# Symmetry Condition in Noether's Theorem

Suppose $$q = \{q_1,\cdots, q_i\}$$ is a coordinate system for Lagrangian $$L(q,\dot{q},t)$$. In this text by David Morin, on page 16 in chapter 6, it states that a symmetry is a transformation of the Lagrangian coordinates, $$q'_i = q_i + \varepsilon\cdot K_i(q)$$, $$\varepsilon$$ small and where $$K_i(q)$$ is a function on the set $$q$$, that does not lead to a first-order change in the Lagrangian.

It later stated that not having a first-order change in the Lagrangian means that $$\frac{dL}{d \varepsilon}=\sum_{i}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}\frac{\partial q_i}{\partial \varepsilon} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q_i}\frac{\partial \dot q_i}{\partial \varepsilon} \right) = 0.\tag{6.59}$$

Is an equivalent condition for symmetry given by requiring the Taylor expansion of $$L(q',\dot{q}')$$ about $$L(q,\dot{q})$$ to lack first order terms in $$\varepsilon$$? This comes from thinking that $$L(q',\dot{q}')$$ can be written as

$$L(q',\dot{q}') = L(q,\dot{q}) + \frac{dL}{d\varepsilon}\varepsilon + O(\varepsilon^2),$$

which would show that the two are equivalent, but I feel like I'm glossing over some details.

I don't think there is the statement that $$K_i(q)$$ has to be linear in $$q$$. This is certainly in a lot of examples. The simplest is a translation symmetry $$q'=q+\epsilon$$.
Going to your question though, this is certainly equivalent to asking that the Taylor expansion of $$L$$ around $$q$$ has no first order in $$\varepsilon$$. However, your Taylor expansion of the Lagrangian is wrong. It is simply $$L(q')=L(q)+ \epsilon\frac{\text{d}L}{\text{d}\epsilon}+\mathcal O(\epsilon^2)$$.
• Thank you for your answer. I think I was confused by the Taylor series expansion of L(q'). My intuition was to expand $L$ like a multivariable function. However, in this case, we are only varying a single variable - $\epsilon$. I suppose that is why the given Taylor expansion is only in terms of $\epsilon$. Aug 7, 2020 at 23:05
• Yes, we are indeed doing an expansion over a single variable. Mind you though that we can use the chain rule on $dL/d\varepsilon$ to recover the expression at the beginning of the question Aug 8, 2020 at 3:29