What is the meaning of invariance for an equation f=0?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FrederikPhysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Invariance
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of invariance in equations, particularly focusing on the Yang-Mills equation and its behavior under gauge transformations. Participants explore the implications of invariance for both functions and equations, questioning how these concepts apply in the context of gauge theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that invariance of a function under a transformation T means T(f)=f, while invariance of an equation f=0 may imply that T(f)=T(0) is equivalent to the original equation.
  • Others argue that invariance can also mean that a transformation of coordinates leaves the relationship intact, suggesting that context is crucial for understanding invariance.
  • A participant questions the notion of invariance in the context of the Yang-Mills equation, noting that the transformation UDμFμνU†=0 is equivalent to the original equation but not identical.
  • There is mention of Noether's theorem, with some participants expressing uncertainty about its relevance to the discussion of invariance.
  • One participant asserts that the Lagrange function generating Yang-Mills equations is gauge invariant, but questions the invariance of the equations themselves under gauge transformations.
  • Another participant raises a point about whether every equation involving the gauge field Aμ is invariant under gauge transformations, as the transformed equation retains the same form with Aμ' replacing Aμ.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the meaning of invariance in equations, particularly in relation to gauge transformations. There is no consensus on the exact nature of invariance or how it applies to the Yang-Mills equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of context in defining invariance and note that the discussion involves complex relationships between transformations and equations, which may not be fully resolved.

FrederikPhysics
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hey. When talking about invariance of a function f under some transformation T we mean that T(f)=f. But what is meant by invariance of an equation f=0? As far as I can see it makes sense to call an equation invariant when the transformed equation T(f)=T(0) is equivalent to the original equation f=0, or maybe just if T(f)=T(0) implies f=0.

To be specific, I am asking because the source free Yang-Mills equation DμFμν=0 is said to be invariant under gauge transformations and i am wondering what exactly is meant by this. When preforming the gauge transformation U we obtain UDμFμνU=0 which is equivalent to the original equation but not the same as the original equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
FrederikPhysics said:
Hey. When talking about invariance of a function f under some transformation T we mean that T(f)=f. But what is meant by invariance of an equation f=0?
Not necessarily. It can also mean ##f \circ T = f##, that is a transformation of coordinates leaves the relationship intact. One should always consider the context and how it is meant. ##T \circ f = f## should better be noted as ##f## is an eigenvector of the transformation operator ##T##.
As far as I can see it makes sense to call an equation invariant when the transformed equation T(f)=T(0) is equivalent to the original equation f=0, or maybe just if T(f)=T(0) implies f=0.
This would only mean, that ##T## is injective. It's not called invariant.
To be specific, I am asking because the source free Yang-Mills equation DμFμν=0 is said to be invariant under gauge transformations and i am wondering what exactly is meant by this. When preforming the gauge transformation U we obtain UDμFμνU=0 which is equivalent to the original equation but not the same as the original equation.
Have you heard of Noether's theorem?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
Have you heard of Noether's theorem?

and the punch line: Noether heard of it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
jedishrfu said:
and the punch line: Noether heard of it.
Noether heard of it, but it took Little (aka F. Klein) to be published! :cool:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
The Lagrange function generating these Yang-Mills equations are gauge invariant L=L', but as mentioned the Yang-Mills equations themselves transform according to the adjoint representation (DμFμν)'=UDμFμνU which does not seem invariant to me, still people say that the are invariant under gauge transformations. My question is, in what sense are they invariant?

Yes I have heard about Nöethers theorem I do not see how it relates. For every continuous symmetry of the action there exists a continuity equation.
 
Last edited:
FrederikPhysics said:
The Lagrange function generating these Yang-Mills equations are gauge invariant L=L', but as mentioned the Yang-Mills equations themselves transform according to the adjoint representation (DμFμν)'=UDμFμνU which does not seem invariant to me, still people say that the are invariant under gauge transformations. My question is, in what sense are they invariant?

Yes I have heard about Nöethers theorem I do not see how it relates. For every continuous symmetry of the action there exists a continuity equation.
Noether (without "ö") defined as an invariant of a Lie group for her theorem the existence of a relation
$$P(x,u,\frac{\partial u}{\partial x},\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2},\ldots) = P(y,v,\frac{\partial v}{\partial y},\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial y^2},\ldots)$$
which shows, that it is a statement about the variables, coordinates.
 
Thank you for your answer. If i understand your post the statement of invariance is a statement of the form of an equation independent of variables. But then is not every equation involving only the gauge field Aμ and coordinates invariant under gauge transformations since the gauge transformation of the equation makes Aμ→Aμ', and so the transformed equation has the same form as the original with Aμ' in place of Aμ as variable?
Please go into details.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K