What does it mean when the eom of a field is trivially satisfied?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a field's equations of motion being trivially satisfied when expressed as a linear combination of other fields' equations of motion. The focus is on theoretical aspects of field dynamics and the relationships between different fields in a Lagrangian framework.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if the equation of motion for field ##a## can be expressed as a linear combination of the equations of motion for fields ##b## and ##c##, then the satisfaction of the latter implies the satisfaction of the former.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the symbols used in the original post, indicating that without definitions, the discussion cannot proceed effectively.
  • A subsequent reply reiterates the need for clear definitions of symbols, emphasizing the importance of understanding the notation before addressing the question.
  • A participant provides an interpretation of the original post, suggesting that if the equation of motion for field ##a## is dependent on those of fields ##b## and ##c##, it implies that only two of the three fields are dynamically independent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the clarity of the original question and the definitions of symbols used. There is no consensus on the implications of the equations of motion being trivially satisfied.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clear definitions for the symbols used in the discussion, which affects the ability to engage with the question meaningfully. The interpretation of the relationships between the fields remains unresolved.

Baela
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
If a Lagrangian has the fields ##a##, ##b## and ##c## whose equations of motion are denoted by ##E_a, E_b## and ##E_c## respectively, then if
\begin{align}
E_a=f_1(a,b,c)\,E_b+f_2(a,b,c)\,E_c
\end{align}
where ##f_1## and ##f_2## are some functions of the fields, if ##E_b## and ##E_c## are satisfied, then ##E_a## is automatically satisfied.

Does this tell us anything particular about the nature of field ##a##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Without clear definitions of your symbols there's no way to answer your question. Where do you get this from?
 
Which symbol do you need clarification for? My question is pretty general. I can't see what part you are confused about.
 
You don't give any definition of your symbols. How can you expect that anybody can understand what they mean?
 
vanhees71 said:
You don't give any definition of your symbols. How can you expect that anybody can understand what they mean?
For background, the OP also started this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...t-gauge-transformations.1051286/#post-6871749 (although they never returned to it as promised). My understanding of their notation is: ##a(x), b(x), c(x)## are spacetime fields individually satisfying the 3 Euler-Lagrange (field) equations ##E_{a}(a(x))=0, E_{b}(b(x))=0, E_{c}(c(x))=0##. I think they want to know the consequences if ##E_{a}(a(x))## happens to be a linear-combination, with field-dependent coefficients, of ##E_{b}(b(x)),E_{c}(c(x))##. My answer is that it simply means only 2 of the 3 fields are dynamically independent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Baela

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
870
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K