1

This a picture is from Schwartz book on QFT on page 131.

This picture is from Schwartz book on QFT on page 131. I cannot understand that:

  1. What does the orange underlined sentences mean?

  2. How is Equation 8.108 derived?

Could anyone kindly make some further explanation on this?


By @Nikita ‘s answer, I think I’ve understand all the rest except this little calculation...

I could get that

$(A_\mu+\partial_\mu \pi)^2=A_\mu A^\mu-A_\mu \frac{2}{\square} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu A^\nu+\frac{1}{\square}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu A^\nu \frac{1}{\square}\partial^\mu \partial_\rho A^\rho$

While

$\frac{1}{\square}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu A^\nu \frac{1}{\square}\partial^\mu \partial_\rho A^\rho =\frac{1}{\square}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu A^\nu \frac{1}{\square}\partial_\rho A^\rho-\frac{\square}{\square}\partial_\nu A^\nu \frac{1}{\square}\partial_\rho A^\rho$

Why does $\frac{1}{\square}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu A^\nu \frac{1}{\square}\partial_\rho A^\rho$ vanish?

How to get $\frac{1}{\square} (\partial^\nu A^\mu)\partial_\mu A_\nu$?

1 Answers1

2

1) Lagrangian (8.107) have following fields:

1) $A_\mu$ - four degrees of freedom

2) $\pi$ - one degree of freedom

Totally we have 5 d.o.f. One can use gauge symmetry to reduce degrees to four, fixing gauge for $A_\mu$, for example using Coulomb gauge $\partial_\mu A^{\mu}=0$. Using equation of motion for $A_\mu$ one can reduce d.o.f. to three: 2 in $A_\mu$ and 1 in $\pi$.

2) Equation (8.108) is obtained by solving equation of motion for $\pi$:

$$ \Box \pi + \partial_\mu A^{\mu} = 0 $$ $$ \pi = - \frac{1}{\Box}\partial_\mu A^{\mu} $$

And substitution them back to action (I present my calculations):

3) Obtained theory is not local due to therm $\frac{1}{\Box}\propto r^2$. This therm really mean:

$$ F_{\mu\nu}(x) \frac{1}{\Box} F^{\mu\nu}(x) =\int d^4y\; F_{\mu\nu}(x) G(x-y) F^{\mu\nu}(y) $$

Where $G(x-y) = \frac{1}{\Box}$ defined by equation:

$$ \Box G(x-y) = -\delta^{(4)}(x-y) $$

$$ G(x-y) = \int d^4p \frac{e^{ip(x-y)}}{p^2} = \frac{1}{(x-y)^2} $$

I believe that now meaning of nonlocality is more clear...

Nikita
  • 5,657
  • and when you transform the box symbol into momentum space, why shouldn’t there be an extra minus sign...? $\square = (-ip)^2 $ – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 02:57
  • If we fix gauge, we fix $\pi$, and there are 3 d.o.f in $A_\mu$. If we don’t fix it, there is 1 d.o.f in $\pi$, but how does the equation of motion of $A_\mu$ reduce its d.o.f from 4 to 2? – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 03:11
  • Yes, you are right about minus. When you fixing gauge you have two possibilities: fix $\pi$ or fix $A_\mu$ – Nikita Feb 22 '20 at 06:14
  • In your “substituting them back” calculations, How do you get from the 3rd line to 4th line? I can’t understand why the last term in the 3rd line equals that. And how is the 5th line derived? I can only get $F_{\mu \nu} \frac{1}{\square} F^{\mu \nu} =(\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu) \frac{1}{\square} (\partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu A^\mu)$ – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 06:17
  • And still, I’m confused about how you make the last integral equals $\frac{1}{(x-y)^2}$ – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 06:22
  • I used integration by part – Nikita Feb 22 '20 at 06:30
  • About integral it is classical results. See for example https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101886/propagator-of-a-scalar-in-position-space or consult with your favourite book on qft – Nikita Feb 22 '20 at 06:32
  • I’m really sorry to disturb you again with my naive questions... I sum them up and edited my question . I’ll appreciate it if you could check them out and make them clearer for me... – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 08:11
  • Do you understand my point in 3) on my photo? – Nikita Feb 22 '20 at 10:15
  • Yes, by switching $\mu$ and $\nu$ – RicknJerry Feb 22 '20 at 11:56
  • Compare last equation in 2 and 3. They are the same! And I used this in 4. – Nikita Feb 22 '20 at 14:49
  • @RicknJerry , the last integral cannot be calculate with slightly modification. Introduce multiplier $e^{-\alpha p}$ and calculate the integral, then set $\alpha=0$. It is well-known derivation of Fourier transform of Coulomb law. – Artem Alexandrov Feb 23 '20 at 10:42
  • @ArtemAlexandrov thank you!! But I’m not quite sure about how to do that... would you mind giving me some references or something on that? – RicknJerry Feb 23 '20 at 13:16
  • 1
    @RicknJerry , check this link: https://blog.cupcakephysics.com/electromagnetism/math%20methods/2014/10/04/the-fourier-transform-of-the-coulomb-potential.html – Artem Alexandrov Feb 23 '20 at 13:23