Poincare transformations and “three kinds of infinitesimal variations”












5












$begingroup$


I'm currently reading these$^1$ lec. notes as an introduction to relativistic QFT. In chapter two (pp.57-61) he introduces the concept of field variations along with some formulas for the different kind of variations (I think at least that is what he is doing...). I'm having a really hard time with the math that he writes down there.



He discusses the example of a Poincare-transformation that sends $x$ to $x'$. He states that we can then write
$$x'^mu approx x^mu + delta x^mu = x^mu+delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu,tag{2.12}$$
where $deltaomega^{munu}=-deltaomega^{numu}, |deltaomega^{munu}|ll 1$, $|deltaomega^mu|ll 1$ and $g_{munu}$ the metric tensor. I can understand the first approxmiation, why $deltaomega^{munu}$ has to be antisymmetric and much smaller than one, but I fail to see why $delta x^mu = delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu$ should make sense as an approximation. He then goes on to say that
$$begin{align*}Delta u(x) &equiv u'(x+delta x)-u(x) equiv delta u(x+delta x) + du(x)\&=delta u(x)+delta x^{mu} partial_{mu} delta u(x)+cdots+mathrm{d} u(x) \&= delta u( x) +delta x^mupartial_mu u(x) + mathcal{O}(delta u delta x),end{align*}tag{2.13}$$
where $u:mathcal{M}tomathbb{K}=mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ is a function on the Minkowski space and $u'$ the function after the Poincare-transformation. I honestly don't understand any part of the above calculations (mostly because he doesn't even mention what $delta$ and $d$ are supposed to be) and can even less imagine what $delta u(x)$ is supposed to be.



Can somebody maybe explain to me what exactly is going on here and why assumptions like $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ make sense? If you know of a better introduction to the topic feel free to suggest some books, paper, etc.





Math background: I'm not particularly familiar with the calculus of variations. I had some exposure to it in a classical machanics course, where we defined the variation of a functional ($delta S[f]=frac{d}{d epsilon}left.S[f+epsilon delta f]right|_{epsilon=0}$), but other than that I don't really now anything on the subject matter.



$^1$ Introduction to relativistic quantum field theory, R. Soldati, 2019.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:48












  • $begingroup$
    Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 18:48












  • $begingroup$
    @Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 5 at 19:20
















5












$begingroup$


I'm currently reading these$^1$ lec. notes as an introduction to relativistic QFT. In chapter two (pp.57-61) he introduces the concept of field variations along with some formulas for the different kind of variations (I think at least that is what he is doing...). I'm having a really hard time with the math that he writes down there.



He discusses the example of a Poincare-transformation that sends $x$ to $x'$. He states that we can then write
$$x'^mu approx x^mu + delta x^mu = x^mu+delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu,tag{2.12}$$
where $deltaomega^{munu}=-deltaomega^{numu}, |deltaomega^{munu}|ll 1$, $|deltaomega^mu|ll 1$ and $g_{munu}$ the metric tensor. I can understand the first approxmiation, why $deltaomega^{munu}$ has to be antisymmetric and much smaller than one, but I fail to see why $delta x^mu = delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu$ should make sense as an approximation. He then goes on to say that
$$begin{align*}Delta u(x) &equiv u'(x+delta x)-u(x) equiv delta u(x+delta x) + du(x)\&=delta u(x)+delta x^{mu} partial_{mu} delta u(x)+cdots+mathrm{d} u(x) \&= delta u( x) +delta x^mupartial_mu u(x) + mathcal{O}(delta u delta x),end{align*}tag{2.13}$$
where $u:mathcal{M}tomathbb{K}=mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ is a function on the Minkowski space and $u'$ the function after the Poincare-transformation. I honestly don't understand any part of the above calculations (mostly because he doesn't even mention what $delta$ and $d$ are supposed to be) and can even less imagine what $delta u(x)$ is supposed to be.



Can somebody maybe explain to me what exactly is going on here and why assumptions like $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ make sense? If you know of a better introduction to the topic feel free to suggest some books, paper, etc.





Math background: I'm not particularly familiar with the calculus of variations. I had some exposure to it in a classical machanics course, where we defined the variation of a functional ($delta S[f]=frac{d}{d epsilon}left.S[f+epsilon delta f]right|_{epsilon=0}$), but other than that I don't really now anything on the subject matter.



