- #1

- 27

- 1

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Pet Scan
- Start date

- #1

- 27

- 1

- #2

- 27

- 1

So where should I put this post, and how do I transfer it please...in order to get an answer?

Thx;

Pet Scan

- #3

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 8,059

- 3,955

Becausee the five gamma's generate the 5-dimensional Clifford algebra.

- #4

- 27

- 1

Thx

- #5

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 8,059

- 3,955

Look at the anticommutation relations for the ##\gamma^\mu## (##\mu=1:4##, where the 4 is traditionallly written as 0), generalize to any ##n## in place of ##4## and then look at what you get for ##n=5##. Aha!

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_algebra#Physics

- #6

- 27

- 1

More explicitly; we see in a phenomenological explanation, for example, given here, of the Chiral Magnetic Effect (which is an axial anomaly) .. which I find of great interest... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47338061_Axial_anomaly_Dirac_sea_and_the_chiral_magnetic_effect [Broken]...

under the heading,...

** 2. The Chiral Magnetic Effect and Landau Levels of Dirac Fermions**;

we see, in this derivation of parity violating current J, the difference in Fermi momenta of right and left handed spins (top of page 4), is given as**u(R) - u(L) = 2u^5**.

It is designated as u^5......(leading to an implied J^5 current density) ....why does he designate it as u^5 ...as opposed to u^4 or even u^6.....IOW, from whence is the postscript derived.?

Sorry; I am lost when you speak of anything about Clifford algebra....even as I have tried to read about it o Wiki....I guess I need to learn it in order to get the understanding...

under the heading,...

we see, in this derivation of parity violating current J, the difference in Fermi momenta of right and left handed spins (top of page 4), is given as

It is designated as u^5......(leading to an implied J^5 current density) ....why does he designate it as u^5 ...as opposed to u^4 or even u^6.....IOW, from whence is the postscript derived.?

Sorry; I am lost when you speak of anything about Clifford algebra....even as I have tried to read about it o Wiki....I guess I need to learn it in order to get the understanding...

Last edited by a moderator:

- #7

- 20,109

- 10,850

$$j_5^{\mu}=\mathrm{i} \overline{\psi} \gamma^5 \gamma^{\mu} \psi,$$

and I guess the ##5## is indeed just due to the appearance of the ##\gamma^5=\mathrm{i} \gamma^0 \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \gamma^3## Dirac matrix in the current. It's just a name with not much deeper reason. Now it happens that when quantizing the theory, you cannot keep all symmetries.

For the axial U(1) anomaly it's intuitively understandable what happens. When calculating one-loop corrections to the three-point vertex function with one axial and two vector currents you have a linear divergence. Thus you have to regularize this loop integral. If you like to preserve the symmetry you should find a regulator that doesn't destroy the symmetry. You cannot find such a regulator for the axial U(1) symmetry. The usual suspects don't work: A momentum cutoff destroys the symmetry, because a scale enters, and chiral symmetry doesn't easily respect a scale. The same holds for Pauli-Villars: You have to introduce massive fermions, and these don't respect the chiral symmetry. Dimensional regularization fails, because you don't know what to do with the generically four-dimensional object ##\gamma^5##.

Indeed, a closer analysis shows that you can either keep the vector current conserved or the axial current or any linear combination thereof. You can however never preserve both. Physics tells you which current to conserve usually. E.g., if you have QED the vector current should be conserved, because otherweise you destroy electromagnetic gauge symmetry, because that's the current the em. field couples to. Thus you must break the conservation of the axial U(1).

I have a section on anomalies in my QFT manuscript (Sect. 7.6):

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

- #8

- 27

- 1

Share: