Frank Hellmann
May19-04, 12:36 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nHello, first of all I would like to thank all those who helped with my\nprevious problems in QFT, a lot of stuff has become a lot clearer\nsince. In continuing my studies with my fellow students we hit on an\ninteressting problem.\nThe Lorentz Gauge used by most of our textbooks to fix the Gauge by\nthe Faddeev Popv method is ambigious.\nIn particular it does not prevent us from adding terms to the field\nthat satisfy d^2 x = 0, that is, plane waves. The space of\nfundamentall sollutions is parametrized by the wavevector k. In this\nsense the individual independend transformations can be specified by a\nfour vector. We took this to be the reason that we can safely ignore\nthis freedom (of course a general wavepackage would still have a\nfunctional degree of freedom....).\nWe then further hit upon the fact that there are more symmetries\npresent in the Lagrangian beyond Gauge invariance (translational\ninvariance for example) which we don\'t remove explicitly. All of these\nseem to add a finite dimensional infinite volume which we guessed\nwould be removed by normalization automatically.\nIs this correct? None of the textbooks even mentions that the Lorentz\nGauge is ambigious.\n\nCheers,\nFrank Hellmann\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello, first of all I would like to thank all those who helped with my
previous problems in QFT, a lot of stuff has become a lot clearer
since. In continuing my studies with my fellow students we hit on an
interessting problem.
The Lorentz Gauge used by most of our textbooks to fix the Gauge by
the Faddeev Popv method is ambigious.
In particular it does not prevent us from adding terms to the field
that satisfy d^2 x = 0, that is, plane waves. The space of
fundamentall sollutions is parametrized by the wavevector k. In this
sense the individual independend transformations can be specified by a
four vector. We took this to be the reason that we can safely ignore
this freedom (of course a general wavepackage would still have a
functional degree of freedom....).
We then further hit upon the fact that there are more symmetries
present in the Lagrangian beyond Gauge invariance (translational
invariance for example) which we don't remove explicitly. All of these
seem to add a finite dimensional infinite volume which we guessed
would be removed by normalization automatically.
Is this correct? None of the textbooks even mentions that the Lorentz
Gauge is ambigious.
Cheers,
Frank Hellmann
previous problems in QFT, a lot of stuff has become a lot clearer
since. In continuing my studies with my fellow students we hit on an
interessting problem.
The Lorentz Gauge used by most of our textbooks to fix the Gauge by
the Faddeev Popv method is ambigious.
In particular it does not prevent us from adding terms to the field
that satisfy d^2 x = 0, that is, plane waves. The space of
fundamentall sollutions is parametrized by the wavevector k. In this
sense the individual independend transformations can be specified by a
four vector. We took this to be the reason that we can safely ignore
this freedom (of course a general wavepackage would still have a
functional degree of freedom....).
We then further hit upon the fact that there are more symmetries
present in the Lagrangian beyond Gauge invariance (translational
invariance for example) which we don't remove explicitly. All of these
seem to add a finite dimensional infinite volume which we guessed
would be removed by normalization automatically.
Is this correct? None of the textbooks even mentions that the Lorentz
Gauge is ambigious.
Cheers,
Frank Hellmann