Genady

Here are steps of derivation of energy-momentum conservation: Consider a shift of the field ϕ by a constant 4-vector ξ : (1) ϕ(x)→ϕ(x+ξ)=ϕ(x)+ξν∂νϕ(x)+... The infinitesimal transformation makes (2) δϕδξν=∂νϕ and (3) δLδξν=∂νL Using the E-L equations, the variation of Lagrangian is (4) δL[ϕ,∂μϕ]∂ξν=∂μ(∂L∂(∂μϕ)δϕδξν) Using (2) and (3), (5) ∂νL=∂μ(∂L∂(∂μϕ)∂νϕ) or equivalently (6) ∂μ(∂L∂(∂μϕ)∂νϕ−gμνL)=0 The conclusion is, "The four symmetries have produced four Noether currents, one for each ν : (7) Tμν=∂L∂(∂μϕ)∂νϕ−gμνL all of which are conserved: ∂μTμν=0 ." My question: where in this derivation the assumption was used that the transformation is a symmetry? P.S. I am sorry that LaTex is so buggy here. I don't have a willing power to do this again. Ignore. Bye.

\[\phi(x) \rightarrow \phi(x+\xi)=\phi(x)+\xi^{\nu} \partial_{\nu} \phi(x) + ...\] \[\frac {\delta \phi} {\delta \xi^{nu}} = \partial_{\nu} \phi\] \[\frac {\delta \mathcal L} {\delta \xi^{nu}} = \partial_{\nu} \mathcal L\] \[\frac {\delta \mathcal L[\phi, \partial_{mu} \phi]} {\partial \xi^{\nu}}=\partial_{mu} (\frac {\partial \mathcal L}{\partial (\partial_{mu} \phi)} \frac {\delta \phi} {\delta \xi^{nu}})\]

Thank you. All's well. Yes, I like the book otherwise, but it would be so much easier to follow if the indices were where they should be.

Please, I really, really know this. I know this index gymnastics, lowering and raising indices, tensors vs. basis representations, etc. I appreciate your time, but there is no need to teach basics here. Let's focus. Back to my question. Let's take \(\nu=1\). If \(\partial_{\nu} \mathcal L = \partial_{\mu} (g_{\mu \nu} \mathcal L)\), then \(\partial_1 \mathcal L = \partial_{\mu} (g_{\mu 1} \mathcal L) = -\partial_1 \mathcal L \). Where is my mistake?

They are different: \[\delta=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\] \[g=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}\]

I understand this but I don't think it answers my question. This is what I mean: I can rewrite (3.34) so: \[ \partial_{\mu} (\sum_n \frac {\partial \mathcal L} {\partial (\partial_{\mu} \phi_n)} \partial_{\nu} \phi_n) = \partial_{\mu} (g_{\mu \nu} \mathcal L)\] Then, from this and (3.33), we get \[\partial_{\nu} \mathcal L = \partial_{\mu} (g_{\mu \nu} \mathcal L)\] I think, it is incorrect. It rather should be \[\partial_{\nu} \mathcal L = \partial_{\mu} (\delta^{\mu}_{\nu} \mathcal L)\] P.S. Ignore positions of indices; Schwartz does not follow upper/lower standard. The difference is between \(g\) and \(\delta\).

My question is about the following step in a derivation of energy-momentum tensor: When the ∂νL in (3.33) moves under the ∂μ in (3.34) and gets contracted, I'd expect it to become \(\delta^{\mu}_{\nu} \mathcal L\). Why is it rather gμνL ? Typo? (In this text, gμν=ημν )

It is not technically homework, but it could've been if I were technically student. Just a new textbook to work on. I don't anymore read books that don't have equations. 🙃

Just to answer the OP question, It would not. Without the step function it would be \[\int dk^0 \delta (k^2-m^2) =\frac 1 {\omega_k} \] rather than \(\frac 1 {2 \omega_k}\).

A light that is produced by hot infalling matter between the photon sphere and the event horizon can still escape radially, right?

Thank you. I got it. My mistake was that when I replaced \(k^0\) with \(\omega_k\) I've missed that it can be + or - \(\omega_k\). The step function is needed to kill one of them.

The question: Show that \[\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk^0 \delta (k^2-m^2) \theta (k^0)=\frac 1 {2 \omega_k}\] where \(\theta(x)\) is the unit step function and \(\omega_k \equiv \sqrt {\vec k^2 +m^2}\). My solution: \(k^2={k^0}^2 - \vec k ^2\) \(\omega _k ^2 = \vec k^2 +m^2\) \(k^2 - m^2 = {k^0}^2 - \omega_k^2\) \(dk^0= \frac {d{k^0}^2} {2k^0}\) \(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk^0 \delta (k^2-m^2) \theta (k^0) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac {d{k^0}^2} {2k^0} \delta ({k^0}^2 - \omega_k^2) \theta (k^0) = \frac 1 {2 \omega_k} \theta (\omega_k) = \frac 1 {2 \omega_k}\) However, the point of the unit step function there is unclear to me. Wouldn't the result be the same without it?

I agree, the vagueness of such statements is an issue. Next time somebody says, "Hawking radiation is generated just outside the event horizon", I will ask first, how far is "just".

Yes, for an audience that thinks that Event Horizon is an actual physical structure, there is no difference between an approximation and a myth.

I've arrived to an expected answer, but I am not sure at all that the process was what the problem statement wants. First, I considered \(0=(t+\delta t)^2-(x+vt)^2-(t^2-x^2) \approx 2t \delta t - 2xvt - v^2t^2\). Ignoring \(O(v^2)\) gives \(\delta t=vx\), i.e., \(t \rightarrow t+vx\). Keeping \(O(v^2)\) gives \(t \rightarrow t+vx+\frac 1 2 v^2t\), which is the correct expansion of the full transformation to the second order. Now, taking \(x \rightarrow x+ \delta x, t \rightarrow t+vx\) gives by the similar calculation \(x \rightarrow x+vt+\frac 1 2 v^2x\). Is it what the exercise means?

No, I don't call approximations, myths. They are different things. Is it an approximation to say that all life forms were created at once from scratch?

Checking with the physicists here: On the p.17 it says, Shouldn't it say force rather than potential? Isn't any potential rather quadratic close to equilibrium?

We too, just touched it.

OTOH, if you are male, you have X and Y chromosomes, while if you are female, you have only one X, since the other X gets inactivated (see Barr body).

The other myth is, for example, that the Hawking radiation is result of virtual pair production when one of the virtual particles becomes real. I've found this article that tries to straighten some misconceptions: Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Hawking radiation is not produced at the black hole horizon.

After a further contemplation. It appears that I was wrong anyway.

Yes, I certainly agree with this.

To clarify the analogy in my previous post. I don't mean that QFT is like GR, nor that SM is like LCDM. I mean that SM relates to QFT like LCDM relates to GR.

I'd refer to the following analogy. QFT is like GR when SM is like LCDM. GR can fit many different cosmological models, and the open questions are about actual contents and history of the universe, which are the aspects I refer to as being "in addition" to the GR framework.

QFT is a framework that fits models with massive as well as massless neutrinos, with one as well as five generations of particles, with photons as well as phonons, with vacuum as well as solid state, etc. I mean that all the missing questions are specific to the model, i.e., SM, and are in addition to QFT.