In Polchinski's string theory volume 1, at chap 1.2, after equation 1.2.22, he says $$\nabla_{a}T^{ab}=0$$ as a consequence of diffeomorphism invariance.

But I cannot derive it. My derivation is as follows:

Under the reparametrization:${\sigma^{a}}'=\sigma^a+\epsilon^a$ $$\delta X^\mu=X'^\mu(\tau',\sigma')-X^{\mu}(\tau',\sigma')=-\epsilon^a \partial_{a}X^\mu$$

$$\delta \gamma_{ab}=\gamma'_{a,b}(\tau',\sigma')-\gamma_{ab}(\tau ', \sigma')=-\nabla_{a}\epsilon_b-\nabla_b \epsilon_a$$ Since this is a symmetry, it leave the action invariant up to a total derivative. But in this case, if we choose $\epsilon=0$ at the boundary of the worldsheet, the action is invariant: $$\delta S=0$$

Thus we have: $$\delta S=\frac{\delta S}{\delta{\gamma_{ab}}}\delta \gamma_{ab}+\frac{\delta S}{\delta X^{\mu}}\delta X^{\mu}=0$$

By definition:

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta \gamma_{ab}}=-\frac{1}{4\pi}(-\gamma)^{1/2}T^{ab}$$

Thus we have

$$\int d^2 \sigma (\frac{1}{4\pi}(-\gamma)^{1/2}T^{ab}(\nabla_a \epsilon_b+\nabla_b \epsilon_a)+\frac{\delta S}{\delta X^\mu}\delta X^\mu)=0$$

In order to have $\nabla_a T^{ab}=0$, we need to have $\frac{\delta S}{\delta X^\mu}=0$, which can be obtained by imposing the the equation of motion of $X^{\mu}$.There is no wrong in imposing the equation of motion to get conserved currents.

But my confusion is that if we have to impose the equation of motion of $X^\mu$ to get $\nabla_a T^{ab}=0$, why we can't use equation of $\gamma_{ab}$ ,namely $T_{ab}=0$ to get the conclusion. Why bother using eom of $X^{\mu}$?

I will appreciate that if someone can help check my argument to point out my mistake or explain the reason.

  • $\begingroup$ There is a Noether current associated with the world-sheet translation $\delta\sigma^a=\epsilon v^a$, given by $j_a=iv^bT_{ab}$. Since the translation is a symmetry for any $v^a$, this current is conserved, and so is the energy-momentum tensor. Have a look at the end of section 2.3, and at exercise 2.5. $\endgroup$ – Haz Jul 7 '15 at 6:22
  • $\begingroup$ I probably misunderstood something, but, yes, if you have $T_{ab} = 0$ everywhere this implies $\nabla_a T^{ab} = 0$. The point is that diffeomorphism invariance guarantees that the divergence of $T_{ab}$ is $0$ even when $T_{ab}$ itself is not. $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Cozzella Jul 7 '15 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ I think these are two different problem. In exercise2.5, and at the end of sec 2.3,the symmetry is a global symmetry, we removed the metric using the diffeomorphism and weyl rescaling. But my problem concerns with diffeomorphism invariance,which is a local symmetry. $\endgroup$ – xjtan Jul 7 '15 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/175186/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 11 '15 at 23:04

Details have to be filled in, but I think the general idea went along these lines: the variation of the action with respect to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is given by $$ \delta_gS \sim \int T^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\,. $$ Now specialize to particular variations of $g_{\mu\nu}$, the diffeomorphisms. For an infinitesimal diffeomorphism of the form $x^\mu\to x^\mu+\xi^\mu(x)$ the variation of the metric is given by the Lie-derivative: $$ \delta_\xi g_{\mu\nu} = \mathcal L_\xi g_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_\mu\xi_\nu + \nabla_\nu\xi_\mu\,. $$ Stick this into the first expression and use $T_{\mu\nu}=T_{\nu\mu}$ to get $$ \delta S \sim \int T^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu\xi_\nu $$ Integrate by parts and discard the surface term to get $\nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu}=0$.

See http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr5.pdf for details.


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.