Partial and Covariant derivatives in invarint actions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the invariance of an action integral I under transformations involving covariant derivatives. While the invariance holds for the partial derivative case, the question arises whether it also applies when using covariant derivatives, specifically in nonabelian field theories. The key point is that if the commutator [Aμ, Xμ] equals zero, the action remains invariant; otherwise, insufficient information exists to determine invariance. The distinction between local properties of partial derivatives and the connections made by covariant derivatives is crucial to understanding the situation. Ultimately, the invariance of the action under covariant derivatives depends on the specific relationships between the fields involved.
AlphaNumeric
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
It's physics based but actually a maths question so I'm asking it here rather than the physics forums.

I = \int \mathcal{L}\; d^{4}x

I is invariant under some transformation \delta_{\epsilon} if \delta_{\epsilon}\mathcal{L} = \partial_{\mu}X^{\mu} for some function/tensor/field thingy X^{\mu}. This I've no problem with.

However, is the same true for a covariant derivative? If \delta_{\epsilon}\mathcal{L} = D_{\mu}X^{\mu} where D_{\mu}\varphi = \partial_{\mu}\varphi + g[A_{\mu},\varphi], as you get in nonabelian field theory. Is the action still invariant? Obviously the \partial_{\mu} part of D_{\mu} represents no problem but I don't know if the g[A_{\mu},\varphi] term vanishes or not within the integral.

I've been doing some supersymmetry and a number of times I've got the answer the question has asked to find plus a covariant derivative of something. :cry: If I just got a mess of terms I'd know I'm way off, but the fact everything collects nicely into a covariant derivative makes me feel I'm at least on the right track.

Thanks for any help :)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If ##[A_\mu,X^\mu]=0## we are done, otherwise we just do not have enough information to draw a conclusion. The reason is, that ##\partial_\mu## is a local property, and ##D_\mu## connects this local property with another one ##[A_\mu,X^\mu]## at another location. So ##\mathcal{L}## could still be invariant or equally not.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K