(Cf. Di Francesco et al, Conformal Field Theory, pp. 40-41) I am trying to derive eqn. (2.142) or

$$\delta S = \int d^d x ~\omega_a~\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}_a \tag{2.142}$$

in the book CFT by Di Francesco et al. I have obtained the final expression

$$\delta S = \int d^d x\,\partial_{\mu} \omega_a \left[\frac{\delta F}{\delta \omega_a} \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)} - \frac{\delta x^{\nu}}{\delta \omega_a}\partial_{\nu}\Phi \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)} + \frac{\delta x^{\mu}}{\delta \omega_a}L\right] +$$ $$ \omega_a\left[ \frac{\delta F}{\delta \omega_a}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Phi} + (\partial_{\mu}\frac{\delta F}{\delta \omega_a})\frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)} - \partial_{\mu} (\frac{\delta x^{\nu}}{\delta \omega_a})\partial_{\nu}\Phi \frac{\partial L}{\partial(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)} + \partial_{\mu} (\frac{\delta x^{\mu}}{\delta \omega_a})L\right]\tag{A}$$

and indeed the terms multiplying $\partial_{\mu}\omega_a$ there are exactly $j^{\mu}$ as obtained in eqn. (2.141). The problem I am having is that the terms multiplying $\omega_a$ don't appear to vanish. (The first two do as a consequence of the classical equations of motion but the last two do not)

The method Di Francesco employs is to assume a position dependent parameter $\omega = \omega(x)$, then make it constant at the very end.

So, if we make $\omega$ independent of position at the end (i.e impose the rigid transformation), then $$\partial_{\mu}\omega_a = 0\tag{B}$$ identically. In which case, we are left with $$\omega_a\int d^dx [..] = 0,\tag{C}$$ by further considering a symmetry transformation, where [..] are the terms multiplying $\omega$ in the expression above.

So I am not sure how Di Francesco is left with

$$ \delta S~=~-\int d^d x~ j^{\mu}_a ~\partial_{\mu} \omega_a \tag{2.140}.$$

The paragraph preceding eqn. (2.140) seems to be contradictory to me (in particular the first and last sentence) and if indeed he is imposing a rigid transformation then shouldn't $\partial_{\mu}\omega_a = 0$ be zero in (2.140)?


From $$\delta S = \int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x \,\partial_{\mu} \omega_a [\dots]_1 + \int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x \,\omega_a [\dots]_2 \overset{!}{=} 0,$$ we deduce that for a global variation of the symmetry transformation parameters $\omega$'s $$\omega_a \int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x \,[\dots]_2 = 0.$$ By arbitrariness of the domain of integration $\mathcal D$, it follows $[\dots]_2 = 0$ identically.

Now consider a local variation $\omega_a = \omega_a(x)$. Then from the demand that $\delta S=0$, $$\int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x\, (\partial_{\mu} \omega_a [\dots]_1 + \omega_a [\dots]_2) = 0.$$

The important point is that as $[\dots]_2$ is independent of the $\omega$'s and we inferred the vanishing of this coefficient by restricting to the global symmetry, we deduce now too that $$\int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x\, \partial_{\mu} \omega_a [\dots]_1 \overset{!}{=} 0 \overset{!}{=} \int_{\mathcal D} \text{d}^d x\, \omega_a \partial_{\mu} j^{\mu}, $$ where in the latter equality we integrated by parts, simplified the result on the physical assumption that the fields $\Phi$ and their derivatives vanish at spacetime infinity and made the identification $[\dots]_1 \equiv j^{\mu}$. The $\omega$ independence of the coefficient is only clear after following Di Francesco's notation, naively it seems otherwise.

As $\mathcal D$ and the $\omega$'s are without further restriction, we obtain $$\partial_{\mu} j^{\mu} = 0.$$

  • $\begingroup$ I don't think it is valid to assume that $\delta S=0$ for any domain $\mathcal D$. For example consider a free scalar field theory, which is translation invariant. Take $\mathcal D$ to be some compact domain and consider a field configuration $\phi(x)$ localized in this domain. Then $S[\phi]\neq 0$, but if we translate the field $\phi\rightarrow\phi'$ so that the support of $\phi'$ is now completely disjoint from $\mathcal D$ then $S[\phi']=0$, and hence $\delta S\neq 0$. $\endgroup$ – Petar Simidzija Nov 21 '20 at 1:23
  1. OP writes:

    The problem I am having is that the terms [in eq. (A)] multiplying $\omega_a$ don't appear to vanish.

    Let's call term in eq. (A) that multiplies $\omega_a$ for $k^a$. The term $k^a$ vanishes$^1$ off-shell $$ k^a~=~0 \tag{K}$$ because of the main assumption in Noether's theorem: The action has a global (i.e. $x$-independent) symmetry.$^2$

  2. Eq. (K), OP's eq. (A), and the definition (2.141) of $j^{\mu}_a$ then together imply that the eq. (2.140) holds off-shell for any $x$-dependent $\omega^a(x)$.

  3. Finally integrate eq. (2.140) by parts to deduce the sought-for eq. (2.142).


$^1$ If we allow boundary terms, the term $k^a$ could contain total divergence terms. See also this related Phys.SE post.

$^2$ By a symmetry is meant an off-shell symmetry. An on-shell symmetry is a vacuous notion.


I came up with this idea: Suppose $\omega_a$ is independent of $x_\mu$, then

\begin{align} 0 = \delta S &= \int d^d x (\omega_a \text{ term}) + (\partial_\mu\omega_a \text{ term}) \\ &= \int d^d x (\omega_a \text{ term}) \end{align}

So $$ \int d^d x (\omega_a \text{ term} ) = 0$$

Then we can safely say $$ \delta S = \int d^d x (\partial_\mu \omega_a\text{ term}) $$ For rigid transformation ($\partial_\mu \omega_a =0$).

(Actually I am unsure of this. Just a thought ...)


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.