Quantum corrections to force laws

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
For the free photon-field:

Z[J]=exp(\frac{i}{2} \int d^4x \int d^4y J^\mu(x)\Delta_{\mu \nu}} (x-y) J^\nu(y))

where \Delta_{\mu \nu}}=g_{\mu \nu}/(k^2-i\epsilon) is the free-photon propagator. This leads to Coloumb's law for the electrostatic energy between two charges at x_1 and x_2 when you plug in J(x)=e_1\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x_1})+e_2\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x_2}).

What happens if you use the full-photon propagator \Delta_{\mu \nu}}=g_{\mu \nu}/(k^2-\Pi(k^2)-i\epsilon) instead? Since \Pi(k^2) is of the order of the fine-structure constant when the fine-structure constant is small, wouldn't you get Coloumb's law plus a small correction?

Or is this cheating, and you need to include the full interaction Lagrangian in Z[J]:

Z[J]=exp(i \int d^4t \mathcal L_I(\frac{1}{i}\frac{\delta}{\delta J(t})) exp(\frac{i}{2} \int d^4x \int d^4y J^\mu(x)\Delta_{\mu \nu}} (x-y) J^\nu(y))

to get the correction to Coloumb's law? Or is this all bad anyways because in the end, we will treat the surviving source functions, J(x), the electrons, as classical electrons, stationary point particles with delta functions? The correct fully quantum-mechanical way would be to just amputate the sources and plug in the external momenta instead of plugging in classical sources?

Because it seems to me that the only difference between non-Abelian gauge theories and Abelian ones are self-interactions of the boson field. If we can treat the self-interaction of the gluons as corrections to the propagator, then why can't we calculate perturbatively the gluon force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought the reason was that the strong coupling constant is NOT small? Isn't it on the order 1?

Another part of the issue is that in non-Abelian gauge theory, the charge carried by the fermions is not gauge-invariant. So you can't just put in sources where you have "one red quark here, one green quark there". The color charges on each quark are in fact a function of time (and space, if they were to move).
 
Ben Niehoff said:
I thought the reason was that the strong coupling constant is NOT small? Isn't it on the order 1?

I meant at high energies, when the strong coupling constant gets smaller.
Ben Niehoff said:
Another part of the issue is that in non-Abelian gauge theory, the charge carried by the fermions is not gauge-invariant. So you can't just put in sources where you have "one red quark here, one green quark there". The color charges on each quark are in fact a function of time (and space, if they were to move).

Are you sure the fermion charges can change? I thought only the gluon charges could change? Wait, doesn't Noether's theorem say something that it's all conserved? I'm confused now.
 
To find the conserved currents, vary the Lagrangian by a global, infinitesimal gauge transformation. Or do it the following, easier way. Define the fermion current as

j_a^\mu = -g \bar \psi \gamma^\mu T_a \psi

Note that the current is in the adjoint representation. Anyway, vary the Lagrangian in the standard way to obtain the equations of motion, and you should get

j_a^\nu = D_\mu F_a^{\mu\nu}

where D is the gauge covariant derivative. Taking another gauge covariant derivative on both sides, you should obtain

D_\nu j_a^\nu = D_\nu D_\mu F_a^{\mu\nu} = 0

So, this current is gauge covariant, but NOT conserved, because the gauge covariant derivative has an extra term. Writing out the gauge covariant derivative in full,

j_a^\nu = \partial_\mu F_a^{\mu\nu} + gf^{abc} A^b_\mu F_c^{\mu\nu}

j_a^\nu - gf^{abc} A^b_\mu F_c^{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu F_a^{\mu\nu}

Now take derivatives on both sides to get

\partial_\nu (j_a^\nu - gf^{abc} A^b_\mu F_c^{\mu\nu}) = \partial_\nu \partial_\mu F_a^{\mu\nu} = 0

and so the conserved current is

j_a^\nu - gf^{abc} A^b_\mu F_c^{\mu\nu}

which is NOT gauge invariant. This makes sense, because the gluon field carries charge, too, so to have total conservation you must take it into account.

In particular, though, you can't assign arbitrary color charges to things, except as initial conditions (allowing them to change afterward). Any object with a free color index is not gauge-invariant, and therefore not strictly physical. The only physical quantities are the Wilson loop integrals.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top