3
$\begingroup$

In order to get a generating functional for electromagnetism, we use integration by parts to obtain:

$$S = -\frac14 \int d^4 x \ (\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu)(\partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu A^\mu) \\ = \frac12 \int d^4 x \ A_\nu(g^{\mu\nu} \square - \partial^\mu \partial^\nu)A_\mu .$$

Then, we have that $\Pi^{\mu\nu} =g^{\mu\nu} \square - \partial^\mu \partial^\nu$ in momentum space is $\widetilde{\Pi}^{\mu\nu} = k^2 g^{\mu\nu} - k^\mu k^\nu$ which has an eigenvector $k^\nu$ with eigenvalue $0$. This is enough to show that the operator is singular, since the kernel has more than one element.

Quoting and Peskin and Schroeder p. 295:

This difficulty is due to gauge invariance. Recall that $F_{\mu\nu}$, and hence $\mathcal L$ is invariant under a general gauge transformation of the form $$A_\mu(x) \to A_\mu(x) + \frac1e \partial_\mu \alpha(x). $$ The troublesome modes are those for which $A_\mu(x) = \frac1e \partial_\mu \alpha(x)$, that is those which are gauge equivalent to $A_\mu(x) = 0$.

I don't quite understand why this implies that the operator must be singular. Am I just setting $\widetilde A_\mu(x) = k^\nu$ in momentum space to get that there must be more than one element in the kernel in momentum space?

New contributor
Xet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
0

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

The equation of motion has the form $$ \tag{1} D_\mu{}^\nu A_\nu = J_\mu . $$ If $D$ was invertible, then it would be possible to find a unique solution to this equation, $$ \tag{2} A_\mu = (D^{-1})_\mu{}^\nu J_\nu . $$ But of course, we know that due to gauge symmetry, (1) does not have a unique solution. Given a particular solution $A^p_\mu$ to (1), we know that $A^p_\mu +\partial_\mu \alpha$ is also a solution to (1). Thus, non-uniqueness due to gauge symmetry contradicts the result (2) and therefore, the invertibility of the differential operator $D$. Thus, we conclude $$ \text{gauge invariance} \implies \text{$D_\mu{}^\nu$ is not invertible}. $$ BTW, the inverse statement is also true, and I encourage you to prove it yourself.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Well, one major point is that the propagator is the inverse of the quadratic operator in the free action, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. So if the latter has a zero-mode (due to gauge symmetry), then the former is mathematically ill-defined/singular. (I suspect this is the underlying statement behind OP's inquiry.) To cure this, we need to gauge-fix.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Indeed, in momentum space you get $\tilde{A}_{\mu} = k_{\mu}$ (notice the index structure though) and this is an example of an eigenvector with eigenvalue zero. Your mathematical intuition is correct.

There is also a physical intuition, though. Physically, $A_{\mu} = \frac{1}{e} \partial_\mu \alpha$ is a trivial configuration, because it is pure gauge. There is no physical difference between this and $A_\mu = 0$. Since the full combination in the Lagrangian must be gauge-invariant, applying the operator to these guys will always lead to zero (as you noticed in momentum space). However, since they are physically identical to $A_\mu = 0$, this kernel is due to an overcounting problem. You are trying to consider too many field configurations and several of them are "repeated," which is why you end up with a non-invertible operator. Once you remove this ambiguity and keep a single field configuration for each physical configuration, the operator should be invertible. This is probably what comes next in Peskin & Schroeder, who should now introduce the idea of gauge-fixing the Lagrangian to avoid this issue. Mathematically, they end up with an invertible operator. Physically, they are removing this over-counting, which ensures that now the only field configuration in the kernel is $A_\mu = 0$.

$\endgroup$

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.