Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lie derivatives of Quantum Fields

  1. Aug 13, 2011 #1
    Hello, this question will essentially concern quantum field theory in curved spacetime, and it has two parts to it.

    I have recently acquired DeWitt's treatment of the formalism, which immediately discusses the role of killing vectors in the theory. Specifically, given a killing vector field K^a (forgive me, I am still learning LaTex), we may form a 'generalized momentum' given by:

    P = integral (Tab K^a dΣ^b) [1]

    Where Tab is the stress energy tensor, and dΣ^b is the volume form corresponding to a cauchy hypersurface.

    The book continues, explaining that this P has the following effect on the fields:

    [Φ, P] = L_p (Φ) [2]

    Where L_p denotes the Lie derivative with respect to P.

    Now, the questions are as follows:

    1. I can see a possible way for [2] to be true, following from the definition of a Lie derivative in General Relativity (i.e. given vector fields X and Y, [X, Y] = L_x(Y) ), but the Φ is not a vector field (in the GR sense), but a 'scalar' quantum operator on the Fock space. Moreover, P is scalar (perhaps it is also an operator?), and thus liable to the same concern.

    2. Making the substitution [1] for P in [2], I cannot seem to extrude the right hand side of [2]. My main issue in this is that I want to discern precisely how important the killing vector field is. Or, is it possible to construct arbitrarily a scalar operator (e.g. Q), and use this on another scalar (as [Φ, Q] = L_q(Φ) )? Could I use it on a vector operator. etc? And, more importantly, how exactly do I go about calculating the Lie derivative of these quantum fields? There is a lovely formula (abstract, and index based) in General Relativity - what is it in QFT?

    Thank you in advance.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 13, 2011 #2
    What book are you reading?

    I think that these operators P and [itex]\phi[/itex] must be vectors in some space. But obviously not space-time. Possibly they are vectors in Hilbert space??? In that case the Lie derivative is well defined.
  4. Aug 13, 2011 #3
    I am reading http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370157375900514 (as I downloaded it via ebookee, I was inclined to think it was a book - my apologies). I have seen this elsewhere in the literature, however.

    Undoubtedly, Φ is an operator in a Hilbert Space (the Fock space, to be precise) - so perhaps we are considering the Lie Derivative there. Nonetheless, the fact is that the original killing field, which is used to find P, is a spacetime vector.

    Of course, as Tab, semi-classically, depends on the fields Φ's, then I can see that P does as well. Thus, we can take the commutator, expanding using the properties of the commutator and the canonical commutation relations from QFT, between P and Φ.

    Nonetheless, I am uncertain as to how this would constitute a Lie Derivative (in fact, I had not considered Lie Derivatives in Hilbert Spaces). Explanation here would be appreciated.
  5. Aug 13, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If the configuration variables are transformed according to
    [tex]x^{a}\rightarrow x^{a} + g_{A}k^{aA}, \ \ (1)[/tex]
    with A is a multi-index taking values in the set [itex]\{\emptyset , \{a\},\{ab\}, …\}[/itex], local field operators will be subject to a unitary transformations
    [tex]\bar{\Phi}(x) = U^{-1}(g) \Phi (x) U(g), \ \ (2)[/tex]
    If eq(1) leaves the action integral unchanged, Noether theorem provides us with time-independent “charge” of the form
    [tex]Q^{A} = \int d \sigma^{a} T_{ab}k^{bA}[/tex]
    Using the fundamental Poisson brackets or the equal time commutation relations, one can prove the following properties for Q
    1) [itex]Q^{A}[/itex] is covariant with respect to the index A.
    2) [itex]Q^{A}[/itex] satisfies the Lie algebra of the group in question.
    3) [itex]Q^{A}[/itex] generates the correct unitary transformation on local fields: If we write
    [tex]U(g) = \exp (ig_{A}Q^{A}),[/tex]
    the infinitesimal form of eq(2) becomes
    [tex]\bar{\Phi}(x) - \Phi (x) = g_{A}[iQ^{A}, \Phi (x)][/tex]
    The left hand side of this equation is the change in the functional form of [itex]\Phi (x)[/itex] evaluated at two points [itex]\bar{P}[/itex] and [itex]P[/itex] having the same coordinate value [itex]x^{a}[/itex]. This, essentially, is the Lie derivative
    [tex]g_{A}\mathcal{L}^{A}\Phi (x) \equiv \delta \Phi (x) = g_{A}[iQ^{A}, \Phi (x)][/tex]
  6. Aug 13, 2011 #5
    Thank you for that gracious exposition, samalkhaiat, you were wonderfully clear.

    However, I do have three questions:

    1. Given two killing vectors (e.g. X and Y), their commutator is also a Killing Vector. Accordingly, the killing vectors with Lie bracket form a Lie subalgebra of vector fields on the manifold M. If M is complete, this corresponds to the Lie algebra of the isometry group on M. With this in mind, I was wondering if there was any relation between this isometry group and the symmetry group corresponding to transformations of the fields.

