- #1
ianhoolihan
- 145
- 0
My friend and I have been getting all confused about the following problem with a Lagrangian. It comes from David Tong's online notes on QFT, but given it is about the Lagrangian, I figure it does well in this section.
Ok, Tong is talking about Noether's theorem, and using the example of space-time translation
$$x^\mu \rightarrow x^\mu - \epsilon^\mu\quad \Rightarrow \phi_a(x) \rightarrow \phi_a(x) + \epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \phi_a$$
He then says that the Lagrangian transforms the following way if it has no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence, but only depends on [itex]x[/itex] through the fields [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex]
$$\mathcal{L}(x) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(x) + \epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \mathcal{L}(x)$$
My main question is simple: what is meant by "explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence"? As far as I understand it [itex]\mathcal{L}[/itex] can be written in terms of [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex] alone (so no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence) or the formula for [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex] explicitly written out in terms of [itex]x[/itex], in which case, there is clearly explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence. Given they're the same equation, my friend and I are somewhat confused. Our current thinking is that "explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence" means that [itex]\mathfrak{L}[/itex] could not be written in terms of just [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex], but there'd be some additional [itex]x[/itex] terms floating around.
Oh, and what confused us further is that if there is no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence, then doesn't this mean that [itex]\partial_\nu \mathcal{L}(x) = 0 [/itex] in the above equation?
(On an aside note, in the above transformation, does [itex]\delta\phi_a =\epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \phi_a[/itex] or [itex]\delta\phi_a =\partial_\nu \phi_a[/itex]? Tong has used both, and it's unclear. If you know about this, could anyone provide a mathematical definition of what [itex]\delta x [/itex] quantities are in the calculus of variations, or provide some rigourous resources for finding out what they are?)
Ok, Tong is talking about Noether's theorem, and using the example of space-time translation
$$x^\mu \rightarrow x^\mu - \epsilon^\mu\quad \Rightarrow \phi_a(x) \rightarrow \phi_a(x) + \epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \phi_a$$
He then says that the Lagrangian transforms the following way if it has no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence, but only depends on [itex]x[/itex] through the fields [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex]
$$\mathcal{L}(x) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(x) + \epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \mathcal{L}(x)$$
My main question is simple: what is meant by "explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence"? As far as I understand it [itex]\mathcal{L}[/itex] can be written in terms of [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex] alone (so no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence) or the formula for [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex] explicitly written out in terms of [itex]x[/itex], in which case, there is clearly explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence. Given they're the same equation, my friend and I are somewhat confused. Our current thinking is that "explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence" means that [itex]\mathfrak{L}[/itex] could not be written in terms of just [itex]\phi_a(x)[/itex] and [itex]\dot\phi_a(x)[/itex], but there'd be some additional [itex]x[/itex] terms floating around.
Oh, and what confused us further is that if there is no explicit [itex]x[/itex] dependence, then doesn't this mean that [itex]\partial_\nu \mathcal{L}(x) = 0 [/itex] in the above equation?
(On an aside note, in the above transformation, does [itex]\delta\phi_a =\epsilon^\nu \partial_\nu \phi_a[/itex] or [itex]\delta\phi_a =\partial_\nu \phi_a[/itex]? Tong has used both, and it's unclear. If you know about this, could anyone provide a mathematical definition of what [itex]\delta x [/itex] quantities are in the calculus of variations, or provide some rigourous resources for finding out what they are?)