A question about the minimal vertex possible

  • Thread starter Thread starter ariel97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vertex
ariel97
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
hi

in "Introduction to Elementary Particles" ed. 2 / David Griffiths
the writer states that a bilinear vertex in two different fields is always impossible (my words).
or in other words: theoretically we can't have a fundamental vertex with one particle coming in and one going out.

and I feel like an idiot asking, but I have to ask since to the writer it seems obvious that I should know why, and unfortunately I don't. Which conservation laws does it violate?

I'll appreciate any answer.
Thank you
Ariel
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you referring to the statement on pages 366/367? He explains that this vertex arises through a wrong identification of the fields, and that one of the involved fields can be removed by a gauge transformation (which makes it quite unphysical). Furthermore, such a vertex would mean that the fields couldn't exist independently of each other.
 
Polyrhthmic, thanks for your answer. Yes I guess I am (although in my edition it's on a different page). That's what I'm referring to. Though I'd appreciate an explanation:
1. how do you conclude that a field which can be removed by a gauge transformation is unphysical?
2. why is it that such a vertex would mean that the fields interacting in it couldn't exist independently?

thank you.
 
ariel97 said:
Polyrhthmic, thanks for your answer. Yes I guess I am (although in my edition it's on a different page). That's what I'm referring to. Though I'd appreciate an explanation:
1. how do you conclude that a field which can be removed by a gauge transformation is unphysical?
2. why is it that such a vertex would mean that the fields interacting in it couldn't exist independently?

thank you.

1. Gauge transformations relate physically equivalent systems. If the system with the field is equivalent to a system with an absent field, the field isn't physically relevant.

2. Because that would mean that one field changes into another through some sort of interaction, it is therefore not independent.
 
thank you Polyrhythmic, you really helped me. (:
 
You're welcome!
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top