Why Photon Momentum Drops Out of QED Propagator

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter noether21
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photon Propagator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the reasons why terms involving photon momentum drop out of the photon propagator in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) calculations. Participants explore theoretical implications, references to established literature, and the role of current conservation in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Fourier transform of the conserved current leads to terms involving photon momentum dropping out, questioning if there is an easy way to see this in practical calculations.
  • Another participant references Weinberg's work, explaining that the interaction Hamiltonian and photon propagator can be simplified without affecting the S-matrix results, although this simplification is not proven to hold at all orders.
  • A different participant points out that while Weinberg's discussion lacks proof, Feynman's argument from 1949 suggests that the divergence of the amplitude vanishes, which might imply that the $k^\mu k^\nu$ term can be ignored, though the reasoning remains unclear.
  • Another participant mentions Zee's work, indicating that external legs must be on shell for the discussion to hold.
  • One participant proposes that the situation may relate to the Ward-Takahashi identity, which they believe can be proven using the path integral formalism, suggesting a connection to classical equations of motion within vacuum expectation values.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sufficiency of existing arguments and proofs regarding the dropping of photon momentum terms. There is no consensus on the clarity or completeness of the explanations provided in the referenced literature.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion relies on specific assumptions about current conservation and the conditions under which simplifications are valid, particularly in relation to gauge choices and the treatment of external legs in Feynman diagrams.

noether21
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Since the 4-vector A couples to the conserved current j^\mu = \psi-bar gamma^\mu \psi in QED, k_\mu Fourier-transform(j^\mu) = 0. The Fourier-transform of j is a mess. Is there an easy way to see why terms containing photon momentum k_\mu drop out of the photon propagator in practical QED calculations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can find discussion of this point in section 8.5 in Weinberg's "The quantum theory of fields" vol. 1. The idea is the following:

The true interaction Hamiltonian in QED is

[tex]V(t) =-\int d^3x j(x,t)A(x,t) -\frac{1}{2}\int d^3x d^3y \frac{j^0(x,t)j^0(y,t)}{4 \pi|x-y|}[/tex]

and the true photon propagator is

[tex]D_{\mu \nu}(p) = \frac{-i}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{P_{\mu \nu}(q)}{q^2}[/tex]

However, results for the S-matrix would not change if you simplify both the interaction and the propagator. In the interaction operator you drop the (current)x(current) term

[tex]V'(t) =-\int d^3x j(x,t)A(x,t)[/tex]

and in the photon propagator you replace the momentum-dependent function [tex]P_{\mu \nu}(q)[/tex] simply by [tex]g_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

[tex]D'_{\mu \nu}(p) = \frac{-i}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{g_{\mu \nu}}{q^2}[/tex]

Weinberg does not prove that this trick works at all orders, but apparently it works.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the pointer to Weinberg's book.

Weinberg's discussion also seems to merely make the claim without offering any proof;
he refers to Feynman's 1949 paper (section 8). Feynman has an argument to show
that the divergence of the amplitude of a process that emits a photon (real/virtual) vanishes,
implying that the dot product of $k$ and the Fourier transform of the amplitude vanishes. His
argument appears plausible (even if a bit sketchy) and doesn't appear to invoke current conservation to show that the divergence vanishes. If Feynman's argument implies that the $k^\mu k^\nu$ term can be ignored in the photon propagator, it's not obvious as to why/how. The $k^\mu k^\nu$ term does not appear in the propagator in Feynman gauge, but that is not the same as disregarding the term in other gauges. Perhaps there is some simple way to see that the Fourier-transform of the current occurs dotted to the $k_\mu$ term in all Feynman diagrams containing QED vertices?
 
It's also discussed in Zee chapter II.7
As usual, you need external legs to be on shell.
 
I think what you have is a special case of the Ward-Takahashi identity, which is most easily proven in the path integral formalism. If I recall, the identity says that classical equations of motion hold true inside the vacuum expectation value of time-ordered products.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K