2
$\begingroup$

For my field theory class I have the following Lagrangian density

$$\mathscr{L}=\frac{1}{2}\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi^*\partial_\nu\phi-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^*\phi$$

Where $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ is the metric tensor (+--- convention) and * denotes complex conjugation. The Lagrangian is invariant under $\phi\rightarrow e^{i\alpha}\phi$ and if we thus let $\alpha$ be of infinitesimal size then we have the following expansion of the transformation $\phi\rightarrow \phi + i\alpha\phi$. From Noether's theorem I know that the conserved currents for s parametric symmetry transformations is given by

$$J^k_n=-\frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial(\partial_k\phi_I)}(\Phi_{I,n}-\partial_m\phi_I X^m_n)-\mathscr{L}X^k_n,$$

and $n=1,...,s$, for a transformation

$$x^i\rightarrow x'^i= x^i+\delta x^i, \;\;\;i=1,...,d,$$

$$\phi_I(x)\rightarrow \phi_I'(x')=\phi_I(x)+\delta\phi_I(x).$$

With $\phi_I$ being the fields in $\mathscr{L}$. Where $X$ and $\Phi$ are given by the following way

$$\delta x^i=\sum_{1\leq n\leq s}X^i_n\delta\omega_n, \;\;\;\;\;\; \delta\phi_I(x)=\sum_{1\leq n\leq s}\Phi_{I,n}\delta\omega_n$$

Now in the above Lagrangian density we have that $\delta\omega=i\alpha$, $X^i=0$ and $\Phi=\phi$. Now when I try to calculate the conserved current I kind of get stuck here

$$J^k=-\frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial(\partial_k\phi)}\phi=-\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\partial(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi^*)}{\partial(\partial_k\phi)}\partial_\nu\phi+\partial_\mu\phi^*\frac{\partial(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu\phi)}{\partial(\partial_k\phi)}\right]\phi$$

Which according to my professor should equal $\frac{1}{2}(\partial^k\phi\phi^*-\partial^k\phi^*\phi)$. I have no idea how he arrives at that result from my above $J^k$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Assuming no quantum gravity, $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ is a constant and can be pulled out of the derivative and what remains looks like a $\delta^k_{\mu}$ or $\delta^k_{\nu}$-type expression (in the sense of a Kronecker $\delta$), pulling the $k$ into the $\partial^\mu$ or $\partial^\nu$ respectively.

If you are confused about where the minus sign comes from, I believe the correct way to think about this is to think about the variable $\partial_\mu \phi^*$ as being formally independent from $\partial_\mu \phi$. This means that you need to add derivatives for Noether's theorem to be happy. So you only have half of the expression; if we instead start with:

$$ \delta\mathscr{L} = \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi} \delta \phi + \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi^*} \delta \phi^* + \eta^{\mu\nu} \left( \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \partial_\nu \delta \phi + \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi^*)} \partial_\nu \delta \phi^* \right)$$

Using the Euler equations the left two terms are derivatives of the Lagrangian which combine into a total derivative, giving a current

$$ \delta \mathscr{L} ~\propto~ \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi)} \delta \phi + \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial (\partial_\mu \phi^*)} \delta \phi^*$$

and if your variation $\delta\phi$ is pure-imaginary, then we'll get a $-$ sign between these two expressions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes you're right, I put them in the derivative to easier hold track of which upper/subscripts are replaced. I have the most trouble proving that the term $\frac{\partial(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi^*)}{\partial(\partial_k\phi)}\partial_\nu\phi\phi=-\partial^k\phi\phi^*$. $\endgroup$ – Gehaktmolen Mar 3 '15 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Gehaktmolen Given that you have this more-specific problem, I have updated my answer to indicate where I think it comes from. I don't know your professor's exact formalism but you should be able to use those techniques to make the minus sign appear. $\endgroup$ – CR Drost Mar 3 '15 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I do believe that I understand what you mean, in my case by treating them as seperate fields would mean that instead of choosing $\Phi=\phi$ I have that $\Phi_1=\phi$ and $\Phi_2=-\phi^*$. Which would give me $J^k=-\frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial(\partial_k\phi)}\phi+\frac{\partial\mathscr{L}}{\partial(\partial_k\phi^*)}\phi^*$. Is this right? $\endgroup$ – Gehaktmolen Mar 3 '15 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think so, yes. $\endgroup$ – CR Drost Mar 3 '15 at 22:55

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.