$^1$ Introduction to relativistic quantum field theory, R. Soldati, 2019.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:48












  • $begingroup$
    Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 18:48












  • $begingroup$
    @Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 5 at 19:20














5












5








5


5



$begingroup$


I'm currently reading these$^1$ lec. notes as an introduction to relativistic QFT. In chapter two (pp.57-61) he introduces the concept of field variations along with some formulas for the different kind of variations (I think at least that is what he is doing...). I'm having a really hard time with the math that he writes down there.



He discusses the example of a Poincare-transformation that sends $x$ to $x'$. He states that we can then write
$$x'^mu approx x^mu + delta x^mu = x^mu+delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu,tag{2.12}$$
where $deltaomega^{munu}=-deltaomega^{numu}, |deltaomega^{munu}|ll 1$, $|deltaomega^mu|ll 1$ and $g_{munu}$ the metric tensor. I can understand the first approxmiation, why $deltaomega^{munu}$ has to be antisymmetric and much smaller than one, but I fail to see why $delta x^mu = delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu$ should make sense as an approximation. He then goes on to say that
$$begin{align*}Delta u(x) &equiv u'(x+delta x)-u(x) equiv delta u(x+delta x) + du(x)\&=delta u(x)+delta x^{mu} partial_{mu} delta u(x)+cdots+mathrm{d} u(x) \&= delta u( x) +delta x^mupartial_mu u(x) + mathcal{O}(delta u delta x),end{align*}tag{2.13}$$
where $u:mathcal{M}tomathbb{K}=mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ is a function on the Minkowski space and $u'$ the function after the Poincare-transformation. I honestly don't understand any part of the above calculations (mostly because he doesn't even mention what $delta$ and $d$ are supposed to be) and can even less imagine what $delta u(x)$ is supposed to be.



Can somebody maybe explain to me what exactly is going on here and why assumptions like $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ make sense? If you know of a better introduction to the topic feel free to suggest some books, paper, etc.





Math background: I'm not particularly familiar with the calculus of variations. I had some exposure to it in a classical machanics course, where we defined the variation of a functional ($delta S[f]=frac{d}{d epsilon}left.S[f+epsilon delta f]right|_{epsilon=0}$), but other than that I don't really now anything on the subject matter.



$^1$ Introduction to relativistic quantum field theory, R. Soldati, 2019.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm currently reading these$^1$ lec. notes as an introduction to relativistic QFT. In chapter two (pp.57-61) he introduces the concept of field variations along with some formulas for the different kind of variations (I think at least that is what he is doing...). I'm having a really hard time with the math that he writes down there.



He discusses the example of a Poincare-transformation that sends $x$ to $x'$. He states that we can then write
$$x'^mu approx x^mu + delta x^mu = x^mu+delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu,tag{2.12}$$
where $deltaomega^{munu}=-deltaomega^{numu}, |deltaomega^{munu}|ll 1$, $|deltaomega^mu|ll 1$ and $g_{munu}$ the metric tensor. I can understand the first approxmiation, why $deltaomega^{munu}$ has to be antisymmetric and much smaller than one, but I fail to see why $delta x^mu = delta omega^{munu}g_{nulambda}x^lambda+delta omega^mu$ should make sense as an approximation. He then goes on to say that
$$begin{align*}Delta u(x) &equiv u'(x+delta x)-u(x) equiv delta u(x+delta x) + du(x)\&=delta u(x)+delta x^{mu} partial_{mu} delta u(x)+cdots+mathrm{d} u(x) \&= delta u( x) +delta x^mupartial_mu u(x) + mathcal{O}(delta u delta x),end{align*}tag{2.13}$$
where $u:mathcal{M}tomathbb{K}=mathbb{R}$ or $mathbb{C}$ is a function on the Minkowski space and $u'$ the function after the Poincare-transformation. I honestly don't understand any part of the above calculations (mostly because he doesn't even mention what $delta$ and $d$ are supposed to be) and can even less imagine what $delta u(x)$ is supposed to be.



Can somebody maybe explain to me what exactly is going on here and why assumptions like $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ make sense? If you know of a better introduction to the topic feel free to suggest some books, paper, etc.





Math background: I'm not particularly familiar with the calculus of variations. I had some exposure to it in a classical machanics course, where we defined the variation of a functional ($delta S[f]=frac{d}{d epsilon}left.S[f+epsilon delta f]right|_{epsilon=0}$), but other than that I don't really now anything on the subject matter.



