For any transformation of the fields, φ→φ′=φ+δφ the change in the Lagrangian can be written as δL=EoM+∂μjμwhere "EoM" represents the equations of motion (Euler-Lagrange equations) and all other terms can be written as a total derivative of some function jμ, which is a known function in terms of the Lagrangian.
I would like to distinguish the different realizations of transformations. Let's assume that the transformation (1) leaves the action invariant, δS=0.
δL=0
EoM =0, "on-shell": Noether current is conserved, ∂μjμ=0.
EoM =∂μbμ≠0, "off-shell": modified Noether current Jμ=jμ+bμ is conserved, ∂μJμ=0.
δL=∂μaμ≠0, "quasi-symmetry"
EoM =0, "on-shell": modified Noether current Jμ=jμ−aμ is conserved, ∂μJμ=0.
EoM =∂μbμ≠0, "off-shell": modified Noether current Jμ=jμ−aμ+bμ is conserved, ∂μJμ=0.
Is this listing correct?
What roles do the terms "on/off-shell" and "(quasi) symmetry" play in Noether's theorem?
Related: one, two, three, four, five.
Answer
The assumption in Noether's (first) theorem is an off-shell1 quasisymmetry of the action S. It leads to an off-shell Noether identity off-shell Noether identity dμJμ ≡ −δSδϕαYα0. Here Jμ is the full Noether current, which is necessarily non-trivial; and Yα0 is a (vertical) symmetry generator. The off-shell identity (A) in turn implies an on-shell continuum equation/conservation law.
An on-shell quasisymmetry of the action S is a tautology. It has not an associated continuum equation/conservation law. Even a strict symmetry of the action S (or the Lagrangian density L) on-shell has not an associated continuum equation/conservation law.2
OP is only considering so-called vertical transformations δϕ, i.e. δxμ=0, which carries certain simplifications in the form of the Noether current.
--
1The words on-shell and off-shell refer to whether the Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations (=EOM) are satisfied or not.
2 Here is another heuristic argument: Ignoring various technical assumptions & details, there is morally speaking a bijective correspondence between off-shell quasisymmetries and on-shell conservation laws, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. In particular, all on-shell conservation laws are already explained by off-shell quasisymmetries alone. In other words, there is no room for on-shell quasisymmetries to play an independent role in this correspondence.
No comments:
Post a Comment