davidge
- 553
- 21
What equation in QM show us that symmetry in quantum-mechanical phase implies charge conservation?
The discussion centers on the relationship between quantum-mechanical phase symmetry and charge conservation, exploring the implications of electromagnetic gauge invariance and Noether's theorem. Participants delve into the mathematical formulations and theoretical underpinnings of these concepts, with a focus on their application in quantum mechanics and field theory.
Participants generally agree on the connection between gauge invariance and charge conservation, but there are multiple competing views regarding the specifics of the mathematical formulations and the implications of local versus global symmetries. The discussion remains unresolved on some technical points, particularly concerning the definitions and applications of certain terms.
Some limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of gauge symmetries and the mathematical steps involved in deriving the Noether current. The discussion also highlights the context of special relativity and the assumptions made in the derivations presented.
davidge said:What equation in QM show us that symmetry in quantum-mechanical phase implies charge conservation?
Thanks. This is more difficult to understand than I thought.PeterDonis said:The symmetry that implies charge conservation is usually referred to as electromagnetic gauge invariance. See, for example, here:
Thanks for posting this in such detail. It is not covered in any of my textbooks.vanhees71 said:A conservation law is always due to global (not local!) gauge symmetries. Since a local symmetry implies a corresponding global symmetry, you also have a conservation law (in this case of a charge-like quantity)
[..]
Thus now indeed the Lagrangian is invariant under local gauge transformations. Of course, the current is still conserved, because the Lagrangian is still invariant under global gauge transformations.
Ok. But where this term comes from?vanhees71 said:there are only the ##\delta \eta## in the entire posting.
So, at the beginning of your post, ##\Psi## is a function of ##x, \eta##, but as you are holding ##x## constant, ##\delta \Psi = \delta \eta \ \tau (x, \Psi)##?vanhees71 said:It's the "infinitesimal" group parameter (in our example the phase).
Oh yea, I see. Thanks.vanhees71 said:I don't understand the confusion. Of course ##\psi## is a function of ##x## only. It denotes a general set of fields, and ##\eta## are a set of parameters of the Lie group. Take ##\psi## an ##n##-dimensional field, ##t^a## a set of generators of the Lie group. Then the Lie group acts on the fields via
$$\psi \rightarrow \psi'=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \eta_{a} t^a) \psi.$$
For an infinitesimal transformation you have
$$\psi \rightarrow \psi+\delta \psi, \quad \delta \psi=\delta \eta_{a} t^{a} \psi$$
and thus
$$\tau^{a} =t^a \psi.$$
For the Abelian case discussed as an example you just have a one-dimensional Lie group ##\mathrm{U}(1)## and ##t^a=1##.
vanhees71 said:A conservation law is always due to global (not local!) gauge symmetries.