Zee, QFT Nut, III.6, p. 194

  • A
  • Thread starter Lapidus
  • Start date
  • #1
343
11

Main Question or Discussion Point

..where can be found:
Zee 1.PNG


What in the whole wide world does Zee mean with

zee 2.PNG
??

Thank you
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
DrDu
Science Advisor
6,023
755
I guess that ##(\partial_i A_i)##is another way to say div A, which probably vanishes in the gauge Zee is considering. The bracket probably means that the action of the partial derivative is restricted to A.
 
  • #3
343
11
But on what else could the partial derivative act on than on A?
 
  • #4
DrDu
Science Advisor
6,023
755
On what does it act in ##A_i \partial_i##? I mean, you are considering a momentum operator, so it will act on some wavefunction, besides A.
 
  • #5
34,053
9,912
A better way to write this would be
$$(\partial_i A_i + A_i \partial_i) X = (\partial_i A_i)X + 2 A_i \partial_i X = 2 A_i \partial_i X$$
for some wave function X and ignoring indices there. Just the product rule applied to ##\partial_i A_i X##

Edit: Added missing X
 
Last edited:
  • #6
343
11
Got it! Thanks DrDu and mfb!
 
  • #7
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
14,409
5,985
This book by Zee, although apparently written in a quite colloquial way, confuses (at least me) more than it helps. This is an example. Instead of writing the simple matter in a simple way as mfb did in #5 he only gives some short-hand notation, which is more confusing than helpful :-(.
 
  • #8
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,331
438
Well it's so and so; it seems like a bigger generalization of the derivation of [itex] xp -px = i \hbar[/itex]. Without having to write [itex] (xp - px ) f(x) = i \hbar f(x)[/itex].
Although I think similar expressions were in Griffith's Intro to Electrodynamics.
(feels like Zee's advocate)
 
  • #9
nrqed
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,603
204
A better way to write this would be
$$(\partial_i A_i + A_i \partial_i) X = (\partial_i A_i) + 2 A_i \partial_i X = 2 A_i \partial_i X$$
for some wave function X and ignoring indices there. Just the product rule applied to ##\partial_i A_i X##
Just to point out a small misprint (mfb just forgot): there is an X missing in the middle expression$$(\partial_i A_i + A_i \partial_i) X = (\partial_i A_i) X + 2 A_i \partial_i X = 2 A_i \partial_i X$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: mfb

Related Threads on Zee, QFT Nut, III.6, p. 194

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
833
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
597
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
619
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
349
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top