Quantization of vector field in the Coulomb gauge

diracologia
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I have a technical question and at the time being I can't ask it to a professor. So, I'm here:

If I try to quantize the vector field in the Coulomb gauge (radiation gauge)

A_0(x)=0,\quad \vec\nabla\cdot\vec A=0.

by imposing the equal-time commutation relation

[A_i(x),E_j(y)]=-i\delta_{ij}\delta(\vec x-\vec y)

then I should find

\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]=0,
since \vec\nabla\cdot\vec A=0, which is inconsistent with \partial_i\delta_{ij}\delta(\vec x-\vec y)\neq 0.

My question is simply how to take this divergence

\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]

I'm getting
\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]+A_i\partial_i E_j-(\partial_i E_j)A_i .
I must be missing something in the math here. Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't remember much of this, but if you can write \vec E=-\nabla\phi, then the last two terms cancel each other out.
 
diracologia said:
I have a technical question and at the time being I can't ask it to a professor. So, I'm here:

If I try to quantize the vector field in the Coulomb gauge (radiation gauge)

A_0(x)=0,\quad \vec\nabla\cdot\vec A=0.

by imposing the equal-time commutation relation

[A_i(x),E_j(y)]=-i\delta_{ij}\delta(\vec x-\vec y)

then I should find

\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]=0,
since \vec\nabla\cdot\vec A=0, which is inconsistent with \partial_i\delta_{ij}\delta(\vec x-\vec y)\neq 0.

My question is simply how to take this divergence

\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]

I'm getting
\partial_i[A_i,E_j]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j]+A_i\partial_i E_j-(\partial_i E_j)A_i .
I must be missing something in the math here. Can anyone help me?

\partial^{x}_i[A_i(x),E_j(y)]=[\vec\nabla\cdot\vec A,E_j(y)]

you are not differentiating with respect to y. If you want to avoid confussion just set y = 0.

Sam
 
Kaku's QFT p.110 seems to be addressing your question:

"If we impose canonical commutation relations, we find a further complication.

[Ai(x,t), Ej(y,t)] = −iδijδ(x⃗ − y⃗)

However, this cannot be correct because we can take the divergence of both sides of the equation. The divergence of Ai is zero, so the left-hand side is zero, but the right hand side is not. As a result, we must modify the canonical commutation relations as follows:

[Ai(x,t), Ej(y,t)] = −iδijδ(x⃗ − y⃗)

where the right-hand side must be transverse; that is:

δij = ∫d3k/(2π)3 exp(ik·(x-x') (δij - kikj/k2)

[In other words, in Coulomb gauge only the transverse part is quantized, so only the transverse part appears in the commutator.]

EDIT: In other books they make this even more explicit by putting a "transverse part" operator on both A and E on the left hand side.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all,

Sam, you solve my puzzle. I just puted \partial_i and forgot that this is a differentiation only over x. Shame on me!
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top