Can the bare mass of a photon be set to zero in gauge theories?

geoduck
Messages
257
Reaction score
2
I read somewhere that gauge symmetry prevents the photon from acquiring a mass. The argument seems to go that the 1-loop correction to the photon won't contain a term independent of the external momentum due to gauge invariance, so there is no need for a bare mass counter-term.

So should that statement be modified to gauge symmetry prevents the photon from acquiring a bare mass?

Can't you always set the renormalized mass equal to zero, even if gauge symmetry is lacking? Like a \phi^4 theory?

Also, shouldn't the relationship between bare mass and renormalized mass be that they will always be proportional to each other, because there are no other parameters in the theory with dimensions of mass? Then it should follow that the bare mass can always be set to zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
geoduck said:
I read somewhere that gauge symmetry prevents the photon from acquiring a mass. The argument seems to go that the 1-loop correction to the photon won't contain a term independent of the external momentum due to gauge invariance, so there is no need for a bare mass counter-term.

So should that statement be modified to gauge symmetry prevents the photon from acquiring a bare mass?

Can't you always set the renormalized mass equal to zero, even if gauge symmetry is lacking? Like a \phi^4 theory?

Also, shouldn't the relationship between bare mass and renormalized mass be that they will always be proportional to each other, because there are no other parameters in the theory with dimensions of mass? Then it should follow that the bare mass can always be set to zero?
There is quite a subtlety with putting bare mass equal to zero for photon. In fact, if you will put bare mass of photon equal to zero, you will find that with a convergence factor included physical mass of photon goes quadratic with the cut-off !

This is as bad as it sounds, the 1 loop correction to photon propagator will include a mass term in zero momentum limit coming from the polarization tensor and it is not zero. Gauge invariance and lorentz invariance can not alone make it zero because this tensor can still have a pole at k2=0.
 
andrien said:
There is quite a subtlety with putting bare mass equal to zero for photon. In fact, if you will put bare mass of photon equal to zero, you will find that with a convergence factor included physical mass of photon goes quadratic with the cut-off !

It seems with dimensional regularization you can put the bare mass to zero because the 1-loop won't contribute a momentum-independent term.

But with cut-off you'll get a term that goes quadratic with cut-off. But then can't you set the bare mass equal to opposite of this cut-off, so that the renormalized mass is zero?

Gauge invariance and lorentz invariance can not alone make it zero because this tensor can still have a pole at k2=0.

It can have a pole at k2=0 if you adjust the bare mass to cancel the quadratic cutoff term?
 
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