Wednesday, 23 January 2019

homework and exercises - Proof of gauge invariance of the massless Fierz-Pauli action (follow-up)


This question is a follow-up to Proof of gauge invariance of the massless Fierz-Pauli action.


One representation of the Fierz-Pauli action (up to a prefactor) is, S[h]=dx{12(λhμν)(λhμν)=:A12(λh)(λh)=:B(λhλν)(μhμν)=:C+(νh)(μhμν)=:D}.


We now want to show that S[h] is invariant under the gauge transformation, hμνhμν+δhμν,

wherein δhμν=μξν+νξμ. We demand that ξμ(xν) falls of rapidly at the respective boundaries of the action.


i) Why is it sufficient to only consider invariance of gauge transformations up to the first-order? Even if we consider the weak gravity regime hμν1, I don't see how this should lead to δhμν1.


We now start to show first-order invariance by applying the gauge transformation, Eq. (2), to the terms A,B,C,D.


A12(λhμν+λδhμν)(λhμν+λδhμν)=12(λhμν)(λhμν)=A+(λhμν)(λδhμν)=δA+O(δh2μν)B12(λh+λδh)(λh+λδh)=12(λh)(λh)=B+(λh)(λδh)=:δB+O(δh2μν)C(λhλν+λδhλν)(μhμν+μδhμν)=(λhλν)(μhμν)=C+2(λhλν)(μδhμν)=:δC+O(δh2μν)D(νh+νδh)(μhμν+μδhμν)=(νh)(μhμν)=D+2(νh)(μδhμν)=:δD+O(δh2μν)

ii) Are these results correct so far? How do I show (νh)(μδhμν)=(νδh)(μhμν)?


Using the previous results, we find, S[h+δh]S[h]=dx{δAδBδC+δD}+O(δh2).

Only δB and δD contain h, therefore, both should cancel (up to a constant) and we can consider them separate, dx{δDδB}=dx{2(νh)(μδhμν)(λh)(λδh)}=dx(λh){2(μδhμλ)(λδh)}=dx(λh){2(μ(μξλ+λξμ)λ(2μξμ)}=2dx(λh)(2ξλ).
Next, we examine the other two terms, dx{δAδC}=dx{(λhμν)(λδhμν)2(λhλν)(μδhμν)}=dx{hμν(2δhμν)+2hλν(λμδhμν)}=dxhμν{2δhμν+2μλδhλν}=dxhμν{2(μξν+νξμ)+2μλ(λξν+νξλ)}=dxhμν{μ2ξν2νξμ+2μν(λξλ)},
wherein we used partial integration for the second equal and index relabeling for the third equal.


Comparing Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), we see that terms don't add up to a constant or divergence. iii) Where have I made mistakes?




Answer



A friend from university has helped me answer the questions:


i) Our gauge transformation is a linear transformation and therefore can be considered to form a Lie group. From Lie groups we know, that it is sufficient to show invariance only up to the first-order as we can always dissect transforms "large" in magnitude (think δh1) into infinitesimal steps. If someone can put this in a more rigorous language, please do so!


ii)+iii) Actually, (νh)(μδhμν)(νδh)(μhμν), thus, we must correct the transformation of term D to, D(νh+νδh)(μhμν+μδhμν)=(νh)(μhμν)=D+(νδh)(μhμν)+(νh)(μδhμν)=:δD+O(δh2μν).

Now, Eq. (4) reads, dx{δDδB}=dx(νh){μδhμννδh}+dx(νδh)(μhμν)=dxh2{νξνμξμ}=0dxhμν(μνδh).
Adding up Eq. (5) and the corrected version of Eq. (4), we find that the transformed action up to first-order indeed vanishes, dxδS=dxhμν{μ2ξν2νξμ+2μν(λξλ)2μν(λξλ)=0}=dxhμν2μ2ξνdxhνμ2μξν=dxhμν2μ2ξνdxhμν2μξν=0,
where we have used in the last steps that hμν=hνμ and that we can relabel summed indices.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...