1
$\begingroup$

If I have two interacting fields

$$ \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi_1)^2 - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi_2)^2 - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi_2^2 - g^2(\phi_1^2 + \phi_2^2)^2, $$

then this lagrangian density is invariant under $\operatorname{SO}(2)$ rotations. An infinitesimal rotation produces $D\phi_j$: $D\phi_1 = -\phi_2$ and $D(\phi_2)=\phi_1$. The corresponding momenta are $\Pi^0_{\phi_1} = \partial^0\phi_1$ and $\Pi^0_{\phi_2} = \partial^0\phi_2$. Then the Noether charge is

$$ \hat{Q}_N = \int d^3x (-(\partial^0\hat{\phi_1}))\hat{\phi_2} + (\partial^0\hat{\phi_2}))\hat{\phi_1}. $$

To calculate this quantity I'm using the mode expansions:

\begin{split} \hat{\phi}_1 &= \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3/2}(2E_{\vec{p}})^{1/2}}(\hat{a}_\vec{p} e^{-ip\cdot x} + \hat{a}_\vec{p}^\dagger e^{ip\cdot x}),\\ \hat{\phi}_2 &= \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3/2}(2E_{\vec{p}})^{1/2}}(\hat{b}_\vec{p} e^{-ip\cdot x} + \hat{b}_\vec{p}^\dagger e^{ip\cdot x}), \end{split}

where $[\hat{a}_\vec{p},\hat{a}_\vec{q}^\dagger] = [\hat{b}_\vec{p},\hat{b}_\vec{q}^\dagger]=\delta(\vec{p}-\vec{q})$ and all other commutators are zero.

My question is the following. The charge operator $\hat{Q}_N$ must be the number of particles of the first field plus (or minus) the number of particles on the second field. If I substitute the mode expansions in this integral, I get combination of operators like $\hat{a}_\vec{p}\hat{b}_\vec{q}^\dagger$, but I will never get a number operator. Did I made a mistake by writing different mode operators $\hat{a}_\vec{p},\hat{b}_\vec{p}$ for the two fields? Where I am wrong in my reasoning?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ There is nothing "infinitesimal" about your infinitesimal rotation as written $\endgroup$
    – nox
    May 11, 2019 at 7:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The infinitesimal rotation (with infinitesimal parameter ε) is φ -> φ + ε D(φ) $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 18:57

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

If your Noether charge was

$$ Q = Q_1 -Q_2 \ , $$

where $Q_i$ are the particle numbers of field $\phi_i$, then a symmetry transformation on a field would be

$$ e^{i t Q} \phi_1 e^{-itQ}= e^{i t} \phi_1$$

and similarily for the $\phi_2$ field. That is not your desired transformation.

Another argument: the Noether charge maps 1-particles to 2-particles. If there would be no $ab$ terms, this would be impossible.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Then, what is the conserved charge? Because if I make the proper substitution I can work with the complex scalar field, and there I have the conserved charge as the difference in the number of particles - antiparticles. $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ Would it be possible if you give at least what $Q$ is expected for my case? $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ You calculated a charge, right? Did you check whether it gives the correct transformation behaviour? $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ The particle is not created by the real (or imaginary) part of the field though, but by the real part + i imaginary part. Following this analogy i guess you can derive your formula from what you now for the complex field. I could try doing this later. $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ I think my first question is, if I have the complex scalar field, then the Noether charge is the difference in number of particles and antiparticles. If I have the two scalar interacting scalar fields, should I expect the same Noether charge? $\endgroup$ May 13, 2019 at 16:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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