Propagator for W boson in unitary gauge is given by $\left(-g_{\mu \nu}+\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{m_w^2}\right)$ which can be written as $$ \left(-g_{\mu \nu}+\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}-\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}(1-\frac{q^2}{m_W^2})\right)$$ In a paper (1402.2787) I read that the first half of the propagator i.e, $\left( -g_{\mu \nu}+\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\right)$ is identified as Spin-1 part and remaining part corresponds to spin-$0$ contribution.

I understand that the first half part is transverse in nature as it vanishes when contacted with $q_{\mu}$ while other half part is longitudinal but I am not able to relate them by spin-$0$ and spin-$1$ combinations. Please explain.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Minor comment to the post (v1): In the future please link to abstract pages rather than pdf files. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jul 2, 2017 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ Short answer: the paper is wrong. $\endgroup$ Jul 2, 2017 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform Please be little more precise. $\endgroup$ Jul 2, 2017 at 12:18

1 Answer 1


The propagator of an arbitrary vector field is [ref.1] \begin{equation} \langle A_\mu A_\nu\rangle=\frac{-\eta_{\mu\nu}+p_\mu p_\nu/m_1^2}{p^2-m_1^2}-\frac{p_\mu p_\nu/m_1^2}{p^2-m_0^2}\tag1 \end{equation} for a pair of masses $m_0,m_1$. This propagator is usually called the Stückelberg propagator, and $A_\mu$ a Stückelberg field.

The Stückelberg field corresponds to an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group, but it corresponds to a reducible representation of the orthogonal group, as given by the decomposition $A=(j=0)\oplus(j=1)$. In other words, a typical Stückelberg field creates both spin $j=0$ and $j=1$ particles.

This can easily be seen in the propagator itself: it has two poles, at $p^2=m_0^2$ and $p^2=m_1^2$, which means that $A_\mu$ creates two particles, with masses $m_0$ and $m_1$. Therefore, the correct decomposition is as follows: \begin{equation} \underbrace{\frac{-\eta_{\mu\nu}+p_\mu p_\nu/m_1^2}{p^2-m_1^2}}_{\text{spin $j=1$}}-\underbrace{\frac{p_\mu p_\nu/m_1^2}{p^2-m_0^2}}_{\text{spin $j=0$}}\tag2 \end{equation}

In other words, the paper is wrong. The propagator of the $W$ boson is already the propagator of a spin $j=1$ field, and there is no need to decompose it any further: it is already irreducible as it stands: \begin{equation} \langle W_\mu W_\nu\rangle=\frac{-\eta_{\mu\nu}+p_\mu p_\nu/m_W^2}{p^2-m_W^2}\equiv\text{spin $j=1$ propagator}\tag3 \end{equation}

The structure \begin{equation} \frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\left(1-\frac{q^2}{m_W^2}\right)\tag4 \end{equation} is not identified with a spin $j=0$ particle. Indeed, a scalar particle has \begin{equation} \langle \phi \phi\rangle=\frac{1}{p^2-m_0^2}\tag5 \end{equation} or, upon taking two derivatives, \begin{equation} \langle \partial_\mu\phi \partial_\nu\phi\rangle=\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2-m_0^2}\tag6 \end{equation} in agreement with $(2)$ (the factor of $1/m_1^2$ is due to the fact that $\partial_\mu\phi$, the scalar part of $A_\mu$, is not typically canonically normalised).

Similarly, the structure \begin{equation} \left( -g_{\mu \nu}+\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\right)\tag7 \end{equation} is not identified with a spin $j=1$ particle. Indeed, if we take the limit $m_0,m_1\to 0$ of the Stückelberg propagator while keeping $\xi=m_0^2/m_1^2$ fixed, we get \begin{equation} \langle A_\mu A_\nu\rangle\to \frac{-\eta_{\mu\nu}+(1-\xi)p_\mu p_\nu/p^2}{p^2}\tag8 \end{equation} where the spin $j=1$ and $j=0$ particles have mixed into a single term. The structure mentioned in the paper is obtained by further taking $\xi=0$, known as the Landau gauge. This structure is clearly not the structure of a pure spin $j=1$ particle, but it contains a spin $j=0$ part.

To sum up: the structures the paper claims to correspond to spin $j=0$ and $j=1$ are incorrect. The correct structures are those given by $(2)$.


  1. Quantum Field Theory, by Itzykson and Zuber.

Your Answer

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

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