Saturday, 18 April 2020

quantum field theory - Derivative interaction: mathcalHmathrmintneqmathcalLmathrmint. Question about Feynman Rules



As we known, if there is time derivative interaction in Lint, then HintLint. For example, Scalar QED, Lint=ieϕ(μϕ)Aμ+ie(μϕ)ϕAμ+e2ϕϕAμAμHint=Linte2ϕϕ(A0)2

There is the last term breaking Lorentz invariance.


Derivation: L=(μ+ieAμ)ϕ(μieAμ)ϕm2ϕϕ=LKG0+Lint

where LKG0=μϕμϕm2ϕϕ
Lint=ieϕ(μϕ)Aμ+ie(μϕ)ϕAμ+e2ϕϕAμAμ


π=L(0ϕ)=0ϕieA0ϕ


π=L(0ϕ)=0ϕ+ieA0ϕ


H=π˙ϕ+π˙ϕL=π˙ϕ+π˙ϕ(˙ϕ˙ϕϕϕm2ϕϕ)Lint=π(πieA0ϕ)+π(π+ieA0ϕ)((πieA0ϕ)(π+ieA0ϕ)ϕϕm2ϕϕ)Lint=(ππ+ϕϕ+m2ϕϕ)Linte2ϕϕ(A0)2=HKG0+Hint


My questions:




  1. The Feynman Rules for Scalar QED is here. But we see there is an extra term in interaction Hamitonian e2ϕϕ(A0)2, according to Wick's theorem, it should have some contribution to Feynman Rule which does not occur in this textbook. I've computed this vertex and I find it's nonzero. Why there is no Feynman rules for such Lorentz breaking term?





  2. As we known, for path integral quantization, the coordinate space path integral: Z1=Dq exp(dt L(q,˙q))

    And phase space path integral: Z2=DpDq exp(dt p˙qH(p,q))
    Only for this type Lagrangian L=˙q2V(p), then Z1=Z2. (The Feynman Rules for Scalar QED in textbook is same as what is derived by coordinate space path integral. ) I consider the 2nd method of path integral quantization is always equivalent to canonical quantization. So for Scalar QED, are these two kinds of path integral quantization same? How to prove?



  3. For non-abelian gauge theory, there is derivative interaction even in gauge field itself. It seems that all textbooks use Z1 to get the Feynman rules. Are these two kinds of path integral quantization same in non-abelian gauge field? If not same, why we choose the coordinate space path integral? It's the axiom because it coincides with experiment?



Answer



AccidentalFourierTransform has already given a good answer. Here we will provide more details & justifications for a class of non-gauge derivative interactions.




  1. We start from a Lagrangian action, S[Q] = dt L = S0[Q]+Sint[Q],L = L0(Q,˙Q)+Lint(Q,˙Q),

    S0[Q] = dt L0(Q,˙Q),L0(Q,˙Q) = 12˙Q2 = 12˙QiGij˙Qj,
    Sint[Q] = dt Lint(Q,˙Q),Lint(Q,˙Q) = Ai˙QiV,
    Gij = Gij(Q),Ai = Ai(Q),V = V(Q),
    which is quadratic in velocities. We shall assume that the Lagrangian action (1) is manifestly Lorentz covariant. [We are using DeWitt condensed notation1 to suppress spatial (but not temporal) dimensions, which may superficially obscure the manifest Lorentz covariance. So e.g. the 12˙Q2 term in L0 is implicitly accompanied by a 12(Q)2 term in V, and so forth.] The canonical momentum read Pi = Gij˙Qj+Ai.
    We stress that the corresponding Hamiltonian action is also Lorentz covariant, SH[Q,P] = dt LH = SH,0[Q,P]+SH,int[Q,P],
    LH = Pi˙QiH(Q,P),H(Q,P) = H0(Q,P)+Hint(Q,P),
    SH,0[Q,P] = dt LH,0,LH,0 = Pi˙QiH0(Q,P),H0(Q,P) = 12P2 = 12PiGijPj,
    SH,int[Q,P] = dt Hint(Q,P),Hint(Q,P) = AiPi+12A2+V,
    despite the non-covariant term A2:=AiGijAj marked in red in eq. (3).



