Gauge Invariance (QED): How Does the Statement Hold?

PhyAmateur
Messages
103
Reaction score
2
My book says that in this case $$e^+e^- \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $$ gauge invariance requires that $$k_{1\nu}(A^{\mu\nu} + \tilde{A}^{\mu\nu})=0=k_{2\mu}(A^{\mu\nu} + \tilde{A}^{\mu\nu})$$ Please see attachment. My question is how does this statement hold?
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a Ward-Takahashi identity. It comes from current conservation, ##\partial_{\mu} j^{\mu}=0##, which is a necessary condition for gauge invariance.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
But the author insisted that these conditions are met although the quantities in the equations k1ν(Aμν+A~μν)=0=k2μ(Aμν+A~μν) each separately are all different from zero. Why would he say that if it is already a consequence of ward identity? @vanhees71
 
  • Like
Likes loopylisa
The Ward-Takahashi identities refer to the proper vertex function and is valid order by order in ##\hbar## (number of loops), i.e., it's valid only for the complete set of diagrams of a given order.
 
How does this have to do with my question? I can't relate.
 
  • Like
Likes loopylisa
It has all to do with your last question, why it doesn't apply to a single diagram but only to the sum of the two diagrams relevant for the N-point function at the given loop order (which here is tree-level).
 
If you write out the expressions for ##A^{\mu\nu}## and ##\tilde{A}^{\mu\nu}## that you get from computing these diagrams, you will find that ##k_{1\nu}(A^{\mu\nu} + \tilde{A}^{\mu\nu})=0## and ##k_{2\mu}(A^{\mu\nu} + \tilde{A}^{\mu\nu})=0##. So, while this can be predicted from gauge invariance, it is also the result of doing the explicit calculation.
 
  • Like
Likes PhyAmateur
Are you telling me that Ward Takashi holds for the amplitude and not necessarily for each of the Feynman diagrams whose sum is the amplitude? @vanhees71
 
Yes, that's it. The same is true for other symmetries, like charge conjugation symmetry, which implies that n-photon vertices with an odd number of photons must vanish. This also holds true only for the sum at a given loop order. Take, e.g., the one-loop triangle diagrams. You need to add both contibutions (which are different only by the orientation of the electron-positron loop making up the triangle).
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top