Timeline for Anomalies depend on how they are calculated. How is this satisfactory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2019 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1167316117385175046 | ||
| Aug 29, 2019 at 0:58 | comment | added | fewfew4 | @OON Yes this is what I am talking about. It appears that specifying the action is not enough to uniquely identify a quantum field theory. You must further choose what symmetries to hold to get a unique theory. Thus if there are $N$ global symmetries of the action, there are at most $2^N$ different theories the action specifies. | |
| Aug 28, 2019 at 7:38 | comment | added | OON | Well, the whole anomaly appears as the ambiguity that may be fixed by demanding the conservation of some currents at expense of others. E.g. the usual triangle anomaly contains an ambiguity with one parameter that contributes to both vector and axial anomaly and requiring the vector current conservation (that also may happen because the regularization you use enforces that symmetry) fixes that parameter. Is it what you are talking about? | |
| Aug 28, 2019 at 2:00 | comment | added | fewfew4 | I believe so, the calculation is done in all generality in Weinberg's QFT book, volume 2. He simply shifts the loop momentum variables. I don't think that breaks any symmetry like Pauli Villars does. | |
| Aug 28, 2019 at 1:56 | comment | added | octonion | If you make sure that you use a gauge invariant regularization is there an ambiguity? | |
| Aug 27, 2019 at 23:37 | history | asked | fewfew4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |