Feynman rules from Yang-Mills lagrangian

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving Feynman rules from the Yang-Mills Lagrangian using the path integral quantization method. Participants explore the relationship between specific terms in the Lagrangian and their corresponding expressions in momentum space, focusing on the structure and antisymmetry of the terms involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding how to derive Feynman rules from the Yang-Mills Lagrangian, specifically questioning the origin of antisymmetry in the momentum terms.
  • Another participant suggests that the total antisymmetry of the structure constants leads to six permutations of the indices, which should be considered when deriving the rules.
  • Further discussion highlights that the dummy nature of the indices allows for permutations without changing the value of the terms, emphasizing the importance of considering all permutations to reveal the antisymmetry.
  • A participant raises a question about the origin of the additional tensor index, ##\rho##, in the context of the interaction terms and how it relates to the bosons involved.
  • There is a query regarding the factor of 6 that arises from the permutations and whether it appears in the Feynman rules, with some participants noting that this factor may be absorbed in the symmetry factor of the diagram.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of considering permutations of indices and the antisymmetry of the structure constants. However, there is no consensus on the treatment of the factor of 6 in the Feynman rules or the origin of the ##\rho## index.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the mathematical manipulations involved in deriving the Feynman rules, but the discussion does not resolve the specific questions regarding the treatment of the factor of 6 or the role of the ##\rho## index.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
In reading Ryder's book on quantum field theory he advocates reading off the Feynman rules directly from the Lagrangian in the path integral quantization method. I can sort of do this in phi-four theory, but it is not obvious in for example Yang-Mills theory, so I wondered if someone could explain to me why it is obvious that for example the term

##2gf^{abc}A^b_\mu A^c_\nu(\partial^\mu A^{\nu a}-\partial^\nu A^{\mu a})##

corresponds to

##-2gf^{abc}[(r_\mu -q_\mu)g_{\nu \rho}-(p_\nu -r_\nu)g_{\mu \rho} + (q_\rho - p_\rho)g_{\mu \nu}].##

where r,p and q are the momenta of the gauge bosons while a,b,c are their group indicies.
I see that the derivatives goes over to momenta in momentum space, but what is the origin of the 'antisymmetry' between the momenta?

How does one 'see' the exact structure?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since fabc is totally antisymmetric, there's six permutations of the indices, and what you need to do first is to write out (or at least imagine) all six of them:

fabc(AbμAcνμAaν ± other 5 permutations of abc)

(This automatically takes care of the two antisymmetric derivative terms.) Then make the momentum substitution.
 
Bill_K said:
Since fabc is totally antisymmetric, there's six permutations of the indices, and what you need to do first is to write out (or at least imagine) all six of them:

fabc(AbμAcνμAaν ± other 5 permutations of abc)

(This automatically takes care of the two antisymmetric derivative terms.) Then make the momentum substitution.

Alright. So that takes care of the antisymmetry of the momenta, but why is it that all the different permutations actually come into play? Why not just one permutation, - the permutation of abc in the lagrangian term above for example?

Then there is the ##\rho## index. Where does that come from?

Maybe you have a reference to somewhere this is explained in some detail?
 
Last edited:
It's because a, b, c are dummy indices. take the first term fabcAbμAcνμAaν, and make the substitution a ↔ b. This is just bookkeeping, and doesn't change the term's value. But now it looks like fbacAaμAcνμAbν. Now use the fact that f is antisymmetric: - fabcAaμAcνμAbν

Still the same value. Now the point is, do this all six possible ways, add them together and divide by 6. Still the same value! You've just rewritten it, to make explicit the antisymmetry.

But now when you do the momentum substitution you'll get a sum of six terms, which is your second equation.
 
Bill_K said:
It's because a, b, c are dummy indices. take the first term fabcAbμAcνμAaν, and make the substitution a ↔ b. This is just bookkeeping, and doesn't change the term's value. But now it looks like fbacAaμAcνμAbν. Now use the fact that f is antisymmetric: - fabcAaμAcνμAbν

Still the same value. Now the point is, do this all six possible ways, add them together and divide by 6. Still the same value! You've just rewritten it, to make explicit the antisymmetry.

But now when you do the momentum substitution you'll get a sum of six terms, which is your second equation.

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense! The only mystery left is the ##\rho## index. I guess that it is natural that every boson interacting at the vertex comes with it's own tensor index, thus giving rise to ##\mu, \nu## and ##\rho##, but in the term above there is only ##\mu## and ##\nu##, so how does this index arise?
 
What you have written in the second equation is intended to be multiplied by AaμAbνAcρ, making a scalar.
 
Bill_K said:
What you have written in the second equation is intended to be multiplied by AaμAbνAcρ, making a scalar.

As you say one can make the antisymmetry explicit and divide by 6, since the six terms have the same value. But why then, does not this factor of 6 appear in the feynman rule? Well I've seen some include it and some not. Are these factors absorbed in the symmetry factor of the diagram or something?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K