Functional Derivative in the Linear Sigma Model

In the linear sigma model, the Lagrangian is given by

(11.65)L=12i=1N(μϕi)(μϕi)+12μ2i=1N(ϕi)2λ4(i=1N(ϕi)2)2
(for example see Peskin & Schroeder page 349).

When perturbatively computing the effective action for this Lagrangian the derivative δ2Lδϕk(x)δϕl(x) needs to be computed. (for instance, Eq. (11.67) in P&S):

(11.67)δ2Lδϕk(x)δϕl(x) = 2δkl+μ2δklλ[ϕiϕiδkl+2ϕkϕl].

My question is, how is one supposed to handle the derivative term?

This seems to be completely implicit in the presentation of P&S, but from what I could gather it should go like so:

1) Because we are computing the effective action, L is actually under an integral and we can replace (μϕi)(μϕi) with (μμϕi)ϕi=(2ϕi)ϕi using Stokes' theorem.

2) Then when performing the first derivative I get δδϕl[(2ϕi)ϕi]=2ϕl.

3) It is the second derivative I get stuck at, for as far as I can see, δδϕk[2ϕl]=0, for there is only dependence on the 2nd derivative of ϕl and not ϕl itself. If, as is usual in field theory, the field and its derivatives are treated as independent dynamical variables, then the second derivative should also be an independent dynamical variable. How is it explained then, that the result of this computation should be δδϕk[2ϕl]=δkl2?

Antworten (2)

Comment to the question (v2): P&S is using the notation of a 'same-spacetime' functional derivative. To illustrate this notation, let us for simplicity stay within first variations, and leave it to the reader to generalize to higher-order variations.

I) First of all, functional/variational derivatives should not be confused with partial derivatives. In practice, from an operational point of view (if we are not worried about mathematical details about existence and boundary terms), all we need to know is the following rules:

  1. The formula

    (A)δϕβ(y)δϕα(x) = δαβ δn(xy),
    where n is the spacetime dimension.

  2. Appropriate generalizations of elementary rules in calculus, such as, e.g., the chain rule, integration by parts, commutativity of derivatives, and the Dirac delta distribution.

For instance, by these rules 1 & 2, we have that

δδϕβ(y)xμ1xμrϕα(x) = xμ1xμrδδϕβ(y)ϕα(x)
(B) =(A) δβα xμ1xμrδn(xy).

Similarly, by rules 1 & 2, we can deduce that the action

(C)S = dnx L(x),L(x)L(ϕ(x),ϕ(x),,x),

has the Euler-Lagrange expression as its functional derivative

(D)δSδϕα(x) = L(x)ϕα(x)dμ(L(x)μϕα(x))+.

The ellipsis in eqs. (C) and (D) denotes possible contributions from higher-order spacetime derivatives.

II) From formula (A) it becomes clear that it does not makes sense to consider the functional derivative δL(x)δϕα(x) wrt. the same spacetime argument x, because that would lead to infinities, cf. δn(0)=. Nevertheless, it is tempting to introduce the notation of a 'same-spacetime' functional derivative

(E)δL(x)δϕα(x) := L(x)ϕα(x)dμ(L(x)μϕα(x))+.

We stress that eq. (E) is only a notational definition. It becomes meaningless if we try to interpret the lhs. of eq. (E) using the above rules 1 & 2.

III) Similarly, P&S talk about second-order 'same-spacetime' functional derivative

(F)δ2L(x)δϕα(x)δϕβ(x).

We recommend to first work out the ordinary second-order functional derivative

(G)δ2Sδϕα(x)δϕβ(y)

using rules 1 & 2. Then it should be fairly straightforward to translate (G) into the 'same-spacetime' functional derivative language (F), if needed. [In particluar, eq. (G) contains a δn(xy) while eq. (F) does not.]

IV) Finally we should mention that in field theory one often suppresses the spacetime indices x,y,, by using DeWitt's condensed notation.

Dear @Qmechanic, thanks for your illuminating response. I guess I had always had a confusion between partial derivatives with respect to functions and functional derivatives with respect to those functions (I thought that in books where a partial derivative with respect to a function is denoted, they are really abusing notation and actually mean functional derivative--but your comments make it clear that this is not the case and the two are different concepts).
One thing I also felt unsure of, but now verified via the definition of the functional derivative as L[ϕ(x)+ϵη(x)]=n=01n!ϵn(ddϵL[ϕ(x)+ϵη(x)])|ϵ=0, is the commutation of partial spacetime derivatives with functional derivatives. From your comment it also becomes clear that it's not that ϕ and μϕ are two independent dynamical variables, but rather,

For reference sake, here is the computation of (G) mentioned above in @Qmechanic's answer:

The Lagrangian is given by:

L[ϕ](z)=12i=1N(μϕi)(μϕi)+12μ2i=1N(ϕi)2λ4(i=1N(ϕi)2)2

and so the action is:

S[ϕ]=d4z{12i=1N(μzϕi(z))(μzϕi(z))+12μ2i=1N(ϕi(z))2λ4[i=1N(ϕi(z))2]2}

Thus the computation of equation (11.67) in P&S is, explicitly (not following the same-spacetime shorthand-notation mentioned above):

δ2S[ϕ]δϕa(x)δϕb(y)=δ2δϕa(x)δϕb(y)d4z{12i=1N(μzϕi(z))(μzϕi(z))+12μ2i=1N(ϕi(z))2λ4[i=1N(ϕi(z))2]2}=δδϕa(x)d4z{i=1N((μzϕi(z))(μzδδϕb(y)ϕi(z)))+μ2i=1Nϕi(z)δδϕb(y)ϕi(z)λ[i=1N(ϕi(z))2][j=1Nϕj(z)δδϕb(y)ϕj(z)]}=δδϕa(x)d4z{i=1N((μzϕi(z))(μzδibδ(zy)))+μ2i=1Nϕi(z)δibδ(zy)λ[i=1N(ϕi(z))2][j=1Nϕj(z)δjbδ(zy)]}=δδϕa(x)d4z{(μzϕb(z))(μzδ(zy))+μ2ϕb(z)δ(zy)λ[i=1N(ϕi(z))2][ϕb(z)δ(zy)]}=d4z{(μzδabδ(xz))(μzδ(zy))+μ2δabδ(xz)δ(zy)2λϕa(z)δ(xz)ϕb(z)δ(zy)λ[i=1N(ϕi(z))2][δabδ(xz)δ(zy)]}=d4z{δab(μzμzδ(xz))δ(zy)+μ2δabδ(xz)δ(zy)λ{[i=1N(ϕi(z))2]δab+2ϕa(z)ϕb(z)}δ(xz)δ(zy)}=δab(μyμyδ(xy))+μ2δabδ(xy)λ{[i=1N(ϕi(y))2]δab+2ϕa(y)ϕb(y)}δ(xy)

To prove , use the definition of the functional derivative as a Taylor expansion (where this whole enchalada started with in equation (11.58) in P&S):

L[ϕ(x)+ϵη(x)]=n=01n!ϵn(ddϵL[ϕ(x)+ϵη(x)])|ϵ=0