Variation of Lagrangian under Lorentz transformations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving how the Lagrangian varies under an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation. The transformation leads to the expression for the variation of the Lagrangian, which is stated as δL = -∂μ(ωμνxνL). Participants are trying to simplify their calculations and determine if certain terms can be eliminated, particularly focusing on the application of the Euler-Lagrange equations. There is a point of contention regarding the treatment of derivatives and whether they can be considered scalars in this context. The conversation highlights the complexities of field transformations and the nuances in deriving the correct variation of the Lagrangian.
jinawee
Messages
26
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Prove that under an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation: x^\mu \to x^\mu+\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu so: \phi\to\phi-\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu\partial_\mu\phi the Lagrangian varies as:

\delta \mathcal{L}=-\partial_\mu(\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu \mathcal{L})



The Attempt at a Solution



The new Lagrangian will be:

<br /> \mathcal{L}(\phi-\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu\partial_\mu\phi,\partial_\sigma(\phi-\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu\partial_\mu\phi))

The variation is:

<br /> \delta\mathcal{L}=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi}\delta\phi+\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\sigma\phi)}\partial_\sigma \delta \phi=-\omega^\mu_\nu \left[x^\nu\partial_\mu \phi \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi}+\partial_\sigma(x^\nu\partial_\mu\phi)\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\sigma\phi)}\right]


If the last term in the sum vanished somehow, I would arrive to the solution, but I can't see how it is zero. Or have I made a mistake before?

I think I've done some progress:

-\omega^\mu_\nu \left[\partial_\sigma(x^\nu\partial_\mu\phi)\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\sigma\phi)}\right]=-\omega^\mu_\nu \left[ \partial_\mu\phi\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial (\partial_\nu\phi)}+x^\nu \partial_\mu\phi\mathcal{L}\right]=

Could I use Euler-Lagrange equations to make this zero?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems to me that there is a simple answer: what kind of field is the lagrangian density? How do these fields transform? And then with a property of ##\omega## it seems ok.

In your calculations I think there is something wrong with ##\partial_{\sigma}##: it's not a scalar.
 
Could you develop

\delta \mathcal{L}=-\partial_\mu(\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu \mathcal{L})
 
I'm going to bed...

$$ \partial_{\sigma}\phi \to \partial_{\sigma}\phi-\omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu\partial_\mu\partial_\sigma\phi+\omega^\mu_\sigma\partial_\mu\phi $$
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top