Mrthfx

Time travel from stationary position?

Can a druid choose the size of its wild shape beast?

A sequence that has integer values for prime indexes only:

What is a^b and (a&b)<<1?

Who is flying the vertibirds?

Identifying the interval from A♭ to D♯

Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible

Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?

Error in Twin Prime Conjecture

Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

Sailing the cryptic seas

How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?

In a future war, an old lady is trying to raise a boy but one of the weapons has made everyone deaf

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?

Happy pi day, everyone!

Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the "no parallel octaves" rule?

Define, (actually define) the "stability" and "energy" of a compound

how to write formula in word in latex

What do Xenomorphs eat in the Alien series?

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Welcoming 2019 Pi day: How to draw the letter π?

Are there verbs that are neither telic, or atelic?

Is there a higher dimension analogue of Noether's theorem?

Small unclarity in proof of Noether's TheoremEasy proof of Noether's theorem?Understanding Noether's theorem rigorouslyNoether's theorem for time dependent non-cyclic LagrangianDerivation of Noether's TheoremProve that Noether's Theorem produces generators of the symmetryWhy is Noether's theorem important?Transformation of coordinates in Noether's TheoremNoether's Theorem in Classical Field theory ConfusionOn-shell and off-shell transformations in Noether's theorem

2

$begingroup$

So I have recently read the proof of Noether's theorem from the book variation calculus by Gelfand. Basically, what I have already seen is that for any single integral functional, if we have a transformation that keeps the functional invariant, we can derive a quantity that doesn't change along any solution of the Euler equations of the functional.

My question: Is there an analogue that work for multiple integral functional? That is, the corresponding system of Euler Lagrange equations are not ODEs, but rather PDEs. Can we define a quantity that is invariant on the whole solutions of these PDEs? The same argument used in Gelfand's proof for single integral functional clearly doesn't work. Can we have something that doesn't change not only with respect with one variable t, but is unchanged everywhere on the whole space like $R^n$ as long as we have a killing vector field for the functional?

lagrangian-formalism symmetry field-theory spacetime-dimensions noethers-theorem

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The argument goes through exactly the same with more dimensions. Noether's theorem is routinely used in field theory, which takes place in 3+1 dimensions.
  $endgroup$
  – Javier
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

So I have recently read the proof of Noether's theorem from the book variation calculus by Gelfand. Basically, what I have already seen is that for any single integral functional, if we have a transformation that keeps the functional invariant, we can derive a quantity that doesn't change along any solution of the Euler equations of the functional.

My question: Is there an analogue that work for multiple integral functional? That is, the corresponding system of Euler Lagrange equations are not ODEs, but rather PDEs. Can we define a quantity that is invariant on the whole solutions of these PDEs? The same argument used in Gelfand's proof for single integral functional clearly doesn't work. Can we have something that doesn't change not only with respect with one variable t, but is unchanged everywhere on the whole space like $R^n$ as long as we have a killing vector field for the functional?

lagrangian-formalism symmetry field-theory spacetime-dimensions noethers-theorem

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The argument goes through exactly the same with more dimensions. Noether's theorem is routinely used in field theory, which takes place in 3+1 dimensions.
  $endgroup$
  – Javier
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

So I have recently read the proof of Noether's theorem from the book variation calculus by Gelfand. Basically, what I have already seen is that for any single integral functional, if we have a transformation that keeps the functional invariant, we can derive a quantity that doesn't change along any solution of the Euler equations of the functional.

My question: Is there an analogue that work for multiple integral functional? That is, the corresponding system of Euler Lagrange equations are not ODEs, but rather PDEs. Can we define a quantity that is invariant on the whole solutions of these PDEs? The same argument used in Gelfand's proof for single integral functional clearly doesn't work. Can we have something that doesn't change not only with respect with one variable t, but is unchanged everywhere on the whole space like $R^n$ as long as we have a killing vector field for the functional?

lagrangian-formalism symmetry field-theory spacetime-dimensions noethers-theorem

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

share|cite|improve this question

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

edited 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦

106k121941220

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

asked 6 hours ago

zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2

$begingroup$

In field theory, you often consider "Lagrangian densities" which are to be integrated over space-time instead of just over time.

