Undergrad What does "transforms covariantly" mean here?

Click For Summary
The Lagrangian for a scalar field is Lorentz invariant and transforms covariantly under translation. Covariant transformation means that the field transforms according to the relationship between the original and translated coordinates. While the scalar field transforms under translation, the Lagrangian itself is considered invariant, which is a specific case of covariance. The distinction between invariance and covariance is important, as it highlights different aspects of how physical quantities behave under transformations. Understanding these nuances is crucial for proper interpretation in the context of field theory.
Hill
Messages
735
Reaction score
576
TL;DR
The Lagrangian for scalar field under translation
The Lagrangian, $$\mathcal L(x)= \frac 1 2 \partial^{\mu} \phi (x) \partial_{\mu} \phi (x) - \frac 1 2 m^2 \phi (x)^2$$ for a scalar field ##\phi (x)## is said to be Lorentz invariant and to transform covariantly under translation.
What does it mean that it transforms covariantly under translation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This means that under translation ##x\to x'(x)=x+a## it transforms as
$$\phi(x)\to\phi'(x')=\phi(x(x'))$$
where ##x(x')=x'-a## is the inverse of ##x'(x)##.
 
Demystifier said:
This means that under translation ##x\to x'(x)=x+a## it transforms as
$$\phi(x)\to\phi'(x')=\phi(x(x'))$$
I understand that this is how ##x## and how ##\phi## transform. But regarding ##\mathcal L##, I think, it makes it rather invariant under translation, doesn't it?
 
Hill said:
I understand that this is how ##x## and how ##\phi## transform. But regarding ##\mathcal L##, I think, it makes it rather invariant under translation, doesn't it?
Yes, but invariant is a special case of covariant. More precisely, covariance of scalars is invariance.
 
Demystifier said:
Yes, but invariant is a special case of covariant. More precisely, covariance of scalars is invariance.
Thank you. I thought, there is a reason for him separating the two transformations rather than saying that it is "Lorentz and translational invariant" or "Poincare invariant."
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
472
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
688
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
667