Trouble with Wick rotation in 1+1d abelian Higgs model

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rgoerke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Higgs Model Rotation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of Wick rotation in the context of a 1+1 dimensional abelian Higgs model, specifically focusing on the transformation of the scalar kinetic term when transitioning from Minkowski to Euclidean space. Participants are examining the implications of this transformation on the action and the covariant derivatives involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the process of Wick rotation and expresses confusion about the scalar kinetic term, noting discrepancies between their results and those found in various sources.
  • Another participant questions the transition from one line of the derivation to another, suggesting there may be an extra negative sign involved.
  • A third participant advises caution regarding the treatment of up/down indices, indicating that different conventions may lead to different sign outcomes.
  • The original poster explains their reasoning for a specific transformation involving complex conjugates, asserting their careful attention to indices.
  • Another participant raises a question about the transformation of the derivatives, specifically whether \(D_{0}\) and \(D^0\) should transform similarly.
  • The original poster responds affirmatively, indicating they can express everything in terms of \(D_0\) without needing to clarify the transformation of \(D^0\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the Wick rotation process and the treatment of indices, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus on the resolution of the confusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the mathematical steps involved in the Wick rotation, particularly concerning the signs and transformations of the covariant derivatives. The discussion highlights the dependence on conventions used in the treatment of indices.

rgoerke
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
When solving for instanton solutions in a 1+1d abelian Higgs model, it's convenient to work in Euclidean space using the substitution
[tex]x^0 \rightarrow -ix_4^E,\quad x^1 \rightarrow x_1^E[/tex]
The corresponding substitution for the covariant derivative is
[tex]D^0 \rightarrow iD_4^E,\quad D^1 \rightarrow D_1^E[/tex]
Now, many sources will write out the Euclidean action that you get from this substitution, and I am able to reproduce the gauge kinetic term and the potential term, but I'm doing something stupid with the scalar kinetic term. In real space, we have
[tex]\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{\mu}\phi\right)^*\left(D^{\mu}\phi\right)[/tex]
doing the Wick rotation,
[tex]\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(D_0\phi\right)^*\left(D_0\phi\right) - \left(D_1\phi\right)^*\left(D_1\phi\right)\right)[/tex]
[tex]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(-iD_4^E\phi\right)^*\left(-iD_4^E\phi\right) - \left(D_1^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_1^E\phi\right)\right)[/tex]
[tex]=\frac{1}{2}\left((i)\left(D_4^E\phi\right)^*(-i)\left(D_4^E\phi\right) - \left(D_1^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_1^E\phi\right)\right)[/tex]
[tex]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(D_4^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_4^E\phi\right) - \left(D_1^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_1^E\phi\right)\right)[/tex]
but in order to reproduce what I see in various sources, I should be getting
[tex]-\frac{1}{2}\left|D_{\mu}^E\phi\right|^2[/tex]
[tex]=\frac{1}{2}\left(-\left(D_4^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_4^E\phi\right) - \left(D_1^E\phi\right)^*\left(D_1^E\phi\right)\right)[/tex]
This is a very straightforward process, clearly I am missing something very obvious or doing something completely wrong, but I've stared at this for a while and I'm just not sure what it is.

Thanks for you help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How, after the Wick rotation, did you get from line 2 to line 3?
Should there be an extra -1 factor ?
 
In addition to what Harry said, you should be careful with your up/down indices, depending on which convention you use you should pay attention to minus signs.
 
Hi, thanks for your responses.

I'm getting from line 2 to 3 by taking the complex conjugate:
[tex]\left(-iD_0\phi\right)^* =(-i)^*\left(D_0\phi\right)^*=(i)\left(D_0\phi\right)^*[/tex]

As for indicies, I have tried to be as careful as possible; if you see a mistake please point it out.

This seems like a stupidly simple thing to get caught-up on, but I just can't figure out how this rotation to Euclidean space works.
 
Well, you have $$D_{0}$$ and $$D^0$$, should they transform the same way (with the same sign)?
 
...should they transform the same way (with the same sign)?

Yes, I believe so. In any case I don't really need to know explicitly how D^0 transforms since I can write everything in terms of D_0,
[tex]D_{\mu}D^{\mu} = g^{\mu\nu}D_{\mu}D_{\nu} = D_0D_0 - D_1D_1[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K