Non-covariant parts of the propagator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ismaili
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    parts Propagator
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the non-covariant parts of the propagator as presented in Weinberg's volume I. The propagator is derived using the integral equation involving the polynomial P_{\ell m}(q), which is defined as a spin sum of field coefficients. The necessity of defining the generalized polynomial as linear in q^0 is emphasized for simplifying mathematical manipulations, leading to the identification of the non-covariant term in the propagator for massive vector fields. The second term in the propagator represents this non-covariant part, which is crucial for understanding the overall structure of the propagator.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory concepts, particularly propagators.
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations and representations of the Lorentz group.
  • Knowledge of spin sums and their role in quantum mechanics.
  • Proficiency in mathematical manipulation of integrals and polynomials in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of propagators in quantum field theory, focusing on Weinberg's approach.
  • Learn about the role of covariant and non-covariant terms in quantum field theory.
  • Examine the implications of the polynomial structure in propagators for massive vector fields.
  • Explore the mathematical techniques for manipulating integrals involving derivatives and theta functions.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and anyone studying quantum field theory, particularly those interested in the mathematical foundations of propagators and their properties.

ismaili
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
I'm reading Weinberg's volume I.
I don't quite understand what's the origin of the non-covariant parts of the propagator.

The propagator can be calculated to be
\Delta_{\ell m}(2\pi)^{-4}\int d^4q\frac{P_{\ell m}(q)\,e^{iq\cdot(x-y)}}{q^2+m^2-i\epsilon}\quad\cdots(*)
where
P_{\ell m}(q)\equiv 2\sqrt{\mathbf{q}^2+m^2}\sum_{\sigma}u_\ell(\mathbf{p},\sigma)u^*_m(\mathbf{p},\sigma)\quad\cdots(**) is the spin sum of the field coefficients (coefficients of annihilation operator).
Eq(*) is an integral over all the possible four momentum q, but the polynomial P_{\ell m}(q) defined by eq(**) is "on-shell", i.e. q^2=-m^2; hence, we have to extend the definition of the polynomial P_{\ell m}. Note that if q is on-shell, we can always write P_{\ell m}(q) as a polynomial "linear" in q^0. Hence, we define the generalized polynomial as a linear function of q^0, and the polynomial transforms covariantly, i.e.
P^{(L)}_{\ell m}(\Lambda q) = D_{\ell\ell'}(\Lambda)D^*_{mm'}(\Lambda)P^{(L)}_{\ell'm'}(q), where D(\Lambda) is certain representation of the Lorentz group. Now consider the polynomial of a massive vector field, P^{(L)}_{\ell m}(p) = \eta_{\mu\nu} + m^{-2}q_\mu q_\nu, since there is a quadratic term in q^0, hence actually the correct polynomial should be P^{(L)}_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + m^{-2}\left[q_\mu q_\nu - \delta^0_\mu\delta^0_\nu(q^2+m^2)\right].
We substitute this polynomial into eq(*), hence we get the propagator for massive vector field is
(2\pi)^{-4}\int d^4q\frac{(\eta_{\mu\nu} + m^{-2}q_\mu q_\nu)e^{iq\cdot(x-y)}}{q^2+m^2-i\epsilon} + m^{-2}\delta^{(4)}(x-y)\delta^0_\mu\delta^0_\nu, the second term is the non-covariant part of the propagator.

What I don't understand is, why should we define the generalized polynomial in a way like what he did? Why the linear in q^0 so important? I'm confused and I don't get the logic and the reasoning, is there someone who can instruct me? These stuff is contained in p.277 or so basically. Any ideas would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've probably already resolved this, but:

the extension of the polynomial doesn't need to be defined to be linear in q^0. Weinberg uses that form purely to simplify the manipulation of moving the derivative operators to the left of the theta functions in (6.2.12) (Note the second term's dependence on P^(1)_{lm}.) Then, he rewrites the result in terms of a covariant polynomial and a non-covariant term in (6.2.20,.21).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K