Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Obtaining the propagator for the Faddeev-Popov (FP) ghosts from the path integral language is straightforward. It is simply

$$\langle T(c(x) \bar c(y))\rangle~=~\int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{i e^{-ip.(x-y)}}{p^2-\xi m^2+i\epsilon}.$$

But I am unable to properly derive it following canonical quantization route.

The problem is that for anti-commuting fields, the time-ordered product is defined as

$$\langle T(c(x) \bar c(y))\rangle=\theta(x^0-y^0)\langle c(x) \bar c(y)\rangle-\theta(y^0-x^0)\langle \bar c(y) c(x)\rangle$$

with a minus sign between the two terms. This minus sign is preventing me from closing the contours in the correct way to obtain the expression in my first equation.

The only way I can save this is to say that FP ghosts are special, and their time-ordered product is defined with a plus sign instead of the minus sign. Is this legitimate? What is the right way to get the Ghost propagator following canonical quantization route?

share|cite|improve this question
Comment to the last term on the rhs. of the last eq. of the question(v1): The bar should be on top of $c(y)$ not $c(x)$. – Qmechanic Nov 14 '12 at 23:25
1. What is $\xi$? If it is $\pm 1$ metric convention, it also affects the $i\epsilon$ term. 2. Have you added an overall phase to $Z[j]$ to absorb the $i$ factor in the kinetic term of the ghost field? 3. Could you write the relevant action/hamiltonian, the Heisenberg picture ghost fields as a function of creation/anhilation operators and the anticommutation relations to see your conventions? – Diego Mazón Nov 16 '12 at 21:27
By the way, is that a book problem or something you are thinking about? Because I would guess that the questions doesn't make sense. I think that the canonical formalism does not follow directly from the path integral version in FP trick. The closest could be BRST quantization, but there $c$ and $\bar c$ are independent real fields (so the your propagator is 0). I think that in a noncovariant formalism like the canonical makes more sense to fix the temporal gauge instead a covariant one. – Diego Mazón Nov 17 '12 at 1:56
Last question: how do you deduce the $i\epsilon$ terms from the path integral if you don't know the vacuum wave functional? Or you know it? – Diego Mazón Nov 17 '12 at 2:00
Another issue: The Hamiltonian for a scalar fermionic field is not bounded from bellow. – Diego Mazón Nov 17 '12 at 2:34
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The solution to this problem comes from the sneaky fact (Kugo, 1978) that while the FP ghost field is hermitian $c^\dagger (x) = c(x)$ while the anti-ghost field is anti-hermitian $\bar c^\dagger (x)=-\bar c (x)$ .

As a result, the plane wave expansion for the ghost/anti-ghost fields (Becchi, 2008), Scholarpedia are:

$$ c^a(x)={1 \over(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \int_{k_0= | \vec k|} {d \vec k \over 2 k_0}( \gamma^a( \vec k)e^{-ik \cdot x}+ (\gamma^a)^\dagger( \vec k)e^{ik \cdot x})$$ $$\bar c^a(x)={1 \over(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \int_{k_0= | \vec k|} {d \vec k \over 2 k_0}( \bar \gamma^a( \vec k)e^{-ik \cdot x}- (\bar\gamma^a)^\dagger( \vec k)e^{ik \cdot x}) \ , $$ with a minus sign between the two terms in mode expansion for the anti-ghost field.

Thus, when evaluating the time ordered correlator (propagator), the minus sign in the plane-wave expansion compensates the minus sign in the definition of the time-ordering shown in my question above. Thus, I am able to derive the standard Feynman propagator for the FP ghost field.

share|cite|improve this answer
Interesting. Weinberg however defines both fields as hermitians in the 2nd volume of his QFT book. I guess he introduces an $i$ factor that makes it real. And this has to make to do with the $i$ in the kinetic term that sometimes is reabsorbed in a redefinition of $Z[j]$. I also think that the minus sign in $\bar c$ makes the Hamiltonian bounded from bellow. What I'm wondering is what happen with the hermiticity of the hamiltonian. Good question and answer! – Diego Mazón Nov 18 '12 at 21:18
It would be nice if you complete your answer with the full free canonical quantization if you already have everything clear. Essentially: commutation relations between ghost fields, non interacting ghost Hamiltonian in Fock space and vacuum wave functional. – Diego Mazón Nov 18 '12 at 21:22
@drake Will do as soon as possible. – QuantumDot Nov 19 '12 at 1:14
I'll give a bounty if I learn how to do it. – Diego Mazón Nov 19 '12 at 1:22
You have placed a bounty -- but I can't give a thorough response before bounty has elapsed. I am in the process of completing a paper, and writing job applications. Would you hold off on the bounty for later? – QuantumDot Nov 20 '12 at 6:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.