0
$\begingroup$

This question is about understanding the basic ideas behind gauge transformations as I am fairly new to this!

I learned that the Hamiltonian is invariant under global U(1) gauge transformations $\Psi\rightarrow e^{i\lambda}\Psi$, which makes sense, as the phase factors just cancel out on both sites of the Schrödinger equation:

$\hat{H}e^{i\lambda}\Psi=Ee^{i\lambda}\Psi$

Now, am I save to say that the Hamiltonian is, quite generally, not invariant under local U(1) gauge transformations $\Psi\rightarrow e^{i\lambda(x)}\Psi$ (just looking at one spatial dimension for simplicity)? My thinking is that the derivatives from the Hamiltonian act on $\lambda(x)$ like

$\partial_x (\partial_x e^{i\lambda(x)})=i\lambda''e^{i\lambda(x)}-(\lambda')^2 e^{i\lambda(x)}$

which is responsible for the invariance.

Is that correct or did I get the whole concept of gauge transformations wrong and the Hamiltonian is, in fact, invariant under both local and global U(1) gauge transformations?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is "the Hamiltonian" here? Whether or not your Hamiltonian is gauge invariant depends on what Hamiltonian it is! $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jan 19 '16 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind As far as I know it is not uncommon to use the term "global gauge invariance" for the fact, that the state is only defined up to a phase. And this property is fulfilled for all Hamiltonians (simply because they are linear operators). $\endgroup$ – Sebastian Riese Jan 20 '16 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @SebastianRiese: I've never heard that usage - gauge invariance, to me, is decidedly distinct from the fact that a "state" is a complex ray in a Hilbert space. "Gauge invariance" is the statement that different rays have to be physically identified because they are related by a gauge transformation. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jan 21 '16 at 2:25
4
$\begingroup$

Yes, you missed the whole point of gauge invariance which clearly has to be a symmetry – the Hamiltonian has to be and is invariant under these transformations. In the case of a global symmetry, a Hamiltonian may afford "not to be symmetric" under it. But once a group of transformations is said to be a gauge symmetry, the failure of $H$ to be invariant would mean that the theory is mathematically inconsistent.

Your calculation of the second derivative of the exponential is also incorrect, the second term should have $(\lambda')^2$, not the factor with double primes. The Hamiltonians of gauge theories are invariant – but the extra terms from the transformation of the gauge fields $A_\mu = (\varphi,\vec A)$ are needed to cancel the terms with $\lambda'$ and $\lambda''$ that you noticed. But they do so. That's why the gauge fields have to exist in gauge invariant theories.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Also, I corrected the mistake you pointed out. $\endgroup$ – AlphaOmega Jan 19 '16 at 15:54

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.