$^1$ Introduction to relativistic quantum field theory, R. Soldati, 2019.







special-relativity field-theory variational-calculus poincare-symmetry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 5 at 16:31







Sito

















asked Feb 5 at 15:25









SitoSito

113211




113211












  • $begingroup$
    You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:48












  • $begingroup$
    Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 18:48












  • $begingroup$
    @Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 5 at 19:20


















  • $begingroup$
    You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:48












  • $begingroup$
    Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 18:48












  • $begingroup$
    @Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 5 at 19:20
















$begingroup$
You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Feb 5 at 17:48






$begingroup$
You can recover their definitions in equations (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) at the end of page 58 and using Qmechanic answer
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Feb 5 at 17:48














$begingroup$
Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Feb 5 at 18:48






$begingroup$
Regarding the request of other introductions to QFT, check the big list here. Be careful: if you have to take an exam with the professor and the professors gives you notes, it is much easier to pass the exam using his notes, especially for QFT, where everybody has a different approach and notations and it can be confusing. Using other resources for clarifications can be good though. Note that in the notes of your professor at the end of each chapter there's a little bibliography.
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Feb 5 at 18:48














$begingroup$
@Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
$endgroup$
– Sito
Feb 5 at 19:20




$begingroup$
@Runlikehell Thanks for the recommendations! I'm not taking the course of that specific professor, just got a recommendation to use to notes form a tutor.
$endgroup$
– Sito
Feb 5 at 19:20










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$


  1. The "three kinds of infinitesimal variations" are defined as follows.
    $$begin{align} Delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x^{prime})-u(x) qquadtext{ total infinitesimal variation}, tag{2.2}cr delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x)-u(x) qquad text{ local/vertical infinitesimal variation},tag{2.3}cr
    mathrm{d}u(x)&~:=~ u(x^{prime})- u(x) qquadtext{ differential/horizontal infinitesimal variation}.tag{2.4}
    end{align}$$

    Here the words horizontal and vertical spaces refer to spacetime and $u$-target space, respectively. While the terminology/names & notation vary from author to author, these three infinitesimal variations are often introduced in physics field theory textbooks.


  2. The statement $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ means that vertical infinitesimal variations $delta$ commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}equivfrac{partial}{partial x^{mu}}$. Be aware that total infinitesimal variations $Delta$ do not necessarily commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}$.







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:46








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I read it somewhere a long time ago.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Feb 5 at 18:11












  • $begingroup$
    I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 6 at 13:21



















3












$begingroup$

$delta x^mu$ has one upper index, so you just write down all possible terms which give some object with an upper index. Also $delta x^mu$ should only depend on $x^mu$ and constants, because what else should it depend on? So you could come up with the idea to classify the contributions to $delta x^mu$ with respect to the order in $x$.



Zeroth order in $x$ is just a constant. Remember, it should carry an upper index, so it is a constant vector. $delta x^mu$ is infinitesimal, so each contribution should be infinitesimal. So you end up with an infinitesimal constant vector $$(delta x^mu)^{(0)}=delta omega^mu$$ to zeroth order in $x$.



First order in $x$ is something of the form "constant times x". Since $x$ is a vector, the most general form would be contracting it with a constant tensor. The tensor should be infinitesimal (since $x$ itself is not infinitesimal). To get back an object with one upper index, the index structure should be as follows



$$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^mu_lambda x^lambda$$



We can lift one of the indices using the metric tensor: $deltaomega^mu_lambda=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda}$ and will end up with



$$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda} x^lambda$$



In total, up to first order in $x$ we get exactly (2.12).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459013%2fpoincare-transformations-and-three-kinds-of-infinitesimal-variations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6












    $begingroup$


    1. The "three kinds of infinitesimal variations" are defined as follows.
      $$begin{align} Delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x^{prime})-u(x) qquadtext{ total infinitesimal variation}, tag{2.2}cr delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x)-u(x) qquad text{ local/vertical infinitesimal variation},tag{2.3}cr
      mathrm{d}u(x)&~:=~ u(x^{prime})- u(x) qquadtext{ differential/horizontal infinitesimal variation}.tag{2.4}
      end{align}$$

      Here the words horizontal and vertical spaces refer to spacetime and $u$-target space, respectively. While the terminology/names & notation vary from author to author, these three infinitesimal variations are often introduced in physics field theory textbooks.


