Non-abelian Gauge invariance (chapter 15.1 in Peskin/Schroeder)

Stalafin
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I am trying to understand the derivation of the covariant derivative in Peskin/Schroeder (chapter 15.1, page 483).

This is the important stuff:
n^\mu\partial_\mu\psi=\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[\psi(x+\epsilon n)-\psi(x)\right]

Scalar quantity: U(y,x):
U(y,x) \rightarrow e^{i\alpha(y)} U(y,x) e^{-i\alpha(x)}

Conditions for zero separation and pure phase:
U(y,y)=1
U(y,x)=exp[i\phi(y,x)]

Covariant derivative:
n^\mu D_\mu \psi = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[\psi(x+\epsilon n)-U(x+\epsilon n,x)\psi(x)\right]

Expansion of U(y,x) in the separation of the two points:
U(x+\epsilon n,x) = 1 - i e\epsilon n^\mu A_\mu(x) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)

A_\mu(x) is a new vector field and is the coefficient of the displacement \epsilon n^\mu. Why?! I don't see how the author gets there.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't this just by definition. You expand U in powers of ε nμ, and the coefficient in the linear term, you define that to be Aμ.
 
I thought about making an expansion... This is what I came up with (Peskin expands for epsilon):
\left. U(x+\epsilon n,x) \right|_{\epsilon=0} = U(x,x) + U'(x,x) n \epsilon + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)

So, U(x,x) becomes one from the zero separation condition; what I have trouble understanding is the next part. How does that work out?

U'(x,x) n \epsilon = - ie\epsilon n^\mu A_\mu(x)

Do I use the pure phase condition for that? And how am I supposed to read the n? As a four-vector itself? Or is that:
n=n^\mu A_\mu(x)

Where does the rest come from?
 
The Taylor expansion is
U(x+\epsilon n,x)=U(x,x)+\epsilon n^\mu\partial_\mu U(x,x) + O(\epsilon^2)
Then we define
A_\mu(x)\equiv (i/e) \partial_\mu U(x,x)
Note that, with the factor of i, unitarity of U implies that A is hermitian. And to be precise, the partial derivative actually acts only on the first x.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top