3
$\begingroup$

The bosonization map relates the fermionic current $\bar{\psi}\gamma\psi$ to the bosonic current $\partial\phi$, and also the components of $\psi$ to $e^{i\sqrt{\pi}\left(\phi\pm\bar\phi\right)}$. Here I'm using $\bar{\phi}$ to denote the dual field $\partial_\mu \phi = \epsilon_{\mu\nu}\partial^\nu\bar\phi$.

Now I was under the impression that global $U(1)$ vector symmetry $\psi \rightarrow e^{i\theta}\psi$ is associated with shift symmetry $\phi\rightarrow \phi+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\theta$, and similarly for axial symmetry and shifts in $\bar{\phi}$.

But we can extend this global symmetry to a gauge symmetry $\theta(x)$. Now the current $\bar{\psi}\gamma\psi$ is gauge invariant, but $\partial\phi\rightarrow \partial\phi+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\partial\theta$ is not!

Does gauge symmetry make sense in bosonization?


I'm particularly confused since I've seen use of bosonization of a fermion coupled to a gauge field to explain things like the chiral anomaly and lack of dependence on the vacuum angle. (see e.g. Witten Nucl Phys B149, 285)

For instance suppose we have a gauge invariant Lagrangian like $$\bar{\psi}i(\displaystyle{\not}\partial+i\displaystyle{\not}A)\psi -\frac{1}{4}F^2$$ and after naive bosonization we get something like (forgive me for ignoring the constant factors) $$\frac{1}{2}(\partial{\phi})^2+\partial_\mu\phi A^\mu -\frac{1}{4}F^2$$ but this is missing the $\frac{1}{2}A^2$ term that would be needed for gauge invariance!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm guessing that the current used in the bosonization map in the presence of a gauge field becomes $\partial \phi - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}A$, but it would be nice to see this justified somehow, and understand how other quantities are affected $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 16 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind, Thanks again for your answer. You might be interested that what I was claiming about $\phi$ being like a Stueckelberg field and also the form of the current above is correct. It is implicitly in a paper by Kazuo Fujikawa et al (arXiv:hep-th/0305008). My $\phi$ is his $\alpha$ and my $\bar\phi$ is his $\xi$ $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 18 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind, Strictly speaking that means your answer was not correct, by the way, but I found it useful as a starting point. The gauge symmetry is there for $\phi$ but not $\bar\phi$ (we were never gauging chiral symmetry in the first place) $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 18 at 19:45
2
$\begingroup$

You are completely correct that the gauge symmetry "mysteriously" disappears from the boson. The shift symmetry does not become gauged (this would be a non-linear realization of the gauge theory). Bosonization is not a simple change of variables!

The resolution to how this theory is still gauge-invariant lies in rewriting the Lagrangian and assuming nice boundary conditions. The action has a term $\int \partial_\mu\phi A^\mu = \int \mathrm{d}\bar{\phi}\wedge A$, which becomes $\int \bar{\phi}\wedge\mathrm{d}A = \int \bar{\phi} \wedge F $ upon integration by parts and vanishing of the boundary term. So the equivalent Lagrangian is $$ \frac{1}{2}(\partial\bar{\phi})^2 + \frac{1}{2}\bar{\phi} \epsilon^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4}F^2$$ which is manifestly gauge-invariant under gauge transformations of $A$ without any need for $\phi$ to transform at all.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see it. What does $F$ mean, the contraction with a Levi-Civita? Did you switch to the dual field $\bar{\phi}$? $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 16 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ @octonion Yes, since we're in two dimensions, $\partial_\mu A^\mu$ is the value of the dual of the field strength, which I lazily also called $F$ but more properly could be written ${\star}F$. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Sep 16 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think you need a Levi-Civita symbol to appear for this to work. This would be so if I bosonized using the dual field $\bar{\phi}$ instead of $\phi$. In fact this is what Witten did in that paper I cited. $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 16 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ I'm a little skeptical that $\phi$ does not have gauge symmetry. I think $\phi$ is like a Stueckelberg field to make the vector field massive. If I'm not mistaken, a massive vector field in 2D is the same as a massive boson, and this is exactly what 2D QED (the Schwinger model) reduces to. $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 16 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ But thank you for your answer, I see why it was important for Witten to bosonize using the dual field, and it got me thinking $\endgroup$ – octonion Sep 16 at 17:53

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.