    2. The statement $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ means that vertical infinitesimal variations $delta$ commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}equivfrac{partial}{partial x^{mu}}$. Be aware that total infinitesimal variations $Delta$ do not necessarily commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}$.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
      $endgroup$
      – Run like hell
      Feb 5 at 17:46








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I read it somewhere a long time ago.
      $endgroup$
      – Qmechanic
      Feb 5 at 18:11












    • $begingroup$
      I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Sito
      Feb 6 at 13:21
















    6












    $begingroup$


    1. The "three kinds of infinitesimal variations" are defined as follows.
      $$begin{align} Delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x^{prime})-u(x) qquadtext{ total infinitesimal variation}, tag{2.2}cr delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x)-u(x) qquad text{ local/vertical infinitesimal variation},tag{2.3}cr
      mathrm{d}u(x)&~:=~ u(x^{prime})- u(x) qquadtext{ differential/horizontal infinitesimal variation}.tag{2.4}
      end{align}$$

      Here the words horizontal and vertical spaces refer to spacetime and $u$-target space, respectively. While the terminology/names & notation vary from author to author, these three infinitesimal variations are often introduced in physics field theory textbooks.


    2. The statement $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ means that vertical infinitesimal variations $delta$ commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}equivfrac{partial}{partial x^{mu}}$. Be aware that total infinitesimal variations $Delta$ do not necessarily commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}$.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
      $endgroup$
      – Run like hell
      Feb 5 at 17:46








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I read it somewhere a long time ago.
      $endgroup$
      – Qmechanic
      Feb 5 at 18:11












    • $begingroup$
      I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Sito
      Feb 6 at 13:21














    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$


    1. The "three kinds of infinitesimal variations" are defined as follows.
      $$begin{align} Delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x^{prime})-u(x) qquadtext{ total infinitesimal variation}, tag{2.2}cr delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x)-u(x) qquad text{ local/vertical infinitesimal variation},tag{2.3}cr
      mathrm{d}u(x)&~:=~ u(x^{prime})- u(x) qquadtext{ differential/horizontal infinitesimal variation}.tag{2.4}
      end{align}$$

      Here the words horizontal and vertical spaces refer to spacetime and $u$-target space, respectively. While the terminology/names & notation vary from author to author, these three infinitesimal variations are often introduced in physics field theory textbooks.


    2. The statement $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ means that vertical infinitesimal variations $delta$ commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}equivfrac{partial}{partial x^{mu}}$. Be aware that total infinitesimal variations $Delta$ do not necessarily commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}$.







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




    1. The "three kinds of infinitesimal variations" are defined as follows.
      $$begin{align} Delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x^{prime})-u(x) qquadtext{ total infinitesimal variation}, tag{2.2}cr delta u(x) &~:=~ u^{prime}(x)-u(x) qquad text{ local/vertical infinitesimal variation},tag{2.3}cr
      mathrm{d}u(x)&~:=~ u(x^{prime})- u(x) qquadtext{ differential/horizontal infinitesimal variation}.tag{2.4}
      end{align}$$

      Here the words horizontal and vertical spaces refer to spacetime and $u$-target space, respectively. While the terminology/names & notation vary from author to author, these three infinitesimal variations are often introduced in physics field theory textbooks.


    2. The statement $[delta,partial_mu]=0$ means that vertical infinitesimal variations $delta$ commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}equivfrac{partial}{partial x^{mu}}$. Be aware that total infinitesimal variations $Delta$ do not necessarily commute with spacetime-derivatives $partial_{mu}$.








    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Feb 5 at 18:20

























    answered Feb 5 at 17:15









    QmechanicQmechanic

    107k121981229




    107k121981229












    • $begingroup$
      Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
      $endgroup$
      – Run like hell
      Feb 5 at 17:46








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I read it somewhere a long time ago.
      $endgroup$
      – Qmechanic
      Feb 5 at 18:11












    • $begingroup$
      I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Sito
      Feb 6 at 13:21


















    • $begingroup$
      Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
      $endgroup$
      – Run like hell
      Feb 5 at 17:46








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I read it somewhere a long time ago.
      $endgroup$
      – Qmechanic
      Feb 5 at 18:11












    • $begingroup$
      I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Sito
      Feb 6 at 13:21
















    $begingroup$
    Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:46






    $begingroup$
    Can I ask you the origin of this terminology? It's different from the terminology used in the notes, where the author calls them total, local and differential variations
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Feb 5 at 17:46






    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I read it somewhere a long time ago.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Feb 5 at 18:11






    $begingroup$
    I read it somewhere a long time ago.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Feb 5 at 18:11














    $begingroup$
    I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 6 at 13:21




    $begingroup$
    I'll accept the answer since after some messing around with the definitions that you provided I was able to recover most of the results! Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Sito
    Feb 6 at 13:21











    3












    $begingroup$

    $delta x^mu$ has one upper index, so you just write down all possible terms which give some object with an upper index. Also $delta x^mu$ should only depend on $x^mu$ and constants, because what else should it depend on? So you could come up with the idea to classify the contributions to $delta x^mu$ with respect to the order in $x$.



