Consider the following Lagrangian for a massive vector field $A_{\mu}$ in Euclidean space time: $$\mathcal L = \frac{1}{4} F^{\alpha \beta}F_{\alpha \beta} + \frac{1}{2}m^2 A^{\alpha}A_{\alpha}$$ where $F_{\alpha \beta} = \partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta} - \partial_{\beta}A_{\alpha}$ which means $$\mathcal L = \frac{1}{4} (\partial^{\alpha}A^{\beta} - \partial^{\beta}A^{\alpha})(\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta} - \partial_{\beta}A_{\alpha}) + \frac{1}{2}m^2A^{\alpha}_{\alpha} \tag{1}$$ The canonical energy-momentum tensor is supposed to be, using the relation

$$T^{\mu \nu}_c = -\eta^{\mu \nu} \mathcal L + \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial (\partial_{\mu}\Phi)}\partial^{\nu}\Phi,\,\,\tag{2}$$

$$T^{\mu \nu}_c = F^{\mu \alpha}\partial^{\nu}A_{\alpha} - \eta^{\mu \nu}\mathcal L$$

Then from $T^{\mu \nu}_B = T^{\mu \nu}_c + \partial_{\rho}B^{\rho \mu \nu}$, it is found that $$B^{\alpha \mu \nu} = F^{\alpha \mu}A^{\nu}\tag{3}$$ using the formula $$B^{\mu \rho \nu} = \frac{1}{2}i \left\{\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial (\partial_{\mu}A_{\gamma})} S^{\nu \rho}A_{\gamma} + \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial (\partial_{\rho}A_{\gamma})} S^{\mu \nu}A_{\gamma} + \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial (\partial_{\nu}A_{\gamma})} S^{\mu \rho}A_{\gamma}\right\}$$ My question is how is this equation obtained and how did they obtain $(3)$? Did they make use of the explicit form of the spin matrix for a vector field? (My question is from Di Francesco et al 'Conformal Field Theory' P.46-47).

Here is my attempt: $$B^{\alpha \mu \nu} = \frac{i}{2}\left\{F^{\alpha \gamma}S^{\nu \mu}A_{\gamma} + F^{\mu \gamma}S^{\alpha \nu}A_{\gamma} + F^{\nu \gamma}S^{\alpha \mu}A_{\gamma}\right\}$$ from simplifying the above. Concentrate on the first term. Then $$F^{\alpha \gamma}S^{\nu \mu}A_{\gamma} = F^{\alpha \gamma}\eta_{\gamma c}\eta^{\nu a}\eta^{\mu b} (S_{ab})^c_dA^d$$ Inputting the form of $S$ for a vector field, I get $$F^{\alpha \gamma}\eta_{\gamma c}\eta^{\nu a}\eta^{\mu b}(\delta^c_a \eta_{bd} - \delta^c_b \eta_{da})A^d$$ But simplifying this and writing the other terms does not yield the result. Did I make a mistake upon insertion of the spin matrix?

  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/27048/2451 and links therein. Related to the question (v1-v3): physics.stackexchange.com/q/3005/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 2 '14 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, Jose is one of the lecturers at my university! But I don't think it directly answers my question. I am wondering if I am to input the spin matrix as I did above or not and if I made the substitution correctly. Would you be able to help? Thanks Qmechanic, the link should be useful nonetheless. $\endgroup$ – CAF Aug 2 '14 at 19:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.