Timeline for Choice of basis for Fujikawa method to derive chiral anomaly
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 4, 2014 at 11:16 | vote | accept | SubhamDC | ||
| Jul 4, 2014 at 9:34 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | The non-anomalous Ward-Takahashi identities follow without needing the Dirac eigenstates, they simply follow from invariance of the measure and my second equation (if your book says something else, I'm afraid it's probably wrong). Deriving the anomalous Ward-Takahashi identities amounts to determining $\det(M)$, and I think I have made plausible why we should choose Dirac eigenstates to calculate that. One could argue that one always needs to proceed as in the anomalous case to really prove that the measure is invariant, however. | |
| Jul 4, 2014 at 8:55 | comment | added | SubhamDC | My question was Why do we need the eigenstates for deriving the ward takahashi identities ,which usually follows from the path integral derivation without the need for any sort of basis eigenstates. Deriving the WT identities was one of the reasons given in the book for selecting the so called "standard basis" as fujikawa himself terms the basis set in his paper. | |
| Jul 3, 2014 at 13:01 | history | answered | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |