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?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There is nothing "infinitesimal" about your infinitesimal rotation as written $\endgroup$ – lux May 11 '19 at 7:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The infinitesimal rotation (with infinitesimal parameter ε) is φ -> φ + ε D(φ) $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer May 11 '19 at 18:57
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.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user2820579 May 11 '19 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ Would it be possible if you give at least what $Q$ is expected for my case? $\endgroup$ – user2820579 May 11 '19 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ You calculated a charge, right? Did you check whether it gives the correct transformation behaviour? $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer May 11 '19 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. $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer May 11 '19 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? $\endgroup$ – user2820579 May 13 '19 at 16:09

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.