ##x_\mu## are somewhat artificial objects compared to the more natural ##\partial_\mu## and ##x^\mu##.

I much prefer actually writing out the metric.
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8, deuteron and dextercioby
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...