3
$\begingroup$

What is the physical constraint that gauge invariance is a required condition for electromagnetic fields? What would happen if the electromagnetic fields were not gauge invariant?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If the fields did not have a $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, then the conserved Noether charge associated to the global version of the symmetry would not be conserved. $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 17 '14 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Is possible to expand on the topic of conserved Noether charge? $\endgroup$ – linuxfreebird Mar 17 '14 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/90119 $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 17 '14 at 14:42
3
$\begingroup$

By disposing of the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, we also dispose of the global version of the $U(1)$ symmetry which gives rise to both a conserved current and conserved charge due to Noether's theorem.

Specifically, every continuous global symmetry, by Noether's theorem, gives rise to a conserved current $j^{\mu}$ which satisfies the continuity equation,

$$\partial_\mu j^{\mu} = \frac{\partial j^{0}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot \vec{j} = 0.$$

The conserved Noether charge is defined as,

$$Q = \int_V d^3 x \, \, j^{0},$$

and by demanding $\partial_t Q = 0$, we see this implies,

$$\frac{\partial Q}{\partial t} = -\int_V d^3x \, \, \nabla \cdot \vec{j} = -\int_{\partial V} \vec{j} \cdot ndS = 0,$$

or in other words the flux of $\vec{j}$ is zero, and hence $Q$ is conserved locally. By losing $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, we lose a redundancy in the description of the system, but also a conservation law.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Good answer. Where does the broken gauge invariance come into the math? Do we have to start with the Lagrangian? $\endgroup$ – linuxfreebird Mar 17 '14 at 14:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you want to break gauge invariance, you need to add a term to the Lagrangian, e.g. a mass term. The reason we need the Higgs mechanism in the standard model for certain fields is because we can't add a mass term that preserves symmetries for those fields. $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 17 '14 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ Whoa, the higgs field breaks charge conservation? $\endgroup$ – linuxfreebird Mar 17 '14 at 14:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, certainly not. We introduce the Higgs field to avoid introducing mass terms which break symmetries, in a nutshell $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 17 '14 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ It should be noted many symmetries are actually spontaneously (not explicitly) broken in Nature, for example $SU(2) \times U(1)_{L} \to U(1)_{EM}$. $\endgroup$ – JamalS Mar 17 '14 at 14:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.