    2. I am able to come up with a rather 'hand-waving' argument in which the form of the time-independant charge is arrived at (where Tab is calculated from functional derivatives of the Lagrangian), but as a reference I would appreciate a more complete derivation. Could you direct me to (or supply me with) one?

    3. This is a topic which is quite fascinating to me, and I would like to know more about it. As per your statement regarding the proofs for the mentioned properties, I can again conceive of some rather 'hand-waving' arguments that they are correct, though higher levels of rigor escape me. Could you direct to some text/lecture notes that would elaborate on this subject?
  7. Aug 14, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is the same group. The local fields form a representation of the (space-time) symmetry group of M, i.e., they transform by finite dimensional matrix representation of symmetry group. That is to say that eq(2) should be understood as
    [tex]U^{-1}(g)\Phi_{s}(x)U(g) = D_{s}{}^{r}\Phi_{r}(x^{a} – g_{A}k^{Aa})[/tex]
    If [itex]k^{Aa}(x)=0[/itex], the symmetry is called internal and the corresponding time-independent (and Lorentz scalar) charge is not related to the energy-momentum tensor.
    Also, the symmetry group of (compactified version of) M need not be an isometry. Conformal symmetry, where the (conformal) killing fields generate non-linear coordinate transformation, is an example of space-time symmetry.

    I think I covered this in

    I am not aware of any text/report which prove all the above three theorems, certainly not for a generic field theory. But, it can be done. It is lengthy though, perhaps this is why text books don’t do it. May be one day I do it for you.


    Last edited: Aug 14, 2011
  8. Aug 15, 2011 #7
    Hi, I'm also interested in QFT in Curved Spacetime, but am very new at it. Reading this, I am further behind than I thought. I tried to read that post you link to, sam, but I am not very comfortable with it.

    Looking at your first post here, you wrote:

    [itex] x^{a}\rightarrow x^{a} + g_{A}k^{aA}, \ \ (1) [/itex]

    What precisely does [tex] g_{A} [/tex] denote? Is it a constant, or a matrix? Because you then form U(g) to operate on the field?

    Also, let's say I have a vector field given by a general formula, e.g. say K is a conformal killing vector. How exactly do I perform the transformation denoted by (1)? Since K is a vector field it is a derivative, so how do I add it to x?
  9. Aug 15, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    [itex]g_{A}[/itex] is a constant representing the group parameter(s). [itex]k^{Ac}[/itex] is a function of x. The transformation is generated by the vector field
    [tex]K(x) = g_{A}k^{Ac}(x)\partial_{c}[/tex]
    You could also regard [itex]g_{A}k^{Ac}[/itex] itself as a vector field operating on x. Consider for example Lorentz transformations; here the index A is a double space-time index (ab), the parameter is [itex]g_{A}\equiv \omega_{ab}[/itex], so you have
    g_{A}k^{Ac}= \frac{1}{2}\omega_{ab}(\eta^{bc}x^{a} - \eta^{ac}x^{b}) \ \ (3)
    Using the fact [itex]\eta^{ac} = \partial^{a}x^{c}[/itex], we can introduce the orbital angular momentum operator into Lorentz transformations as follows
    g_{A}k^{Ac} = - \frac{i}{2}\omega_{ab}L^{ab}x^{c},
    L^{ab} = i (x^{a}\partial^{b} – x^{b}\partial^{a}).
    We can also give a (spin-1) matrix representation of the Lorentz transformations (3) as follows
    g_{A}k^{Ac} = - \frac{i}{2}\omega_{ab}(M^{ab})^{c}{}_{d}x^{d},
    where M is the spin-1 matrix ( the cd element of M)
    (M^{ab})^{c}{}_{d} = i( \eta^{bc}\delta^{a}_{d} - \eta^{ac} \delta^{b}_{d})

    I hope that was helpful.


  10. Aug 15, 2011 #9
    This is quite nifty, but let me make sure I understand this.

    To find the transformed x, you simply add the components of the vector K(x) to x.

    As such, the final form from your example would be:

    [itex] x^{c}\rightarrow (1 - \frac{i}{2}\omega_{ab}L^{ab})x^{c} [/itex]

    We would then insert this into the variation of the action with respect to x, and adapt the fields accordingly, to see if the variation is zero (and, thus find a conserved quantity).

    Now, suppose we are working with a Killing field, given by

    [itex] K = a \partial_{b} [/itex]

    (Since the Killing equation can only specify K up to a constant factor)
    As such, the new quantity is given by:

    [itex] x^{a}\rightarrow x^{a} + a [/itex]

    This, as expected, looks just like a translation, and so the symmetry group is the translation subgroup of the Poincare group.

    Am I mistaken anywhere?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook