What does the EM gauge freedom have to do with U(1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter hideelo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em Gauge
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between scalar fields and gauge groups in electromagnetism, specifically the transition from a free parameter in the relativistic potential to the U(1) gauge group. It is argued that while scalar fields can be mapped to U(1), this transformation may feel forced, suggesting an analogy with one-dimensional translational symmetry. In classical electrodynamics, the coupling of the electromagnetic potential to a 4-current leads to conserved currents, which can theoretically use the gauge group (ℝ,+) without issues. However, in quantum electrodynamics, the introduction of a separate quantum field for matter necessitates the use of the U(1) gauge group due to the requirement of unitary transformations for Lagrangian invariance. The discussion concludes with an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in these concepts.
hideelo
Messages
88
Reaction score
15
I know that we have a free parameter in the relativistic potential for electromagnetism. I also know that we can introduce this as a scalar field ψ which gives this free parameter. I understand that this can be related to U(1) by mapping ψ: ---> e^iψ, which is the U(1) group. It just seems a little forced. I mean, sure you can map every scalar field into U(1) but why do it. It seems to me that the symmetry here is more analagous to some one dimensional translational symmetry since at each point in spacetime I can choose any point on the real line with no change n the corresponding equation of motion. Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In classical electrodynamics, we couple the EM potential to a 4-current via ##-A_\mu J^\mu## and gauge invariance of the Lagrangian implies that ##\partial_\mu J^\mu =0##, i.e., the current is conserved. We can simply take the gauge group to be ##(\mathbb{R},+)## with no ill consequences.

In quantum electrodynamics, we must introduce a separate quantum field for the matter degrees of freedom, e.g., the electron, with kinetic term ## \bar{e} \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e## (##e## is a spinor, ##\gamma^\mu## are Dirac matrices). The gauge transformation on the electron field is ##e\rightarrow U e## and the kinetic term transforms as

$$ \bar{e} \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e \rightarrow \bar{e} U^\dagger U \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e + \bar{e} U^\dagger \gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu U) e. $$

The second term is canceled by including the coupling of the electron current to the gauge field ## - \bar{e} \gamma^\mu A_\mu e##. From the first term, the Lagrangian will only be invariant if ##U^\dagger U = 1##, which means that ##U## is a unitary transformation. So our gauge group must be ##U(1)## rather than ##(\mathbb{R},+)##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and hideelo
fzero said:
In classical electrodynamics, we couple the EM potential to a 4-current via ##-A_\mu J^\mu## and gauge invariance of the Lagrangian implies that ##\partial_\mu J^\mu =0##, i.e., the current is conserved. We can simply take the gauge group to be ##(\mathbb{R},+)## with no ill consequences.

In quantum electrodynamics, we must introduce a separate quantum field for the matter degrees of freedom, e.g., the electron, with kinetic term ## \bar{e} \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e## (##e## is a spinor, ##\gamma^\mu## are Dirac matrices). The gauge transformation on the electron field is ##e\rightarrow U e## and the kinetic term transforms as

$$ \bar{e} \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e \rightarrow \bar{e} U^\dagger U \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu e + \bar{e} U^\dagger \gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu U) e. $$

The second term is canceled by including the coupling of the electron current to the gauge field ## - \bar{e} \gamma^\mu A_\mu e##. From the first term, the Lagrangian will only be invariant if ##U^\dagger U = 1##, which means that ##U## is a unitary transformation. So our gauge group must be ##U(1)## rather than ##(\mathbb{R},+)##.
First of all, thanks for answering. Secondly, I won't say I understand everything you are talking about, but at least I know what it is that I am missing.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top