Why do negative energy solutions cause issues in Padmanabhan's Gravitation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of negative energy solutions in Padmanabhan's Gravitation, specifically regarding the Lagrangian provided. It highlights that the kinetic term's sign leads to the time component of the V field propagating as a wave with negative energy when sources are absent, which is deemed unphysical. The proposed solution involves introducing gauge symmetry to eliminate unphysical degrees of freedom. Questions arise about the propagation of the V^0 degree of freedom and its distinction from spatial components, despite identical equations of motion. The inquiry seeks a mathematical explanation for these issues, emphasizing the need for clarity on the underlying physics.
ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
606
I'm reading Padmanabhan's Gravitation. In section 3.4, at some point he writes the Lagrangian below:
## L=-\frac 1 2 \partial_\sigma V_\rho \partial^\sigma V^\rho-J_\rho V^\rho ##
He then says that the sign of the kinetic term causes the time component of the V field to propagate as a wave with negative energy in the absence of sources which is unphysical.(Multiplying the Lagrangian by a negative sign causes the spatial components to become unphysical.) Then, to solve this problem, he says that the theory should have a gauge symmetry under ## V_\sigma \rightarrow V_\sigma+\partial_\sigma F ## so that we can get rid of the unphysical degrees of freedom.
I understand why negative energy solutions aren't desirable but I don't understand the sentence "So in the absence of the source, the ##V^0## degree of freedom will propagate as a wave carrying negative energy."
The above Lagrangian gives the equations of motion (when ## J_\rho=0 ##), ## \partial_\sigma \partial^\sigma V_\rho=0 ## for all four components. So the equations of motion are identical for all components. How is it that they are different in the sense above?
Also, as you probably noticed, the above equation of motion is our old friend ## \nabla^2 \phi=\frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} ## which we have no problem with. So where does the above problem come from?
I'll appreciate it if the answers contain more mathematics than words.
Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I though this is something people around here can easily answer! Is there something wrong with my question?
 
Back
Top