Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

4-Vector Problem.

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Myths and facts on Student Finance - on TSR from 2pm! 15-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I originally posted this in the maths forum but perhaps I should have posted in Physics to begin with, basically,

    I have a Lagrangian:

    \mathcal{L}=\dfrac {-1} {16\pi }\left( \partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu}\right -\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu })\left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }\right)+\dfrac {1} {8\pi }\left( \dfrac {mc} {h}\right) ^{2}A^{\nu }A_{\nu }

    and I need to get to the result:

    \dfrac {\partial \mathcal{L}} {\partial \left( \partial _{\mu }Av\right) }=-\dfrac{1}{4\pi }\left(\partial^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial^{\nu }A^{\mu }\right)

    The answer in the book that I'm working through does this by first finding the answer for all components involving \partial _{0}A_{1} and its contraction. I can follow this method fine and it gives the correct result for that choice of indices and then it just generalises it.

    However, I'd much rather know how to do using the general indices the entire way through, as I need to know this kinda stuff for my general relativity course.

    I've managed to get to:

    \left( \partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu }\right) \left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }\right)=-\left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }\right)^{2}-\partial ^{\mu}A^{\nu}\partial _{\nu}A_{\mu}-\partial^{\nu}A^{\mu}\partial _{\mu}A_{\nu}-(\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu})^{2}

    Could someone show me what to do next? I haven't got a clue, I'm not very good at being able to manipulate the indices.

    Thaanks! I'll give rep to whoever helps if that's any incentive
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by You Failed)
    Hi, I originally posted this in the maths forum but perhaps I should have posted in Physics to begin with, basically,

    I have a Lagrangian:

    \mathcal{L}=\dfrac {-1} {16\pi }\left( \partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu}\right -\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu })\left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }\right)+\dfrac {1} {8\pi }\left( \dfrac {mc} {h}\right) ^{2}A^{\nu }A_{\nu }

    and I need to get to the result:

    \dfrac {\partial \mathcal{L}} {\partial \left( \partial _{\mu }Av\right) }=-\dfrac{1}{4\pi }\left(\partial^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial^{\nu }A^{\mu }\right)

    The answer in the book that I'm working through does this by first finding the answer for all components involving \partial _{0}A_{1} and its contraction. I can follow this method fine and it gives the correct result for that choice of indices and then it just generalises it.

    However, I'd much rather know how to do using the general indices the entire way through, as I need to know this kinda stuff for my general relativity course.

    I've managed to get to:

    \left( \partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu }\right) \left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }\right)=-\left( \partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }\right)^{2}-\partial ^{\mu}A^{\nu}\partial _{\nu}A_{\mu}-\partial^{\nu}A^{\mu}\partial _{\mu}A_{\nu}-(\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu})^{2}

    Could someone show me what to do next? I haven't got a clue, I'm not very good at being able to manipulate the indices.

    Thaanks! I'll give rep to whoever helps if that's any incentive
    Hmm I've worked through this but don't particularly fancy trying to write a pageful of index notation in Latex...

    A few hints:

    Firstly when you do the differentiation you need to change the indices ie if you have L in terms of mu and nu indices you'll want something like \dfrac {\partial \mathcal{L}} {\partial \left( \partial _{\sigma }A_{\rho}\right) } to make sure the indices all match up.

    Secondly you don't need to expand your original Lagrangian. You can just use the product rule as normal, and keeping in mind that  \frac{\partial ( \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu})}{\partial ( \partial_{\sigma}A_{\rho})}= \delta^{\sigma}_{\mu} \delta^{\nu}_{\rho} and remembering that you can use the metric to raise and lower indices as needed.

    I've attached a photo of my working, but not sure how clear it is...
    Attached Thumbnails
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4 vectors part 1.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	27.8 KB 
ID:	146065   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4 vectors part 2.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	27.3 KB 
ID:	146066   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4-Vectors.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	41.2 KB 
ID:	146067  
    • Thread Starter
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suneilr)
    Hmm I've worked through this but don't particularly fancy trying to write a pageful of index notation in Latex...

    A few hints:

    Firstly when you do the differentiation you need to change the indices ie if you have L in terms of mu and nu indices you'll want something like \dfrac {\partial \mathcal{L}} {\partial \left( \partial _{\sigma }A_{\rho}\right) } to make sure the indices all match up.

    Secondly you don't need to expand your original Lagrangian. You can just use the product rule as normal, and keeping in mind that  \frac{\partial ( \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu})}{\partial ( \partial_{\sigma}A_{\rho})}= \delta^{\sigma}_{\mu} \delta^{\nu}_{\rho} and remembering that you can use the metric to raise and lower indices as needed.

    I've attached a photo of my working, but not sure how clear it is...
    Thaanks! Really appreciate you taking the time to do this!

    Can I just ask why if you don't change the indices as you have done, why they won't match up?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by You Failed)
    Thaanks! Really appreciate you taking the time to do this!

    Can I just ask why if you don't change the indices as you have done, why they won't match up?
    It's because you'll end up with three of the same indices. The Lagrangian is a scalar which already contains a sum over the mu and nu indices, so adding in an extra mu and nu index doesn't make any sense.
    • Thread Starter
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suneilr)
    It's because you'll end up with three of the same indices. The Lagrangian is a scalar which already contains a sum over the mu and nu indices, so adding in an extra mu and nu index doesn't make any sense.
    Ah yeah I see, cool, thanks
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by You Failed)
    Ah yeah I see, cool, thanks
    No problem. It's good to see I still remember how to do these

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 6, 2012
New on TSR

Starting your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.