Why ghost fields(Faddeev-Popov ghosts) must be ''ghost''?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ndung200790
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ghosts
ndung200790
Messages
519
Reaction score
0
Please teach me this:
Why can we not consider Faddeev ghost as a type of fermi fields,but consider them as a scalar under Lorentz transformation,therefore have wrong relation between spin and statistics?
Thank you very much for your kind helping.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
physicall: ghost fields must "kill" unhysical polarizations of the gauge fields; the gluon fields has four components, but only two polarizations are physical (transversal). Gauge fixing + ghosts cancel the contribution of the two unphysical polarizaton.

mathematically: exponentiating the Fadeev-Popov determinant is possible only with Grassman numbers
 
I would add one question about ghost field: in one lecture, my teacher of classical field theory introduced ghost and tachyons saying that we can't couple them to ordinary matter because (quoting) "it would mean the destruction of the universe". So how is it that they couple as intermediate states between gauge fields?
 
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...
Back
Top