For aid of example consider two quantities the four-momentum ˜P and a time-independent four potential ˜A. Now if a wick's rotation was carried out by simply replacing it with τ then under a Wick's rotation we would get: ˜P′=i˜P ˜A′=˜A whilst if it was carried out as a rotation by π/2 in the complex plane of the 0th component we would get: P′0=−iP0,A′0=−iA0 with all other components remaining the same. Which of these (if either) is the correct interpretation of a Wick's rotation - if either? and why?
Answer
OP's second option is correct: The zero-components V0 of all contravariant 4-vectors Vμ do Wick-rotate V0E = iV0M; not just time x0 in the spacetime position 4-vector xμ: x0E = ix0M. That is how inner products remains invariant V⋅V = Vμ ημν Vν when going from Minkowski1 signature (−,+,+,+) to Euclidean signature (+,+,+,+).
Similarly, the zero-components V0 of all covariant 4-vectors Vμ do Wick-rotate in the opposite direction: VM0 = iVE0. In particular, the zero-component p0 of the energy-momentum 4-covector pμ Wick-rotate as2 pM0 = ipE0. (The latter is related to the fact that the Fourier-integral representation δ4(x) = ∫R4d4p(2πℏ)4 exp(ip⋅xℏ) of the Dirac delta distribution cannot be analytically continued to the ambient complexified spacetime: The real integration region can at most be deformed, i.e. the x0 and p0 Wick-rotations must be balanced, cf. this Phys.SE post.)
To see how the Wick rotation works in gauge theory, see e.g. this related Phys.SE post.
--
1 The speed of light c=1 is set to one in this Phys.SE answer for simplicity. Concerning the reason for the choice of Minkowski signature, see my Phys.SE answer here.
2 Warning: Traditionally we assign the energy variable E=p0 to behave contravariantly, so that EE=iEM. However some authors effectively define the energy variable E=−p0 to behave covariantly, so that EM=iEE and EE is effectively the negative Euclidean energy! See also my Phys.SE answer here.
No comments:
Post a Comment