Lagrangian and conservations laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter spidey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Lagrangian invariance and conservation laws, particularly in the context of spontaneous symmetry breaking. It explains that while the Lagrangian can be invariant at the dynamical level, this does not guarantee that conservation laws hold in the ground state, where symmetry may be spontaneously broken. The distinction is made between the invariance of the action integral and the representation of symmetries in Hilbert space, highlighting that conserved quantities can still exist even when symmetries are not manifest. The conversation emphasizes that the action remains invariant despite the ground state exhibiting broken symmetry. Overall, the conservation laws are maintained at the dynamical level, even if they appear to be violated in specific states.
spidey
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
while studying lagrangian i got this doubt..if the lagrangian is invariant in time,space,rotation, then we have corresponding conservation laws..
In spontaneous symmetry breaking, the lagrangian is not invariant in ground state and the symmetry breaks spontaneously.so, the conserved quantity is now not conserved in ground state. so, are the conservation laws break in ground state?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
somebody please respond...or please move this to appropriate section..
 
spidey said:
while studying lagrangian i got this doubt..if the lagrangian is invariant in time,space,rotation, then we have corresponding conservation laws..
In spontaneous symmetry breaking, the lagrangian is not invariant in ground state and the symmetry breaks spontaneously.so, the conserved quantity is now not conserved in ground state. so, are the conservation laws break in ground state?

You should have posted this in QM or particles forums.
Any way, you are confusing between the two levels in which a symmetry operate. These are:

1) the dynamical level; the invariance of the action integral. This leads to a conserved (Noether) charge:

\delta \int d^{4}x \ \mathcal{L} = 0 \Rightarrow \partial_{a}J^{a}= 0 \Rightarrow \frac{d}{dt}Q = 0

2) the level of the representation of field operators and their action in the Hilbert space. At this level we ask whether the symmetry can be represented by unitary transformations generated by the above conserved charge:

U = \exp \left( i \alpha Q \right)

Here, two things can happen:

i) If U exists, i.e., Q is well-defined Hermitian operator ( say, a^{\dagger}a ), then

Q|0 \rangle \ = \ a^{\dagger}a |0 \rangle = 0

and the symmetry is said to be manifest.

ii) If U does not exist; Q is ill-defind operator, then

Q|0 \rangle \neq 0

and the symmetry is said to be spontaneously broken (hidden). This does not mean that Q depends on the time. The action is invariant even when the ground state is not.

Spontaneous breakdown of symmetry is the lack of degenercy in particle spectra in a SYMMETRIC theory. Or in the language of QFT, it is the breakdown of symmetry at the representation level, not at the dynamical level ( the action is invariant and Q is conserved).

To see that Q is conserved even when the symmetry is hidden, let us consider the theory

\mathcal{L} =(1/2) \partial_{a} \phi \partial^{a} \phi

which is invariant under field translation

\bar{\phi} = \phi + \chi

The corresponding conserved charge is given by

Q = \int d^{3}x \ \partial_{0} \phi (x)

This invariance, however, can not be unitarily represented in Hilbert space; for if we write

\bar{\phi} = \phi + \chi = U(\chi) \phi U^{-1}(\chi )

with

U = \exp \left( i \chi Q \right), \ \ Q = Q^{\dagger} = a^{\dagger}a

i.e., if we assume that the ground state is invariant U |0 \rangle = |0 \rangle, then

\langle 0 |\bar{\phi} |0 \rangle = \langle 0|\phi |0 \rangle + \chi = \langle 0|\phi |0 \rangle

Or, since \langle \phi \rangle = 0,

\langle \bar{\phi} \rangle = \chi = 0

but this can not be right because \chi is arbitrary. Thus the symmetry can not be represented by unitary operator (constructed from the conserved Q) on Hilbert space, i.e., the symmetry of the action is not a symmetry of the ground state.

regards

sam
 
Last edited:
thanks mate for the reply..
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top