Is there a higher dimension analogue of Noether's theorem?Small unclarity in proof of Noether's TheoremEasy...

Is this a real picture of Jordan Peterson in New Zealand with a fan wearing a shirt that says "I'm a Proud Islamaphobe"?

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Happy pi day, everyone!

Sailing the cryptic seas

My Graph Theory Students

Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Look at your watch and tell me what time is it. vs Look at your watch and tell me what time it is

Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?

Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly release notes?

Why is the President allowed to veto a cancellation of emergency powers?

Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?

SOQL: Populate a Literal List in WHERE IN Clause

Interplanetary conflict, some disease destroys the ability to understand or appreciate music

How Could an Airship Be Repaired Mid-Flight

How to create the Curved texte?

A Cautionary Suggestion

Employee lack of ownership

A sequence that has integer values for prime indexes only:

Min function accepting varying number of arguments in C++17

Gantt Chart like rectangles with log scale

How to deal with a cynical class?

Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?

Can I use USB data pins as power source



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
















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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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














2












2








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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Qmechanic

106k121941220




106k121941220










asked 6 hours ago









zhongyuan chenzhongyuan chen

232




232








  • 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














  • 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








1




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




$begingroup$
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










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











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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


















      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















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      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











      $endgroup$


















        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











        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          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











          $endgroup$



          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














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          user1379857user1379857

          2,322826




          2,322826























              1












              $begingroup$

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






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

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






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

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






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



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







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  QmechanicQmechanic

                  106k121941220




                  106k121941220






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

                      Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

                      Should I use Docker or LXD?How to cache (more) data on SSD/RAM to avoid spin up?Unable to get Windows File...