Can someone please help me out with mass terms in the general case for a lagrangian?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

It is known that for n scalar fields, any quadratic in these fields will be a mass term.

For classical fields [tex]\varphi_{j}[/tex] with the most genral possible expression being [tex]M^{jk}\varphi_{j}\varphi_{k}[/tex] , the matrix [tex]M^{jk}[/tex] is guaranteed to be symmetric and so can be diagonalised with an orthogonal similarity transformation. So there is no argument there - we get a sum of squares after diagonalisation of the form [tex]\sum_{j} M^{jj}\varphi_{j}\varphi_{j}[/tex]

For the case of gauge fields, however, it does not seem (??? help me out here!!) that just any quadratic at all will necessarily be a mass term. Here is the reasoning as I see it:

No one would disagree that a term like [tex] M^{jk}A^{\mu}_{j}A^{\nu}_{k}g_{\mu\nu} [/tex] is definitely a mass term. Again, for classical fields the mass matrix [tex]M^{jk}[/tex] is guaranteed symmetric by the sum over symmetric terms and so is once more diagonalisable with an orthogonal similarity transformation.

Things seem different for the most general case. For example with a sum like[tex] M_{\mu\nu}^{jk}A^{\mu}_{j}A^{\nu}_{k}[/tex] , one would expect that a Lorentz transformation can reduce the term[tex] M_{\mu\nu}^{jk}[/tex] to something of the form [tex]g_{\mu\nu}m^{jk}[/tex].

In this way, the 'mass' term becomes [tex]m^{jk}A^{\mu}_{j}A^{\nu}_{k}g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] after the Lorentz transformation has been applied.

Observe however, that for the Lorentz transformation [tex]L_{\alpha}^{\mu}[/tex] which achieves this change we have

[tex]M_{\mu\nu}^{jk}L_{\alpha}^{\mu}L_{\beta}^{\nu} = m^{jk}g_{\alpha\beta}[/tex] .

Multiplying both sides of this equation by [tex]{(L^{-1})}^{\alpha}_{\mu}{(L^{-1})}^{\beta}_{\nu}[/tex], we obtain the result that

[tex]M_{\alpha\beta}^{jk} = m^{jk}g_{\alpha\beta}[/tex].

This follows from the orthogonality of the Lorentz transformations with respect to the metric [tex]g_{\alpha\beta}[/tex].

So the upshot of this appears to be that unless terms are of the form [tex]m^{jk}A^{\mu}_{j}A^{\nu}_{k}g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] they cannot represent mass terms and are in fact, self interaction terms.

Please help me out here, as this is the only way I can interpret quadratic terms in the gauge fields at present.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Are all quadratic terms in gauge fields necessarily mass terms?

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - quadratic terms gauge | Date |
---|---|

What is Leakage in terms of quantum computing? | Feb 26, 2018 |

I Hidden dimensions and quadratic term of a free field | Dec 2, 2017 |

Quadratic Hamiltonian Energy | Jun 4, 2012 |

Understanding the quadratic Stark effect | Mar 20, 2011 |

Question on quadratic fluctuations in the path integral formalism | Jun 10, 2008 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**