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
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
431
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
700
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
472
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K