Notation for the d'Alembert operator

115 Views Asked by At

From the Wikipedia page on the d'Alembert operator it is stated that equivalent ways of writing the d'Alembert operator are as follows,

$$\begin{align}\Box =\eta^{\mu\nu} \partial_\nu\partial_\mu = \partial^\mu \partial_\mu=\partial^2\end{align}$$

But is there even more notation for this operator?

I ask this as in QFT I have seen the Lagrangian density for the Klein-Gordon equation written as $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$$ and equivalently as $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_\mu\phi\right)^2 - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$$

So is it also true that $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2?$$

If all the above is true, then there are at least $7$ different ways of denoting the d'Alembert operator, $$\Box = \eta^{\mu\nu} \partial_\nu\partial_\mu = \partial^\mu \partial_\mu =\partial^2=\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi$$ $$=\left(\partial_\mu\phi\right)^2 =\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi\tag{1}$$

and similarly for the contravariant versions in the last equality above, $\left(\partial^\mu\phi\right)^2=\partial^\mu \partial^\mu\phi$.

In summary, do all these notations mean the exact same thing?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

So is it also true that $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2?$$

No. We do not get the Klein-Gordon equation from $\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$. As far as I know, the notation $\left(\partial_\mu\phi\right)^2$ simply means $\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi$.

Additionally, the object $\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi$ is not Lorentz-invariant. Note that \begin{align}\partial_\mu \partial_\mu\phi&=\partial_0 \partial_0\phi+\partial_1 \partial_1\phi+\partial_2 \partial_2\phi+\partial_3\partial_3\phi\\ &=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial t^2}+\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial y^2}+\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z^2}. \ \ \ \ \ (1)\end{align} On the other hand, \begin{align}\partial_\mu \partial^\mu\phi&=\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu\phi=\partial_0 \partial_0\phi-\partial_1 \partial_1\phi-\partial_2 \partial_2\phi-\partial_3\partial_3\phi\\ &=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial t^2}-\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial x^2}-\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial y^2}-\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z^2}. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (2)\end{align} It is possible to show that Eq. $(2)$ is Lorentz-invariant, but Eq. $(1)$ is not.