1
$\begingroup$

1) Free scalar field

Let me start with simple illustration, how charge constructed from current and how charge acts:

$$ S = \int d^dx\; \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi $$

We have obvious global symmetry: $\phi \to \phi + \alpha$. Conserved current from Nether procedure:

$$ J^\mu = \partial^\mu \phi $$

We can construct the charge by integration over space: $$ Q (t) = \int d^{d-1}x \; J^0 (t, x) $$

Using canonical commutation relations: $$ [\phi(t,x), \dot{\phi}(t,y)] = i\delta(x-y) $$

We immediately obtain: $$ [Q(t), \phi(t,x)] = -i $$ And for action on any operator: $$ [e^{i\alpha Q(t)}, \mathcal{O}(\phi(x))] = \mathcal{O}(\phi(x)+\alpha) $$

2) Interacting scalar field in 3d

Now let's turn to question.

$$ S = \int d^3x\; \left(\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + V(\phi)\right) $$

We have 1-form symmetry: $$ J_{\mu\nu} = \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho}\partial^\rho \phi $$

We can now integrate this current over 2d surface and simple obtain the same result as before, due to:

$$ J_{12} = \partial^0 \phi $$ And next all steps as in 1):

$$ Q = \int d^2x \,J_{12}(x) $$ $$ [e^{i\alpha Q(t)}, \mathcal{O}(\phi(x))] = \mathcal{O}(\phi(x)+\alpha) $$

But, action haven't such symmetry!!

  1. I am only in starting point of understanding higher-form symmetry, so for me this looks contradictory.

Are my calculations and logic right?

  1. Also in Generalized Global Symmetries exist statement that such operators acts on string-like objects. Could somebody clarify this?

This also related to One-form current in 3d QED .

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ The action does have that symmetry, but it is non-locally realised. If you dualise $\phi$ to $\varphi$ given by $d\phi=\star d\varphi$ you'll see it. Also this symmetry is topological because the current is conserved because of $d^2=0$ and not due to the dynamics. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ And yes the objects are string-like objects. In fact the charged stuff under this symmetry are vortices (which in 3d are strings). Which in turn implies that your commutator equation is incorrect because it has to be a commutator with something supported on a line, not at a point. These local operators that you wrote slip away $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please correct my formulas in answer? $\endgroup$
    – Nikita
    Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ No because first I'm not good with commutators (I'm always thinking in path integrals) and second almost surely my answer won't satisfy you, and you will start an endless conversation in the comments as always. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ @st.vit, action of operators may be defined through path integral? $\endgroup$
    – Nikita
    Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 16:53

0

Your Answer

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