Lagrangian Gauge Transformation Q

  • #1
Dear All,

I'd be grateful for a bit of help with the following problems:

Consider the Lagrangian:
[tex] \displaystyle \mathcal{L} = (\partial_{\mu} \phi) (\partial^{\mu} \phi^{\dagger}) - m^2 \phi^{\dagger} \phi [/tex]
where [tex] \phi = \phi(x^{\mu}) [/tex]

Now making a U(1) gauge transformation:
[tex] \displaystyle \phi \longmapsto e^{i \Lambda(x^{\mu})} \phi [/tex]

does the Lagrangian become:

[tex] \displaystyle \mathcal{L} = (\partial_{\mu} \phi) \cdot (\partial^{\mu} \phi^{\dagger}) - m^2 \phi^{\dagger} \phi + \phi \phi^{\dagger} (\partial_{\mu} \Lambda) \cdot (\partial^{\mu} \Lambda) + i \partial_{\mu} \Lambda \cdot (\phi \partial^{\mu} \phi^{\dagger} - \phi^{\dagger} \partial^{\mu} \phi) [/tex] ?

I realise you can add in another field to counteract the gauge transformation so the Lagrangian becomes gauge invariant, but how exactly would you determine the field to "add in" by inspection?

Thanks for any replies
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
410
0
Uhm, looks right. The point of gauge invariance is that you want a gauge transformation that commutes with the derivative. In other words, if
[tex]\phi \to g \phi[/tex],
then
[tex]\partial_\mu \phi \to g \partial_\mu \phi + (\partial_\mu g) \phi[/tex]
whereas we would like covariance:
[tex]D_\mu \phi \to g D_\mu \phi[/tex]
which implies that
[tex]D_\mu \to g D_\mu g^{-1}[/tex] (the derivative now acts on everything to its right).
 
  • #3
Thanks for your reply lbrits.

That transformation: [tex] D_{\mu} \to g D_{\mu} g^{-1} [/tex]
looks suspiciously like an equivalence relation from group theory?
 
  • #4
410
0
Yes, [tex]g X g^{-1}[/tex] is group action in the adjoint representation.
 

Related Threads on Lagrangian Gauge Transformation Q

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
547
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
703
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
11K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
852
Top