Understanding the Role of Poles in the Propagator for Massive Vector Fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter eoghan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Poles Propagator
eoghan
Messages
201
Reaction score
7
Hi!
From "Le Bellac, Quantum and statistical field theory, 10.5.2-Massive vector field":
"The longitudinal part of the propagator k_{\mu}D^{\mu\nu} has no pole at
k^2=m^2, so the longitudinal part doesn't constitute a dynamical degree of freedom."

I have two questions:
1) Why the propagator doesn't represent a dynamical degree of freedom if it hasn't any pole?
How do you demonstrate that physical particles correspond to the pole of the propagator?

2) The propagator D^{\mu\nu} is a rank-2 tensor. The longitudinal part is k_{\mu}D^{\mu\nu} and it is a vector, so, how can it be a propagator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eoghan said:
Hi!
From "Le Bellac, Quantum and statistical field theory, 10.5.2-Massive vector field":
"The longitudinal part of the propagator k_{\mu}D^{\mu\nu} has no pole at
k^2=m^2, so the longitudinal part doesn't constitute a dynamical degree of freedom."

I have two questions:
1) Why the propagator doesn't represent a dynamical degree of freedom if it hasn't any pole?
How do you demonstrate that physical particles correspond to the pole of the propagator?

2) The propagator D^{\mu\nu} is a rank-2 tensor. The longitudinal part is k_{\mu}D^{\mu\nu} and it is a vector, so, how can it be a propagator?

The components of the vector field satisfy the Klein-Gordan equation

$$(-\partial_\nu \partial^\nu + m^2) A_\mu =0.$$

By Lorentz-invariance, the mass appearing there must be the same for all components. The momentum-space propagator is the Fourier transform of the 2-point function ##\langle A_\mu(x)A_\nu(y)\rangle##. Because of the KG equation above, all physical components (and linear combinations of them) of the propagator must either have a pole at ##m^2## or vanish.

The longitudinal part is a linear combination of propagators, or equivalently, the propagator for a linear combination of components of ##A_\mu##. Since there is no pole, the corresponding combination of vector fields, ## k^\mu A_\mu## cannot satisfy a non-trivial KG equation. So it cannot be a physical degree of freedom.
 
Also you can study the spectral representation by Kallen-Lehmann (for example in Bjorken-Drell book). It is an exact result (not a perturbative one) and it shows that any Green function have always a pole at the physical mass of the particle.
 
I've read the Kallen-Lehmann representation and I've understood why the propagator has poles. However I don't fully understand fzero's answer. I don't understand this passage

fzero said:
Because of the KG equation above, all physical components (and linear combinations of them) of the propagator must either have a pole at ##m^2## or vanish.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top