Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Introduction to Gauge Symmetries: Good, Bad or Ugly?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
40 views

I'm trying to come up with a good (as in intuitive and not 'too wrong') definition of a gauge symmetry.

This is what I have right now:

A dynamical symmetry is a (differentiable) group of transformations that respects system dynamics, ie maps solutions to solutions.

A rigid symmetry is a dynamical symmetry that maps solutions to different solutions. A rigid symmetry has a Noether charge that is only conserved on-shell, ie dependent on the equations of motion.

A gauge symmetry is a dynamical symmetry that maps solutions to identical solutions up to 'parametrization' or 'gauge'; in particular, the solutions correspond to the same initial conditions and physics and only differ in their mathematical description. A gauge symmetry has a Noether charge that is conserved off-shell, ie independent of the equations of motion.

As an example, we take classical mechanics: In general, time dependence of the solutions matter as reparametrization changes velocities. However, in the relativistic case 4-velocities are constrained to 'length' $c$ and dynamics need to be independent of the particular choice of the 'unphysical' 3-velocities.

First of all, is this correct? If so, is there a better choice of wording? Should anything be added?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 01:57 (UCT), posted by SE-user Christoph
asked Dec 10, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Christoph (210 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 25, 2014
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/13870/2451 and links therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 01:57 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Actually, the second Noether theorem doesn't tell us that the Noether current associated to a local (i.e. gauge) symmetry is conserved off shell, but that it rather vanishes on shell. See the paper of M. Forger and H. Römer, "Currents and the energy-momentum tensor in classical field theory: a fresh look at an old problem", Ann. Phys. 309 (2004) 306-389, arXiv:hep-th/0307199 for a thorough discussion on this matter. Nonetheless, it has an equivalent formulation in terms of an off-shell conservation law (then called a "Noether identity") through the map taking infinitesimal local gauge parameters to infinitesimal field variations, but the conserved current in this case is not the canonical Noether current associated to the symmetry. It is only so if the equations os motion hold, in which case it vanishes. In some cases, however, this off-shell conservation law is indeed a covariant conservation law (i.e. with respect to some connection field which is natural to the theory) for an "improved" partial canonical Noether current corresponding to a "pure gauge" sector of the model. This is the case, for instance, of Yang-Mills theories minimally coupled to matter. The corresponding "covariant" conservation law in the matter sector then only holds on shell. Such a structure, however, may not be present in all models which admit local symmetries.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-25 01:57 (UCT), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
answered Dec 11, 2012 by Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro (530 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...