Jacobian in path integral equal to one?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 3K views
geoduck
Messages
257
Reaction score
2
Consider:

[tex]\int d\phi e^{iS[\phi]}=\int d\phi' J e^{iS'[\phi']}[/tex]

where J is the Jacobian. If the transformation of variables to phi' is a symmetry of the action [i.e., S'=S], then this becomes:

[tex]\int d\phi e^{iS[\phi]}=\int d\phi' J e^{iS[\phi']}[/tex]

But doesn't this imply that the Jacobian has to equal one?

But surely that doesn't have to be true in general? If the action has a symmetry, and you perform the change of coordinates corresponding to the symmetry transformation, then does the Jacobian of that transformation have to equal one?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you miss that, in general, [itex]\mathrm{d} \phi \neq \mathrm{d} \phi'[/itex].

For a simple example, consider [itex]S=\frac{1}{2}\phi^2[/itex]. Obviously, this is invariant under the inversion [itex]\phi \rightarrow \phi'=-\phi[/itex], for which [itex]\mathrm{d}\phi'=-\mathrm{d}\phi[/itex] and [itex]J=\frac{\partial \phi'}{\partial \phi}=-1[/itex].
 
Hypersphere said:
I think you miss that, in general, [itex]\mathrm{d} \phi \neq \mathrm{d} \phi'[/itex].

For a simple example, consider [itex]S=\frac{1}{2}\phi^2[/itex]. Obviously, this is invariant under the inversion [itex]\phi \rightarrow \phi'=-\phi[/itex], for which [itex]\mathrm{d}\phi'=-\mathrm{d}\phi[/itex] and [itex]J=\frac{\partial \phi'}{\partial \phi}=-1[/itex].

The Jacobian should take care of differences in measure, so what happens to

∫ e-x^2 dx from -∞ to ∞

under y=-x is:

∫ e-y^2 dx/dy dy from ∞ to -∞

which equals ∫ e-y^2 (-1) dy from ∞ to -∞

so it's the change of the order of the limits in the integration that allows the Jacobian to not have to be equal to 1.

Maybe a stronger statement is true: If the limits in an integration are unchanged by a transformation, then the Jacobian must equal one?
 
geoduck said:
so it's the change of the order of the limits in the integration that allows the Jacobian to not have to be equal to 1.

I guess that is the more common way of putting it, yeah.

Maybe a stronger statement is true: If the limits in an integration are unchanged by a transformation, then the Jacobian must equal one?

I don't have an explicit example, but couldn't we have a local transformation [itex]y=f(x)[/itex] that doesn't change the endpoints (i.e. limits) and [itex]J=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} \not\equiv 1[/itex]?

I think your statement should hold for linear functions [itex]f(x)[/itex] though.