5
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand how one proves that a charge derived from the Noether procedure generates the corresponding symmetry. That is, I would like to prove that

$$[Q, \phi(y)] = i\delta\phi(y)$$

I understand the proof in specific cases, but not in generality. To begin, consider a symmetry of the action, $\delta\phi$. Let us allow the Lagrangian to change by a total derivative:

$$\delta \mathcal{L} = \partial_{\mu}K^{\mu}$$

Then the Noether charge is given by

$$Q = \int d^3x\, \delta\phi(x)\, \Pi(x) - K^0(x)$$

We can test the statement we wish to prove by evaluating the commutator:

$$ [Q, \phi(y)] = \int d^3x\,[\delta \phi(x), \phi(y)]\Pi(x) + \delta\phi(x)[\Pi(x), \phi(y)] - [K^0(x), \phi(y)]$$

If both the symmetry $\delta\phi$ and the boundary term $K^0$ do not contain factors of $\Pi$ (or equivalently, does not contain time derivatives of $\phi$), then the first and third terms vanish. Then we may prove the final result using the canonical commutation relations $[\Pi(x), \phi(y)] = i\delta(x - y)$ to simplify the second term.

My specific question is how to prove the assertion in the case where $\delta\phi$ and the boundary term $K^0$ do in fact contain factors of $\Pi$. For instance this is the case for boost symmetry, and more generally I think it will always be true for symmetries whose charges do not commute with the Hamiltonian. In such cases, the commutators do not vanish, and one needs the following to hold:

$$\int d^3x\,[\delta \phi(x), \phi(y)]\Pi(x) - [K^0(x), \phi(y)] = 0$$

How does one prove that this is indeed true in complete generality?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/69271/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/358266/2451 $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Mar 28, 2022 at 18:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Where in the duplicate post is the answer to this post's specific question? I am unable to find it $\endgroup$
    – user105620
    Commented Mar 28, 2022 at 18:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think I see something relevant in statement (1) of the linked post. However the main sticking point for me is taking the charge in (9) and connecting it to the "NI" equality in (10). In my understanding, proving the "NI" equality in the Hamlitonian formalism comes from asserting there is a conserved Q and defining $\delta q \equiv \partial_p Q$ and $\delta p \equiv -\partial_q Q$, which is not the logic I am trying to follow. My question may be read as how to prove these latter relations starting from the specific form of (9), which I don't think is addressed in that post. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28, 2022 at 19:17

0