2
$\begingroup$

In Noether's theorem you want to be able to say that the functional

$$J[x,y,z] = \smallint_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathcal{L}(t,x,y,z,x',y',z')dt$$

is invariant with respect to a continuous one-parameter group of transformations of the form

$$T(t,x,y,z,\varepsilon) = (t^*(\varepsilon),x^*(\varepsilon),y^*(\varepsilon),z^*(\varepsilon)) = (t,x\cos(\varepsilon)+y\sin(\varepsilon),-x\cos(\varepsilon)+y\sin(\varepsilon),z)$$

(in the case of conservation of angular momentum).

How would I say this in mathematical notation rigorously? Is there a nice way to talk about one-parameter groups acting on functionals? For clarity I see $J$ as a function on a function space, something like

$$J : \mathcal{C}^1[a,b] \times \mathcal{C}^1[a,b] \times \mathcal{C}^1[a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \| \ (x,y,z) \mapsto J[x,y,z]$$

& the one-parameter group of transformations as a map of the form

$$T : \mathbb{R}^4 \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3 | (t,x,y,z,\varepsilon) \mapsto T(t,x,y,z,\varepsilon) = (t^*,x^*,y^*,z^*)$$

Thus as it stands I'm kind of going on intuition when I form $J[x^*,y^*,z^*]$, the notation has gaps which intuition plugs but I'm sure there's a nicer & more consistent/cogent way to do all this!

I'm hoping there's something like $J[\vec{r}] = J[x,y,z]$ implying $J[T(\vec{r})] = J[\vec{r}]$, though obviously that is massively flawed, how would I say the next best thing rigorously? If something like group actions applies would you mind being a bit explicit as I see things like this being mentioned & no notation is offered to justify it & I get lost, thanks!

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Firstly I think you should give yourself more credit; nothing you have said is "massively flawed" in my opinion. You remark that

If something like group actions applies would you mind being a bit explicit

This is quite on-point! Often the one-parameter groups of transformations considered in physics can, in fact, be considered a particular kind of group action, a so-called flow. A flow $\phi$ on a set $X$ is an action of the additive group of real numbers $\mathbb R$ acting on $X$. In other words, $\phi$ is a mapping $\mathbb R\times X\to X$ satisfying the following properties: \begin{align} \phi_0 = \mathrm{id}_X, \qquad \phi_t\circ\phi_s = \phi_{t+s} \end{align} where $\mathrm{id}_X$ is the identity on $X$. Here, and later in the response, I'll be using the notation that the $\mathbb R$ argument of the flow is written as the subscript of $\phi$, so for some $(t,x)\in \mathbb R\times X$, we would write $\phi_t(x)$.

In the context of Noether's theorem, we deform parameterized curves of the form $\mathbf \gamma :[t_a, t_b]\to Q$, where $Q$ is the configuration manifold of the system, and we investigate how this affects the action.

To put this in the language of flows, we suppose that $\mathscr C$ denotes the set of all such curves that we wish to consider (there are usually some tacit continuity and/or smoothness assumptions etc.), and we investigate flows $\phi$ on $\mathscr C$. The notation would therefore look like $\phi_\epsilon(\gamma)$; this would represent the curve $\gamma$ "flowed" under $\phi$ by an amount $\epsilon$. I am using $\epsilon$ here instead of $t$ as a generic flow parameter so as to not confuse it with time. The flow $\phi$ then induces a one-parameter transformation on any action functional $J:\mathscr C\to \mathbb R$ as follows: \begin{align} J_{\phi_\epsilon}[\gamma] = J[\phi_\epsilon(\gamma)]. \end{align} We then say that the action $J$ is invariant under the flow $\phi$ provided \begin{align} J_{\phi_\epsilon} = J \end{align} for all $\epsilon\in \mathbb R$. In practice, note that the flow may only be defined for some open interval on the reals, and in this case it is called a local flow, but he gist of everything remains the same.

$\endgroup$

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.