Delta Typo in Photon Propagator?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vic Sandler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft
Vic Sandler
Messages
2
Reaction score
3
The problem is on pages 323 and 324 of the second edition.

Homework Statement


Given the lagrangian
\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}(x)F^{\mu\nu}(x) - \frac{1}{2\alpha}(\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu})^2
show that the momentum space photon propoagator is given by
D_F^{\mu\nu}(k) = \frac{-g^{\mu\nu} + \delta k^{\mu}k^{\nu}/k^2}{k^2 + i\epsilon}

Homework Equations


\delta = 1 - \alpha^{-1}

The Attempt at a Solution


I can solve this problem if I set
\delta = 1 - \alpha
but not with the delta stated in the book.

My question is this:

Should the book say \delta = 1 - \alpha and not \delta = 1 - \alpha^{-1}?

This question and this question only. The meat of the answer will be one word.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the text is a typo. It should say \delta = 1 - \alpha. This can be seen by referencing eqn (8.40) on page 154 in the second edition of the book "A First Book of Quantum Theory", by Lahiri & Pal. Eqn (8.40) is
D_{\mu\nu}(k) = -\frac{1}{k^2 + i\epsilon}[g_{\mu\nu} - (1 - \xi)\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\nu}}{k^2}]
and is the photon propagator when the lagrangian is given by eqn (8.11) on page 148 together with eqn (8.26) on page 152 to get
\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2\xi}(\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu})^2
which is the same as the eqn at the bottom of page 323 in Mandl & Shaw.
 
Last edited:
I suppose you should give thanks to yourself!
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top