Lagrangian invariant but Action is gauge invariant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the challenge of demonstrating gauge invariance in a specific Lagrangian for a 3D electromagnetic field. The Lagrangian presented includes terms that suggest the possibility of a massive photon despite unbroken gauge invariance. The participant is struggling with the integration of leftover terms after substituting gauge transformations, questioning how these terms vanish when integrated. They note that the antisymmetry of the epsilon tensor combined with the symmetry of the partial derivatives results in zero, which is key to understanding the gauge invariance of the action. The conversation highlights the complexities of gauge theory in lower-dimensional spacetime and the mathematical subtleties involved.
creepypasta13
Messages
370
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



So I'm having some difficulty with my QFT assignment. I have to solve the following problem.

In three spacetime dimensions (two space plus one time) an antisymmetric Lorentz tensor
F^{\mu\nu} = -F^{\nu\mu} is equivalent to an axial Lorentz vector, F^{\mu\nu} = e^{\mu\nu\lambda}F_{\lambda}. Consequently, in 3D
one can have a massive photon despite unbroken gauge invariance of the electromagnetic
field A_{\mu}. Indeed, consider the following Lagrangian:

L = -(1/2)*F_{\lambda}F^{\lambda} + (m/2)*F_{\lambda}A^{\lambda} (6)

where

F_{\lambda}(x) = (1/2)*\epsilon_{\lambda\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} = \epsilon_{\lambda\mu\nu}\partial^{\mu}A^{\nu},

or in components, F_{0} = -B, F1 = +E^{2}, F_{2} = -E^{1}.

(a) Show that the action S = \intd^{3}x*L is gauge invariant (although the Lagrangian (6) is not invariant).
So I tried substituting A^{\lambda} -> A^{\lambda'} = A^{\lambda} + \partial^{\lambda}\Lambda
and F^{\lambda} -> F^{\lambda'} = \epsilon^{\lambda\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}'

then I obtained L' = L + (1/2)*[ F_{\lambda} \epsilon^{\lambda\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \Lambda + some other terms]

What I don't understand is how these leftover terms would vanish after being integrated (to obtain S'), but they don't all vanish if they are not integrated (since L is not invariant). Is there some kind of special mathematical trick I have to use? I just don't see how I can integrate terms like \intd^{3}x F_{\lambda}\epsilon^{\lambda\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\Lambda
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I can see how Fλ ϵλμν∂μ ∂ν Λ would vanish. The \mu and \nu are symmetric wrt to exchange for the partial derivatives, but the indices of the \epsilon symbol are totally antisymmetric. Multiplying a symmetric tensor and an antisymmetry one gives zero always.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top