    Zeroth order in $x$ is just a constant. Remember, it should carry an upper index, so it is a constant vector. $delta x^mu$ is infinitesimal, so each contribution should be infinitesimal. So you end up with an infinitesimal constant vector $$(delta x^mu)^{(0)}=delta omega^mu$$ to zeroth order in $x$.



    First order in $x$ is something of the form "constant times x". Since $x$ is a vector, the most general form would be contracting it with a constant tensor. The tensor should be infinitesimal (since $x$ itself is not infinitesimal). To get back an object with one upper index, the index structure should be as follows



    $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^mu_lambda x^lambda$$



    We can lift one of the indices using the metric tensor: $deltaomega^mu_lambda=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda}$ and will end up with



    $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda} x^lambda$$



    In total, up to first order in $x$ we get exactly (2.12).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      $delta x^mu$ has one upper index, so you just write down all possible terms which give some object with an upper index. Also $delta x^mu$ should only depend on $x^mu$ and constants, because what else should it depend on? So you could come up with the idea to classify the contributions to $delta x^mu$ with respect to the order in $x$.



      Zeroth order in $x$ is just a constant. Remember, it should carry an upper index, so it is a constant vector. $delta x^mu$ is infinitesimal, so each contribution should be infinitesimal. So you end up with an infinitesimal constant vector $$(delta x^mu)^{(0)}=delta omega^mu$$ to zeroth order in $x$.



      First order in $x$ is something of the form "constant times x". Since $x$ is a vector, the most general form would be contracting it with a constant tensor. The tensor should be infinitesimal (since $x$ itself is not infinitesimal). To get back an object with one upper index, the index structure should be as follows



      $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^mu_lambda x^lambda$$



      We can lift one of the indices using the metric tensor: $deltaomega^mu_lambda=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda}$ and will end up with



      $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda} x^lambda$$



      In total, up to first order in $x$ we get exactly (2.12).






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        $delta x^mu$ has one upper index, so you just write down all possible terms which give some object with an upper index. Also $delta x^mu$ should only depend on $x^mu$ and constants, because what else should it depend on? So you could come up with the idea to classify the contributions to $delta x^mu$ with respect to the order in $x$.



        Zeroth order in $x$ is just a constant. Remember, it should carry an upper index, so it is a constant vector. $delta x^mu$ is infinitesimal, so each contribution should be infinitesimal. So you end up with an infinitesimal constant vector $$(delta x^mu)^{(0)}=delta omega^mu$$ to zeroth order in $x$.



        First order in $x$ is something of the form "constant times x". Since $x$ is a vector, the most general form would be contracting it with a constant tensor. The tensor should be infinitesimal (since $x$ itself is not infinitesimal). To get back an object with one upper index, the index structure should be as follows



        $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^mu_lambda x^lambda$$



        We can lift one of the indices using the metric tensor: $deltaomega^mu_lambda=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda}$ and will end up with



        $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda} x^lambda$$



        In total, up to first order in $x$ we get exactly (2.12).






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        $delta x^mu$ has one upper index, so you just write down all possible terms which give some object with an upper index. Also $delta x^mu$ should only depend on $x^mu$ and constants, because what else should it depend on? So you could come up with the idea to classify the contributions to $delta x^mu$ with respect to the order in $x$.



        Zeroth order in $x$ is just a constant. Remember, it should carry an upper index, so it is a constant vector. $delta x^mu$ is infinitesimal, so each contribution should be infinitesimal. So you end up with an infinitesimal constant vector $$(delta x^mu)^{(0)}=delta omega^mu$$ to zeroth order in $x$.



        First order in $x$ is something of the form "constant times x". Since $x$ is a vector, the most general form would be contracting it with a constant tensor. The tensor should be infinitesimal (since $x$ itself is not infinitesimal). To get back an object with one upper index, the index structure should be as follows



        $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^mu_lambda x^lambda$$



        We can lift one of the indices using the metric tensor: $deltaomega^mu_lambda=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda}$ and will end up with



        $$(delta x^mu)^{(1)}=deltaomega^{munu}g_{nulambda} x^lambda$$



        In total, up to first order in $x$ we get exactly (2.12).







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Feb 5 at 17:15









        PhotonPhoton

        3,2771820




        3,2771820






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459013%2fpoincare-transformations-and-three-kinds-of-infinitesimal-variations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Questions related to Moebius Transform of Characteristic Function of the Primes

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            List of scandals in India