Massive boson propagator - problem with step in derivation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the massive boson propagator, specifically focusing on a step in the derivation that involves the expression for the divergence of a certain quantity related to the vector field. Participants explore the implications of integrating by parts and the conditions under which certain terms can be simplified or removed from the Lagrangian density.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the sufficiency of conditions required to ensure that the divergence of a specific term vanishes, seeking clarity on the implications of a 'free' field.
  • Another participant introduces Stokes' theorem, suggesting that under certain boundary conditions, the integral of the divergence can be considered zero, thus allowing for simplifications in the Lagrangian density.
  • A subsequent reply clarifies that while the integral of the divergence is zero, the divergence itself does not necessarily equal zero, prompting further discussion on the implications for the vector field.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about visualizing the quantity \( V_{\nu} V^{\mu\nu} \) and its properties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the interpretation of divergences and boundary conditions. While there is acknowledgment of the application of Stokes' theorem, the implications for the vector field and the specific conditions required for simplifications remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on boundary conditions and the specific definitions of terms involved in the derivation, which may affect the conclusions drawn about the propagator.

Ben1729
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've been going through a derivation of the massive boson propagator. The only trouble is I don't feel satisfied by one particular step. I've started getting the problem written up in tex so here goes:

[tex] \newcommand{\del}{\partial}<br /> \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rl}#1\end{array}\end{equation}}<br /> \newcommand{\where}[1]{\\\textrm{where}\quad #1}<br /> \newcommand{\dm}{\del_{\mu}}<br /> \newcommand{\dn}{\del_{\nu}}<br /> \newcommand{\dM}{\del^{\mu}}<br /> \newcommand{\dN}{\del^{\nu}}<br /> \newcommand{\vm}{V_{\mu}}<br /> \newcommand{\vn}{V_{\nu}}<br /> \newcommand{\vM}{V^{\mu}}<br /> \newcommand{\vN}{V^{\nu}}<br /> \newcommand{\dmvn}{\dm\vn}<br /> \newcommand{\dnvm}{\dn\vm}<br /> \newcommand{\dMvN}{\dM\vN}<br /> \newcommand{\dNvM}{\dN\vM}<br /> \newcommand{\vmn}{V_{\mu\nu}}<br /> \newcommand{\vMN}{V^{\mu\nu}}<br /> For a free (non-interacting) massive vector field V the lagrangian is:<br /> <br /> \eqn{<br /> L&=-\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}+\frac{M^2}{2}V^{\mu}V_{\mu}\\<br /> \where{V_{\mu\nu}&=\dmvn-\dnvm}<br /> }<br /> <br /> To extract the massive boson propagator, let us expand the first term:<br /> \eqn{<br /> V_{\mu\nu}V^{\mu\nu}&=(\dmvn-\dnvm)(\dMvN-\dNvM)\\<br /> &=\dmvn\dMvN-\dmvn\dNvM-\dnvm\dMvN+\dnvm\dNvM\\<br /> &=2[\dmvn\dMvN-\dmvn\dNvM]\\<br /> &=2[\dm(\vn\dMvN)-\vn\dm\dMvN-\dm(\vn\dNvM)+\vn\dm\dNvM]<br /> }<br /> <br /> Now in order to get a simple expression for the propagator,<br /> we'd quite like the sum of the 1st and 3rd terms to be zero:<br /> \eqn{<br /> \dm(\vn\dMvN)-\dm(\vn\dNvM)=0\\<br /> \dm(\vn(\dMvN-\dNvM))=0\\<br /> \dm(\vn\vMN)=0<br /> }[/tex]

So my question now is, what is the sufficient condition to make this last equation true?

Some books just say 'integrate by parts' and voila, you mystically end up with only the 2nd and 4th terms of the last line of equation 2, and then you can go on to define the propagator.

But going through it myself, and iterating the steps explicitly as above, I'm not convinced by this. Have I done something really dumb? Or is there some condition I'm missing - does a 'free' field mean something here?

Thanks in advance.

B.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\int dx^{4}\partial_{\mu}[V_{\nu}V^{\nu\mu}]=\int dS_{\mu} V_{\nu}V^{\nu\mu}[/tex]

As you know if you take boundary at infinity the letter integral gives zero. So this kind of expressions give no contribution to action integral and can be removed from lagrangian density.


PS: dS is a 3-dimensional hypersurface in Minkowski space
 
Ah yes. Good old Stokes.
But I'm still not sure what zero divergence for such a strange quantity as:
[tex]V_\nu V^{\mu\nu}[/tex]
implies for [tex]V_\nu[/tex] itself
 
It does NOT have zero divergence. The INTEGRAL of the divergence is zero, because the integral of ANY divergence (with suitable boundary conditions at infinity) is zero.
 
Er...yes. Sorry. Thanks!

I still can't quite visualise this quantity:
[tex]V_{\nu} V^{\mu\nu}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K