Is Weinberg missing a \gamma_5 in his mass parameter redefinition?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft Weinberg
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a potential oversight in Weinberg's treatment of mass parameter redefinitions in quantum field theory, specifically regarding the inclusion of the \(\gamma_5\) matrix in the transformation of mass terms. Participants are examining the mathematical derivation of these transformations, referencing specific equations from Weinberg's work.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether Weinberg is missing a \(\gamma_5\) in the mass term Lagrangian, suggesting that the transformation should include \(\gamma_5\) in the redefinition of mass parameters.
  • Another participant provides an expansion of the exponential involving \(\gamma_5\), indicating that the transformation leads to a specific form involving trigonometric functions of the transformation parameter.
  • A third participant expresses confusion about the necessity of expanding the exponential fully versus stopping at the first order, highlighting variability in approaches among different contributors.
  • One participant shifts the focus to a different problem, seeking assistance with reproducing a metric from Weinberg's text, indicating a broader context of challenges faced in understanding the material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the \(\gamma_5\) is indeed missing in Weinberg's formulation. There are competing views on the correct approach to the mathematical derivation, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific details of the mass parameter redefinition.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific equations and terms from Weinberg's work, indicating that their discussion is heavily dependent on the definitions and assumptions present in that context. The mathematical steps involved in the derivations are not fully resolved, and there is uncertainty about the appropriate level of expansion for the exponential terms.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I'm having problem in deriving 23.6.11 from Weinberg's-Quantum Theory of fields...

We have: \psi_f \rightarrow \exp (i a_f \gamma_5) \psi_f, f denoting the flavor.

Then for the mass term lagrangian he writes:

L_m = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_f M_f \bar{\psi}_f (1+ \gamma_5) \psi_f - \frac{1}{2} \sum_f M^*_f \bar{\psi}_f (1- \gamma_5) \psi_f

With M_f the mass parameters. He says that by making a transformation of the fields as above, the mass parameter will be redefined:

M_f \rightarrow M_f \exp (2i a_f)
However I think he is missing a \gamma_5?

Because the first for example term:

\begin{multline}

\\

-\frac{1}{2} \sum_f M_f\psi^\dagger_f e^{-i \gamma_5 a_f}\gamma_0 (1+ \gamma_5) e^{i \gamma_5 a_f} \psi_f=\\

\approx -\frac{1}{2} \sum_f M_f\psi^\dagger_f (1-i \gamma_5 a_f)\gamma_0 (1+ \gamma_5) (1+i \gamma_5 a_f) \psi_f=\\

=-\frac{1}{2} \sum_f \psi^\dagger_f \gamma_0 M_f (1+i \gamma_5 a_f) (1+i \gamma_5 a_f) (1+ \gamma_5)\psi_f=\\

=-\frac{1}{2} \sum_f \bar{\psi}_f M_f (1+i 2 \gamma_5 a_f) (1+ \gamma_5)\psi_f

\end{multline}which leads in the redifinition of M:

M_f \rightarrow M_f \exp (2i a_f \gamma_5)

Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Expand ## e^{ i \alpha_f \gamma_5} = 1 + i \alpha_f \gamma_5 - \frac{\alpha_f^2}{2!} \gamma_5 \ldots = \cos{\alpha_f} 1 + i \sin{\alpha_f} \gamma_5 ,## since ## \gamma_5^2 = 1##.

The first term in the lagrangian goes to ##\rightarrow \bar{\psi} e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} ( 1 + \gamma_5 ) e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} \psi ##

Using the expansion above, we find that
e^{2 i \alpha_f \gamma_5} = \cos{2 \alpha_f} 1 + i \sin{2 \alpha_f} \gamma_5
and
e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} \gamma_5 e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} = \cos{2\alpha_f} \gamma_5 + i \sin{2\alpha_f} 1
so
e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} ( 1 + \gamma_5 ) e^{i \alpha_f \gamma_5} = e^{2 i \alpha_f} (1 + \gamma_5)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ChrisVer
Hi, thanks for clarifying... so I have to expland the whole exponential... [that is somewhat confusing, other times people expland it up to 1st order, other times they write the whole expansion].
 
Could someone help me with the metric he obtains at 23.4.10?
I have tried all possible ways but I haven't been able to reproduce his result... Here is my last try for solution...Obviously my results are not the same even for the easies ase of (44) component..

Used:

Tr[\tau_a \tau_b]= \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ab}
Tr[\tau_a \tau_b \tau_c]= \frac{i}{8} \epsilon_{bca}
Tr[\tau_a \tau_b \tau_c \tau_d]= \frac{1}{8} \delta_{ab} \delta_{cd} + \frac{1}{32} ( \delta_{cb} \delta_{ad} - \delta_{ca} \delta_{bd})

\begin{multline}

\\

g=\theta_4 1 +2 i \theta_i \tau_i \\

g^{-1}= \theta_4 1 -2 i \theta_i \tau_i \\

A_{ij}=g^{-1} (\partial_i g) g^{-1} (\partial_j g)\\

\end{multline}
\begin{equation}

\gamma_{ij}(\theta) = -\frac{1}{2} Tr A_{ij}

\end{equation}
So:
\begin{multline}

A_{44}=g^{-1} (\partial_4 g) g^{-1} (\partial_4 g)=g^{-1} g^{-1} 1= \theta_4^2 1- 4 \theta_a \theta_b \tau_a \tau_b-4i \theta_4 \theta_a \tau_a \\

\gamma_{44}= - \theta_4^2 + \theta^2 = 2 \theta^2 -1 \\

A_{4i}= g^{-1} (\partial_4 g) g^{-1} (\partial_i g)= g^{-1} g^{-1} 2i \tau_i=2i \theta_4^2 \tau_i - 8i \theta_a \theta_b \tau_a \tau_b \tau_i +8 \theta_4 \theta_a \tau_a \tau_i\\

\gamma_{4i}=-\frac{1}{2} \theta_a \theta_b \epsilon_{bia}-2 \theta_4 \theta_i = - 2 \theta_4 \theta_i = \gamma_{i4} \Big|_{checked}\\

A_{ij}=-4g^{-1} \tau_i g^{-1} \tau_j= -4 (\theta_4 1 -2 i \theta_a \tau_a)\tau_i (\theta_4 1 -2 i \theta_b \tau_b)\tau_j\\

\gamma_{ij}=-\frac{1}{4} (3 \theta^2 \delta_{ij}- 4\delta_{ij}+ 5 \theta_{i} \theta_{j})\\

\end{multline}
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K