1
$\begingroup$

In scalar QED, the photon interacts with a charged scalar and the three point function of a vector, scalar and scalar bar is nonzero.

I remember an argument that very simply proved that if you try to write down a similar correlator with a vector and two identical scalars, the answer is zero. Same is true if the vector is replaced by any odd spin particle.

I'm trying to recall the proof of this fact. I think the argument only assumed Lorentz invariance, though maybe parity also.

Can anyone provide a simple proof of the type I'm thinking of?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ tbt's answer is correct and is the simple proof you are looking for. But note also that even correlation functions like $\langle \phi^\dagger \phi A\rangle$ don't make much sense since $A$ is not gauge invariant. $\endgroup$
    – octonion
    Commented Oct 6, 2018 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ None of these are the answer I'm looking for. There's a simple proof that the correlator between two identical scalars and an odd spin particle vanishes which only relies on spacetime symmetry arguments. The spinning particle can even be massive (I believe) in which case gauge invariance plays no role. $\endgroup$
    – user26866
    Commented Oct 7, 2018 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ tbt's argument has nothing to do with gauge symmetry. It's about global U(1) symmetry. Do you have charge conservation? Then you have U(1) symmetry. There is also the argument (Furry's theorem) in the comments due to charge conjugation. If now you are talking about an odd spin particle with two scalars, that vanishes due to a similar idea to the U(1) argument applied to rotation. The name of these kind of arguments in general is called the Wigner-Eckart theorem, although it's usually presented as something more complicated than it really is. $\endgroup$
    – octonion
    Commented Oct 7, 2018 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ There's no U(1) symmetry in scenario I have in mind. Just a vanilla scalar field coupled to an odd spin boson which can be massive or massless; doesn't matter. I think the rotation argument you're mentioning is the one I have in mind. Do you have a link? $\endgroup$
    – user26866
    Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ I guess you probably have to assume that the tensor is divergenceless and traceless for a group theory argument to work? Otherwise it's not an irrep and the tensor will have scalar bits $\endgroup$
    – user26866
    Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 19:55

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Correct me if I've misunderstood your question...

$$\langle \phi_1 \phi_2 \rangle = \int \mathcal D \phi \mathcal D \phi^* \,\, \phi_1 \phi_2 e^{-iS[\phi,\phi^*, \ldots]} = \int \mathcal D \phi' \mathcal D \phi^{*'} \,\, \phi_1' e^{i\lambda}\phi_2 ' e^{i\lambda} e^{-iS[\phi',\phi^{*'} , \ldots]} =e^{2i\lambda} \langle \phi_1 \phi_2 \rangle $$ This implies $\langle \phi \phi \rangle$ to be zero. In the second equality I've used the global U(1) symmetry of the action.

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, the same argument applies to the correlator $\langle \phi \phi A \rangle $, because the gauge field remains inert under the global $U(1)$ symmetry.

Moreover, you can convince yourself (exercise; use the same technique as above, or, if you prefer using the operator formalism, remember that the vacuum state is invariant) that any correlator of fields must be an invariant tensor under trasformations that belong to an internal symmetry of theory.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Ah no sorry, I didn't mean for the two scalars to be the scalars of QED, that was just given as an example of what you have to do to get the correlator not to vanish. If you try to write down a correlator between vector and two neutral scalars, this has to vanish and this is what my question is about. There's some simple argument for this which doesn't require writing down an action, for instance. $\endgroup$
    – user26866
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ The reason should be the one I mentioned in the last paragraph. Consider how the propagator transform under the action of the internal symmetries of your theory; if it's not invariant, then it must vanish. A propagator like $\langle A^{2n+1} \times \text{neutral fields} \rangle$ vanishes because it's not invariant under charge conjugation (assuming it's a symmetry of your theory). $\endgroup$
    – tbt
    Commented Oct 4, 2018 at 11:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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