Ward identity from Ward-Takahashi identity?

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
The Ward-Takahashi identity for the simplest QED vertex function states that

$$q_\mu \Gamma^\mu (p + q, p) = S^{-1}(p+q) - S^(p)^{-1}.$$

Often the 'Ward-identity' is stated as, if one have a physical process involving an external photon with the amplitude

$$M = \epsilon_\mu M^\mu$$

then

$$q_\mu M^\mu = 0$$
if q is the momentum of the external photon. One can argue on that the latter identity is true because of current conservation, but can one show that it follows from the Ward-Takahashi identity above? If so how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with you on that one. Electron to a photon and an electron is not a physical prosess at all. However suppose that one of the the electrons are not on shell by being coupled to a subdiagram; one could for example have photon +electron coming in - vertex function - virtual electron - vertex function - photon +electron. Now one of the electrons are virtual with a momentum equal to the sum of the incoming photon and electron.
 
(sorry, I deleted my previous post because I realized you were looking for something more general. I think that what I'm writing below is a better answer to your question.)

Here's my understanding, which is based on a reading of Peskin and Schroeder section 7.4.

You start with your statement of the Ward-Takahashi identity, which is true for the electron vertex, and proceed to show that it is also true for any physical process, not just the simple 3-point vertex. That can be done either order-by-order by examining the topology of Feynman diagrams, or more generally by using the functional integral.

Next, you appeal to the argument in the LSZ reduction formula, which says that S-matrix elements are proportional to the residue of the pole of M on the mass shell of the external particles. If the M on the left is on-shell, then neither M(p+q) or M(p) on the right are on-shell, so neither have a pole in the right place to contribute to the S-matrix. Thus, the right-hand side is zero when you extract out the poles to compute the S-matrix.
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top