I Noether's Theorem in the Presence of a Charged Operator

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter thatboi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Noether's theorem
thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
I am trying to understand the following idea that I found from some notes: Generally, a system with U(1) symmetry will have a conserved current: ##\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu} = 0##. The notes then state that in the presence of a local operator ##\mathcal{O}(x)## with charge ##q\in \mathbb{Z}## under U(1), the continuity equation becomes: ##\mathcal{O}(x)\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}(x') = q\delta(x-x')\mathcal{O}(x)##. I just wanted to better understand the intuition behind this equation. How can I derive this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thatboi said:
\mathcal{O}(x)\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}(x') = q\delta(x-x')\mathcal{O}(x)
It is not clear what meaning one can associate with the product of operators on the left hand side.

I you have an exact symmetry, then the Noether current is conserved, i.e., \partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}(x) = 0, and its associated charge, Q = \int d^{3}x \ j^{0}(x), generates the correct infinitesimal symmetry transformation of local operators: \left[Q , \mathcal{O}(y)\right] = \delta \mathcal{O}(y) = - i q \mathcal{O}(y) , or \left[ j^{0}(x) , \mathcal{O}(y) \right] = -i q \delta^{3}(\vec{x} - \vec{y}) \mathcal{O}(y) . \ \ \ \ (1)

Now consider the following time-ordered product T\left( j^{\mu}(x)\mathcal{O}(y)\right) \equiv j^{\mu}(x)\mathcal{O}(y)\theta (x^{0} - y^{0}) + \mathcal{O}(y)j^{\mu}(x) \theta (y^{0} - x^{0}) . Differentiation gives you \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}} T\left(j^{\mu}(x)\mathcal{O}(y) \right) = T\left( \partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}(x) \mathcal{O}(y)\right) + \delta (x^{0} - y^{0}) \left[ j^{0}(x) , \mathcal{O}(y)\right] . If the symmetry is exact, then current conservation and eq(1) give you the following (Ward identity):

\partial_{\mu}^{(x)} \left( T\left( j^{\mu}(x)\mathcal{O}(y)\right)\right) = - i q \delta^{4}(x - y) \mathcal{O}(y).
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top