PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:32Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Equations that were never independent}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Equations that were never independent}}
			{{Noether's theorems map}}

	''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Second theorem/The Noether identities\|The Noether identities]].''		''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Second theorem/The Noether identities\|The Noether identities]].''
Line 92:		Line 93:
	''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the		''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the
	counterpart page named above.''		counterpart page named above.''

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-10T13:29:54Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:29, 10 September 2026
(No difference)

NT>NoetherVolumeBuild: Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-15)

2026-09-10T00:00:00Z

Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-15)

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Equations that were never independent}}

''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Second theorem/The Noether identities|The Noether identities]].''

The second theorem's output has a name in the later literature: the Noether
identities. This page says what sort of thing they are.

== A committee that is smaller than it looks ==

Five people on a committee, five votes. But one member has a standing rule: she
always votes with the majority of the other four.

You have five votes and four decisions. The fifth vote is real, it is cast, it is
counted — and it tells you nothing you did not already know.

That is the shape of a Noether identity. A theory has some number of equations of
motion. The second theorem says a certain number of them are, in this sense,
voting with the others. They are true. They are not extra.

== What kind of statement it is ==

Compare with the first theorem's output.

The first theorem says: a certain combination of things flows without piling up
anywhere. That is a statement that something is happening.

The second theorem says: a certain combination of things equals zero. That is a
statement that nothing is happening, and specifically that the pieces were never
free of each other in the first place.

'''Nothing flows. There is no current, there is no total, and there is nothing to
measure.''' A reader who has met only the first theorem naturally expects a
conserved quantity to come out of the second, and the expectation is the single
most common source of error about it.

== The simplest case ==

Draw a curve on paper and describe it by saying where your pen is at each moment.

You had a free choice about pace — fast, slow, a pause in the middle. The curve
does not care. That freedom is the simplest possible local symmetry: one free
shape, and the rule does not even care how quickly your choice varies.

The theorem promises, for that case, exactly one relation among the equations, of
the simplest kind. And that is what turns up: a single statement tying the
equations directly to one another, with no rates of change involved.

The practical meaning is exactly what you would guess. A description of a curve
that never commits to a pace cannot determine its own pace. One of its equations
is therefore redundant, and the theorem tells you in advance that exactly one will
be.

'''That is not a flaw in the description. It is the cost of the freedom you
wanted.''' You asked to describe a curve without committing to how it is traced,
and the redundancy is the bill.

== The case that started everything ==

In general relativity the free shape is your choice of coordinate labels, one
shape for each dimension of spacetime, so four in the world we live in. And the
rule cares not only about your labels but about how quickly they change from place
to place.

So the theorem promises four relations among the field equations and their rates
of change.

Those four relations were already known before Noether's paper. Hilbert had
asserted them for one particular scoring rule, and Klein had derived them
generally, and there was an argument at Göttingen about what they meant.
[[Noether's theorems/History/Hilbert and Klein|The history track]] tells that
story.

What Noether added was not the four relations. It was the theorem that has them as
one instance among many — and that says, in advance, exactly how many to expect for
any theory of this kind.

== Both at once ==

A theory can have both kinds of symmetry: global knobs and local shapes together.
Then both theorems apply, independently, and you get conserved quantities from one
and identities from the other. Neither interferes with the other.

Noether says this in a single sentence and it is the cleanest possible statement
that her two theorems are not rival readings of one result. They can both be true
of the same theory at the same time, and they say different things.

== A word about the name ==

Noether calls them dependencies. The term "Noether identities" is later, and this
volume uses it because it is standard, while noting that it is not her word.

''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the
counterpart page named above.''

Noether's theorems/Explainers/Equations that were never independent - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

NT>NoetherVolumeBuild: Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-15)