    We mention (for a later instructive comparison with eq. (6) below) that Lint(Q,˙Q)+Hint(Q,P) (2)= 12A2(Q),

    although eq. (4) will not be used in what follows. Eq. (4) corresponds to OP's second formula.


    So far we have only discussed the classical theory. In the corresponding quantum mechanical operator formulation, the operators ˆQi and ˆPj are in the Heisenberg picture.




  2. We next consider the interaction picture. Here velocity and momentum are related via ˙qi = H0(q,p)pi = Gijpj,

    which should be compared with the corresponding relation (2) in the Heisenberg picture. Eq. (5) has two consequences.


    Firstly, we derive the somewhat surprising relation Lint(q,˙q)+Hint(q,p) (5)= 12A2(q),

    which has the opposite sign of eq. (4)! This sign of eq. (6) will be important in what follows.


    Secondly, eq. (5) implies the equal-time CCR [ˆqi(t),˙ˆqj(t)] (5)= i Gij1.

    We derive that the covariant time-ordering is Tcov{˙ˆqi(t1)˙ˆqj(t2)}  ddt1ddt2T{ˆqi(t1)ˆqj(t2)} (7)= T{˙ˆqi(t1)˙ˆqj(t2)}+i Gij1δ(t1t2).
    We have marked the non-covariant term in red.


    Consider next a Wilson line exp{idt Ai(q)˙qi}.

    From Wick's theorem, eq. (8) exponentiates to Tcovexp{idt Ai(ˆq)˙ˆqi} (8)= Texp{idt(Ai(ˆq)˙ˆqi12A2(ˆq))}.





  3. We are now ready to consider2 the Hamiltonian phase space path integral/partition function ZH  DQ DP exp{iSH[Q,P]}

      Ω|Tcovexp{idt H(ˆQ,ˆP)}|Ω
     = Ω|Texp{idt H(ˆQ,ˆP)}|Ω
      ω|Tcovexp{idt Hint(ˆq,ˆp)}|ω
     = ω|Texp{idt Hint(ˆq,ˆp)}|ω
     (6)= ω|Texp{idt(Lint(ˆq,˙ˆq)12A2(ˆq))}|ω
     (10)= ω|Tcovexp{idt Lint(ˆq,˙ˆq)}|ω,
    where the symbol denotes equality up to a constant normalization factor. We find that two effects cancel, the non-covariant term in the interaction Hamiltonian (6) and the Wick's theorem (10), so that the partition function (11) is Lorentz covariant.




  4. We mention for completeness an interaction picture phase space path integral ZH (11) Dq Dp exp{i(SH,0[q,p]+dt Lint(ˆq,˙ˆq))}.




  5. The naive Lagrangian path integral ZL  DQexp{iS[Q]}

    may differ from the Hamiltonian phase space path integral (11) because it lacks the determinant from the Gaussian integration over momenta Pj. In practice, it is often implicitly implied that the path integral measure DQ in eq. (13) contains this determinant factor by definition. In other words, the definition of ZL is tweaked to agree with ZH. See also this related Phys.SE post.




References:





  1. M.D. Schwartz, QFT and the Standard Model, 2014; Section 9.2.




  2. C. Itzykson & J.B. Zuber, QFT, 1985; Subsection 6-1-4.




  3. S. Weinberg, Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1, 1995; Sections 7.2, 7.5 & 9.3.





--


1 Notation: We will suppress spatial (but not temperal) dimensions by using DeWitt condensed notation. Capital letters for fields in the Heisenberg picture and small letters for fields in the interaction picture. The metric Gij(Q) in configuration space should not be confused with the space(time) metric.


2 It should be stressed that this derivation is formal & shamelessly focused on the non-covariant term marked in red. We have ignored various higher-order operator-ordering issues, cf. e.g. this & this Phys.SE posts.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...