Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I What does it mean: "up to total derivatives"

  1. May 9, 2017 #1
    I don't understand the meaning of "up to total derivatives".

    It was used during a lecture on superfluid. It says as follows:


    Lagrangian for complex scalar field ##\phi## is
    \mathcal{L}=\frac12 (\partial_\mu \phi)^* \partial^\mu \phi - \frac12 m^2 |\phi|^2 -\lambda |\phi|^4.
    Take non-relativistic limit:
    Then, lagrangian for non-relativistic complex scalar field ##\mathcal{L}_{NR}## can be written as follows:
    \mathcal{L}_{NR}=\partial_t\phi^* \partial_t \phi - \nabla \phi^* \cdot \nabla \phi - m^2|\phi|^2 -\lambda|\phi|^4\\
    =\dfrac{1}{2m}(im\varphi^*+\dot{\varphi}^*)(-im\varphi+\dot{\varphi})-\dfrac{1}{2m}\nabla\varphi^*\cdot \nabla \varphi -\dfrac{m}{2}|\varphi|^2-\dfrac{\lambda}{4m^2}|\varphi|^4.
    In non-relativistic limit,
    \partial_t\sim \nabla^2,
    therefore, we only consider first order of ##\partial_t##.
    \mathcal{L}_{NR}=\dfrac{1}{2m}[im(-im)\varphi^*\varphi+im\varphi^*\dot{\varphi}-im\dot{\varphi}^*\varphi]-\dfrac{1}{2m}\nabla\varphi^*\cdot \nabla \varphi -\dfrac{m}{2}|\varphi|^2-\dfrac{\lambda}{4m^2}|\varphi|^4\\
    \simeq \dfrac{i}{2}(\varphi^*\dot{\varphi}-\dot{\varphi}^*\varphi)-\dfrac{1}{2m}\nabla\varphi^*\cdot \nabla \varphi -\dfrac{\lambda}{4m^2}|\varphi|^4\\
    Now, up to total derivatives,
    \mathcal{L}_{NR}\simeq \dfrac{i}{2}(\varphi^*\dot{\varphi}-\dot{\varphi}^*\varphi)-\dfrac{1}{2m}\nabla\varphi^*\cdot \nabla \varphi -\dfrac{\lambda}{4m^2}|\varphi|^4\\
    =\varphi^*\left( i\partial_t+\dfrac{\nabla^2}{2m} \right) \varphi -\dfrac{\lambda}{4m^2}|\varphi|^4.
    I don't understand the last part of this. Drop total derivatives?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2017 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Any difference between the first expression and the final expression is a total derivative.
  4. May 12, 2017 #3
    It means the difference between the terms is a derivative of some function. (e.g. In 3-D, the gradient of something.) In the language of differential forms, an exact form. The point is that the total derivative (or exact form) in the action could be converted into a boundary integral by Stokes' theorem (in 3-D the Gauss' theorem).

    In classical fields, you do variational derivatives fixing the boundary conditions, so the boundary variation is zero and does not affect the equation of motion.

    In quantum fields of many-body physics, you path integrate coherent states. In any case, it will only contribute as a constant factor and can be absorbed into path integral measures which is non-dynamical.
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  5. May 19, 2017 #4
    So, we don't have to think about fields at the far away like ##x^i \rightarrow \infty##.
    And from Gauss' theorem, an integral can be calculated like:
    \int_M d^3x \partial_i X^i \sim \int_{\partial M}(d^2x)_i X^i = 0.
  6. May 28, 2017 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, we do have to think about it, because we need to impose boundary conditions. Mathematically, often it is said that fields have compact support on spacetime. This is not always the case though; think about (A)dS spaces and holography.
  7. May 29, 2017 #6
    I'm not sure about holography, but do you mean that ##d##-dimension AdS spacetime's boundary is ##(d-1)##-dimension CFT spacetime?
  8. May 30, 2017 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If you mean that the conformal boundary of AdS is Minkowski spacetime: yes.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted