# Tag Info

8

You are right, it is wrong to think that in gauge theory "gauge transformations are just a redundancy". This becomes true only if one abandons locality, ignores all boundary effects, all instanton effects, hence most of what is interesting about gauge theory. Of course forming gauge equivalence classes (say of observables) is something one wants to do every ...

7

When it comes to fundamental charges, the (left-handed) up-type quarks actually have either the same values of the charge as the down-type quarks, or exactly the opposite ones. It just happens that the electric charge isn't a fundamental charge in this sense. Let me be more specific. All the quarks carry a color – red, green, or blue – the charge of the ...

5

To be honest, I think that the route you describe (and which is also used in many textbooks) is not physically well motivated at all. You have begun with a theory of a fermion with a global symmetry which maps physical states to different physical states. This theory has the property that specifying initial conditions on a spacelike surface completely ...

2

This is how I understand this issue. First, I believe you may agree that imposing gauge invariance is a sensible thing to do. If we want our fields to be invariant under some kind of transformation it better be local, since two separate space-time points shouldn't be related in any unnecessary way, otherwise we may violate causality. A different issue is ...

1

The symmetry factor should be $2$. This comes from the fact that exchanging the derivatives at the vertex is the same symmetry operation as swapping the endpoints of the propagator in the loop. Each of them amounts for a multiplication by 2, but since they are identical we are essentially overcounting. Dividing by $2$ corrects this error.

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible