Why is the Electromagnetic Field Tensor in the QED Lagrangian?

evac-q8r
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
The QED Lagrangian is given by \mathcal{L}_{\hbox{QED}} = \bar{\psi}(i\partial - m)\psi<br /> - \frac{1}{4}(F_{\mu\nu})^2 - e\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi A_\mu

What is the purpose of the middle term. I know that it represents the energy of the E and B fields. However is that due to the external potential A? I am used to thinking about Lagrangians in terms as equal to the kinetic term minus the potential, T-V. This term doesn't seem to be either and nor does the final interaction term. I didn't put the slash in the partial derivative because I didn't know how to. I understand that it is really a sum of three separate Lagrangians, that is, \mathcal{L}_{\hbox{QED}} = \mathcal{L}_{\hbox{Dirac}} + \mathcal{L}_{\hbox{Maxwell}} + \mathcal{L}_{\hbox{int}}. What does the middle term represent or what does it do for us?

Thanks a Million.

-EVAC
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Evac,

I deleted your other thread, because it is basically the same as this one. If you want to modify your posts, use the Edit feature--no need to start another thread.

Anyway, here was my response from the other thread.

Without that term the QED Lagrangian would not be dynamically closed. That is, the photon field would be an external field that interacts with the matter fields. So we include the EM "kinetic energy". The only way to do it that is both Lorentz covariant and gauge invariant is to introduce a massless term that is quadratic in the EM field strength tensor.
 
The middle term is the Lagrangian for the free EM field. By itself, the resulting Euler-Lagrange equations would give the free EM field dynamics. Just like the first term is the free Dirac field Lagrangian. Alone those two terms describe the two systems that are being allowed to interact via the third term. With one or the other of the first terms missing, you know longer have two interacting fields.

The free field EM term contains the first-derivatives of the A potential. Without it there is no dynamical information about the behavior of the EM field. That is, there is no differential equation to be satisfield by A. I haven't checked, but the A field would probably either be trivial or arbitrary in that case.
 
Tom Mattson said:
Evac,

I deleted your other thread, because it is basically the same as this one. If you want to modify your posts, use the Edit feature--no need to start another thread.

Ohhh. I think I know what happened. I hit the submit button instead of the preview button. I hit the stop button on my browser, but apparently is must have been too late. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
pellman said:
The middle term is the Lagrangian for the free EM field. By itself, the resulting Euler-Lagrange equations would give the free EM field dynamics. Just like the first term is the free Dirac field Lagrangian. Alone those two terms describe the two systems that are being allowed to interact via the third term. With one or the other of the first terms missing, you know longer have two interacting fields.

The free field EM term contains the first-derivatives of the A potential. Without it there is no dynamical information about the behavior of the EM field. That is, there is no differential equation to be satisfield by A. I haven't checked, but the A field would probably either be trivial or arbitrary in that case.

It is a point that the free fields in QED ARE the EM and Dirac fields, not some other fields. QED is thus just a minimal extension of Dirac and EM, all it adds is that they interact! And the quantization, of course.
 
Thanks for the wonderful answers, guys. I have a better understanding of this term now.

-EVAC
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top