B General form of electromagnetic vertex function in QFT

Wrichik Basu
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
2,717
TL;DR Summary
How did the authors write the general form of the electromagnetic vertex function out of nowhere?
I am studying a beginner's book on QFT.

In a chapter on electromagnetic form factors, the authors have written, using normalized states,
$$\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \vec{p'}, s'| j_\mu (x) |\vec{p}, s \rangle \ = \ \exp(-i \ q \cdot x) \langle \vec{p'}, s'| j_\mu (0) |\vec{p}, s \rangle \nonumber \\
\Rightarrow \ \langle \vec{p'}, s'| j_\mu (x) |\vec{p}, s \rangle \ = \ \dfrac{\exp(-i \ q \cdot x)}{\sqrt{2 E_p V} \sqrt{2 E_{p'} V}} \bar{u}_{s'} (\vec{p'}) e \Gamma_\mu(p, p') u_s(\vec{p}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}$$
where ##q = p - p'##, ##E_p = p^0##, ##E_{p'} = p'^0##, ##\Gamma## is the vertex function, ##u_s## is the plane wave solution of the Dirac Equation, ##\bar{u}_s## is the Dirac conjugate of ##u_s##, and other symbols have their usual meanings.

After this, the authors have said that the most general form of ##\Gamma## is $$ \Gamma_\mu \ = \ \gamma_\mu(F_1 + \tilde{F}_1 \gamma_5) \ + (\ i F_2 + \tilde{F}_2 \gamma_5) \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu \ + \tilde{F}_3 q_\mu \not\!q\gamma_5 \ + \ q_\mu (F_4 + \tilde{F}_4\gamma_5),$$ where ##\sigma_{\mu \nu} \ = \ \frac{i}{2} \left[\gamma_\mu, \ \gamma_\nu\right]## and ##\gamma_5 \ = \ \frac{i}{4!} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\lambda \gamma^\rho##, all the ##F##'s are the electromagnetic form factors and other symbols have their usual meanings.

I understand that the book is for beginners, but how did the authors, out of nowhere, write down the general form for ##\Gamma##?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The products of one or more ##\gamma## and ##\gamma_5##, forms a basis for all matrices of dimension 4. ##\Gamma## can thus be written in a basis of them. You need then also to take into account e.g. Lorentz invariance in order to arrive at the expression for ##\Gamma##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top