5
$\begingroup$

Consider the free Maxwell Lagrangian:

$$L= -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}. $$

As we know, the gauge symmetry $A_{\mu} \rightarrow A_{\mu}+\partial_\mu \lambda$ must be fixed when quantizing the theory. Consider the case where we do this covariantly, using the Lorenz Gauge. This is done by adding a gauge fixing term to the Lagrangian, as such:

$$L_{gf} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{\alpha}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2.$$

Now, I understand how this extra term helps us imposing $\partial_\mu A^\mu = 0$. Indeed, we can see this as a lagrange multiplier for example, and varying the non-dynamical $\alpha$ yields the desired condition.

In some other derivations using the path integral for example, it is obtained roughly by integrating the gauge fixing Dirac $\delta$ on all possible gauges, with some "weighted integral" (see Peskin and Schroeder, p.296): $$ =\int \mathcal{D}\omega \exp{\left(-i\int d^4x\mbox{ }\alpha\frac{\omega^2}{2}\right)}\delta(\partial_{\mu} A^\mu-\omega(x)) = \exp{\left(-i\frac{\alpha}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2\right)}$$

Which has the effect of adding the same gauge fixing term to the effective Lagrangian.

My problem in both cases (and all other derivations I have seen of this gauge-fixing term), is that we do something that looks like an arbitrary choice. To be more precise, in the case where we see this extra term as a Legendre multiplier, why not have chosen something like $\frac{\alpha}{2}\partial_\mu A^\mu$ ? Someone might argue that with this term the Lagrangian will be unbounded from below thus giving an ill-behaved theory.

What then about a term like $\frac{\alpha}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^4$ ? Again we might say that this term is "forbidden" because it is of order 4 in the derivatives and this might again produce problems in the theory.

Are these really the only reasons that we choose this specific form for the gauge fixing term? I was under the impression that there must be something simpler that determines the form of the gauge-fixing term.

Again, in the path integral formulation, we have the seemingly arbitrary choice of the weight with which we perform the $\mathcal{D}\omega$ integral. Again we have some arguments like "we weigh with a Gaussian to insure convergence" or something like that, but to me this isn't very convincing.

So is there a profound way to explain the form of this term, or is it just an educated guess which turns out to work?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You can perform the integral over the auxiliary field $\omega$ with any weight you like. As long as you’re integrating a gauge-invariant quantity (which is an essential ingredient of the FP method), you should get the same answer for any choice.

Note that the propagator of two photons is not gauge-invariant and you will get different propagators for different weights, but say a 2-point function of two field strengths $\left< F_{\mu \nu}(x) F_{\sigma \tau}(y) \right>$ should be the same for any weight.

The Gaussian weight is only special because we know how to take Gaussian integrals exactly.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So, it should work for a weight going like $-\omega^4$, but we simply don't do it because we would have to treat it as a perturbation instead of being able to include it directly into the propagator, have I got that right ? I have although still a follow up question : what if we choose a weight like $\delta(\omega)$. Then we get a Lagrangian with an extra dynamical field say $\alpha$, and we have the addition of a "lagrange multiplier" $\alpha \partial_\mu A^\mu$, would that work too ? $\endgroup$ – Frotaur Nov 2 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, both $\omega^4$ and $\delta[\omega]$ should work. The latter leads to the $\delta[\partial_{\mu} A_\{\nu}]$ in the path integral. $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Nov 2 at 22:06

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.