Problem with Parity for photons

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LayMuon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parity Photons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the intrinsic parity of photons under parity transformation, specifically the equation \(\hat{P} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},\lambda} \hat{P} = - \hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},\lambda}\). The user seeks to establish that the negative sign arises from the vector nature of the four-potential \(\mathbf{A}(x)\) in radiation gauge, leading to the conclusion that \(\eta = -1\). The analysis involves the transformation properties of circular polarization vectors and the implications of spatial inversion on momentum and spin vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory concepts, particularly photon properties.
  • Familiarity with the mathematical representation of four-potential in radiation gauge.
  • Knowledge of parity transformation and its effects on vector and axial vector quantities.
  • Basic grasp of polarization vectors and their behavior under spatial inversion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of parity transformation in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore the properties of four-potential in quantum electrodynamics (QED).
  • Investigate the implications of intrinsic parity on particle physics, focusing on gauge theories.
  • Learn about the relationship between momentum and spin vectors in quantum field theory.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory and particle physics, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of photon behavior under parity transformations.

LayMuon
Messages
149
Reaction score
1
I am trying to understand how it can be shown that under parity transformation we have to have \hat{P} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},\lambda} \hat{P} = - \hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},\lambda}, I mean the negative sign (negative intrinsic parity of photon). So I am trying to prove that from the vector nature of four potential it follows that \eta = -1 in the relation \hat{P} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},\lambda} \hat{P} = \eta \hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},\lambda}

In radiation gauge the second quantized four-potential is:
<br /> \mathbf{A}(x) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_p}} \sum_{\lambda =1,2} \left [ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\mathbf{p}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},\lambda} e^{-ipx} +\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^*(\mathbf{p}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},\lambda}^* e^{ipx} \right ]<br />
From vector nature of $\mathbf{A}$ we should have:
<br /> \hat{P} \mathbf{A}(t,\mathbf{x}) \hat{P} = - \mathbf{A}(t,\mathbf{x&#039;}=-\mathbf{x})<br />

Applying parity operator:
<br /> \hat{P} \mathbf{A} \hat{P}= \int \frac{d^3p}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_p}} \eta \sum_{\lambda =1,2} \left [ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\mathbf{p}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},\lambda} e^{-ipx} +\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^*(\mathbf{p}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},\lambda}^* e^{ipx} \right ] \\<br /> \hat{P} \mathbf{A}(x) \hat{P}= \int \frac{d^3p&#039;}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_p}} \eta \sum_{\lambda =1,2} \left [ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(-\mathbf{p&#039;}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p&#039;},\lambda} e^{-ip&#039;x&#039;} +\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^*(\mathbf{-p&#039;}, \lambda) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p&#039;},\lambda}^* e^{ip&#039;x&#039;} \right ]<br />

On the other hand for circular polarization vectors the flipping of the momentum sign ammouts to rotation of the direction of momentum by 180, e.g. around the axes $x$:
<br /> \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\mathbf{p},1) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{1,i,0\} \Rightarrow \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(-\mathbf{p},1) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{1,-i,0\} \\<br /> \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\mathbf{p},2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{1,-i,0\} \Rightarrow \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(-\mathbf{p},2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{1,i,0\}<br />

We see that polarizations exchange their places in the equation. Under spatial inversion all coordinates would be reversed and a minus sign would appear in the equation (4). Hence

<br /> \hat{P} \mathbf{A}(x) \hat{P}= \int \frac{d^3p&#039;}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_p}} (-\eta) \sum_{\lambda =1,2} \left [ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\mathbf{p&#039;}, \mp) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p&#039;},\pm} e^{-ip&#039;x&#039;} +\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^*(\mathbf{-p&#039;}, \mp) \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p&#039;},\pm}^* e^{ip&#039;x&#039;} \right ]<br />

I don't understand how can this equation (7) be compared with equation (2) to deduce that \eta=-1, the polarizations echanged their places!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that, although momentum is a normal (polar) vector, spin is an axial vector. So that under a parity operation, p → -p but ss. The components of the polarization vectors remain unchanged: ε(-p,1) is still (1/√2){1, i, 0}.
 
Bill_K said:
Remember that, although momentum is a normal (polar) vector, spin is an axial vector. So that under a parity operation, p → -p but ss. The components of the polarization vectors remain unchanged: ε(-p,1) is still (1/√2){1, i, 0}.

That I intuitively realize but I need mathematically sound proof. Which part of my logic fails mathematically?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K