Path Integrals and Non-Abelian Gauge Theories

BenTheMan
Messages
453
Reaction score
0
Ok, I have a question about this Fade'ev Popov procedure of teasing out the ghosts when one quantizes a non-Abelian gauge theory with path integrals.

The factor of 1 that people insert, for some gauge fixing function f, and some non-Abelian symmetry \mathcal{G} is:

1=\int \mathcal{D}U \delta[f(\mathbf{A})] \Delta[\mathbf{A}],

where

\mathcal{D}U = \Pi d\theta,

and

U \in \mathcal{G}.

This is probably a stupid question, but the function \Delta works out just to be a Jacobian of some sort over the manifold \mathcal{G}, right?

\Delta[\mathbf{A}] = det \left(\frac{\delta f}{\delta \theta}\right)

I am confused because no one actually says this. Am I completely off base?

Thanks in advance for helping me, and tolerating a (possibly) stupid question!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes it is the Jacobian typical to multi-dimensional delta functions. Though consider how abstract an object a delta function on the space of Fields is. The space of fields is:

$$\bigcup_{E}\Gamma(E),\quad \pi(E) = \mathcal{M}$$

that is the space of sections of a Fiber Bundle, ##\Gamma(E)##, taken over all Fiber Bundles with a common base space ##\mathcal{M}##. Typically this base space can be taken to be four-dimensional Euclidean space. However since fields which don't die off at infinity have zero weight in the path intgeral one can reduce it to ##\mathcal{M} = S^{4}##.

So then we have the space of functions of compact support on this space:
$$\mathcal{C}_{0}\left(\bigcup_{E}\Gamma(E)\right)$$

And then the delta function used for the Faddeev-Popov procedure is a map from this space to the reals:
$$\delta_{FP} : \mathcal{C}_{0}\left(\bigcup_{E}\Gamma(E)\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$$

This is because delta functions (or any distribution) on any space are defined as maps from compactly supported functions to the reals.

What's really happening with Faddeev-Popov ghosts is that you are restricting the integral to a single element from each gauge equivalent orbit.

In the case of QED this is no problem, but in non-Abelian theories any such surface you select out with your Gauge condition, e.g. ##\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu} = 0##, will not intersect the gauge orbits perpendicularly. Thus the gauge orbits will be denser on some parts of the surface than others. ##det\left(D^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\right)## then measures this density. Unfortunately this spoils perturbation theory as you now have a term which is not polynomial in the fields other than the exponential term with the action ##e^{-S}##. The combinatorics and methods of perturbation theory are based on only integrating polynomials in the field.

Fortunately we use the fact that any operator determinant can be computed from a Fermionic path integral and invent a non-physical (not part of the actual scattering spectrum or physical states) Fermionic field to compute this term. The Fermionic field's action will be added to the path integral to compute this determinant, but does so in a way that we once again only have a term like ##e^{-S}## as our sole non-polynomial term and thus perturbation theory can continue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...
Back
Top