For example, where as in the one dimensional case you would write

$$
S = int dt L
$$
in field theory you would write
$$
S = int d^4 x mathcal{L}.
$$
The equation of motion will be a PDE.

Noether's theorem, instead of giving you a conserved quantity $Q$ which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, would now give you a conserved current $J^mu$ (where $mu = 0, 1, 2, 3$ and $mu = 0$ is the time component and $mu = 1,2,3$ are the space components) which satisfies $sum_mu frac{d}{d x^mu} J^mu = 0$. You can still also find the a conserved quantity $Q$, which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, defined by

$$
Q = int d^3 x J^0
$$
and integrating over any fixed time.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 58 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

Yes, already Noether herself considered field theory in $n$ dimensions in her seminal 1918 paper.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466705%2fis-there-a-higher-dimension-analogue-of-noethers-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

2

$begingroup$

In field theory, you often consider "Lagrangian densities" which are to be integrated over space-time instead of just over time.

For example, where as in the one dimensional case you would write

$$
S = int dt L
$$
in field theory you would write
$$
S = int d^4 x mathcal{L}.
$$
The equation of motion will be a PDE.

Noether's theorem, instead of giving you a conserved quantity $Q$ which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, would now give you a conserved current $J^mu$ (where $mu = 0, 1, 2, 3$ and $mu = 0$ is the time component and $mu = 1,2,3$ are the space components) which satisfies $sum_mu frac{d}{d x^mu} J^mu = 0$. You can still also find the a conserved quantity $Q$, which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, defined by

$$
Q = int d^3 x J^0
$$
and integrating over any fixed time.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 58 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

In field theory, you often consider "Lagrangian densities" which are to be integrated over space-time instead of just over time.

For example, where as in the one dimensional case you would write

$$
S = int dt L
$$
in field theory you would write
$$
S = int d^4 x mathcal{L}.
$$
The equation of motion will be a PDE.

Noether's theorem, instead of giving you a conserved quantity $Q$ which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, would now give you a conserved current $J^mu$ (where $mu = 0, 1, 2, 3$ and $mu = 0$ is the time component and $mu = 1,2,3$ are the space components) which satisfies $sum_mu frac{d}{d x^mu} J^mu = 0$. You can still also find the a conserved quantity $Q$, which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, defined by

$$
Q = int d^3 x J^0
$$
and integrating over any fixed time.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 58 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

In field theory, you often consider "Lagrangian densities" which are to be integrated over space-time instead of just over time.

For example, where as in the one dimensional case you would write

$$
S = int dt L
$$
in field theory you would write
$$
S = int d^4 x mathcal{L}.
$$
The equation of motion will be a PDE.

Noether's theorem, instead of giving you a conserved quantity $Q$ which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, would now give you a conserved current $J^mu$ (where $mu = 0, 1, 2, 3$ and $mu = 0$ is the time component and $mu = 1,2,3$ are the space components) which satisfies $sum_mu frac{d}{d x^mu} J^mu = 0$. You can still also find the a conserved quantity $Q$, which satisfies $dot Q = 0$, defined by

$$
Q = int d^3 x J^0
$$
and integrating over any fixed time.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 58 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 58 mins ago

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

answered 1 hour ago

user1379857user1379857

2,322826

1

$begingroup$

Yes, already Noether herself considered field theory in $n$ dimensions in her seminal 1918 paper.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

Yes, already Noether herself considered field theory in $n$ dimensions in her seminal 1918 paper.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Yes, already Noether herself considered field theory in $n$ dimensions in her seminal 1918 paper.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220

answered 1 hour ago

Qmechanic♦Qmechanic

106k121941220