Winter 2012
Notes
March 7, 2013
Giordon Stark
Contents
1 January 8th, 2013 (Introduction to Fermions)
1.1
Fermions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
Group Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
Labels Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4
Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
17
2.1
Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2
2.3
Fermions, spin
2.4
( 21 , 0) representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5
(0, 21 ) representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6
Lorentz Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7
1-fermion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
29
3.1
Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2
Lorentz Boost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
33
Renormalization of QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1.1
4.1.2
37
Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1.1
Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1.2
Schwinger-Dyson Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1.3
Renormalized QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.2
5.3
45
6.1
Ward Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2
52
SO(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
63
68
9.1
Standard Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
80
85
List of Figures
1
QFT II
1
I remember at the very beginning of the last quarter, I sort of draw you some schematic table, that
we can talk about particles, and the related issue in the following way. So you can classify them
by spin. Spin can be 0. What else it can be? 1/2. We are not talking about spin for the particles.
That is a very deep question. I dont know what, I dont know the answer. In principle it can
be as well but usually, maybe we will make a comment about that later. But even with this, it is
not very complete. What is wrong with this list? Every half integer, there is a spin. Why do we
usually stop with these two? The answer is that we only know how to write normal looking up to
spin 2. There is a reason for that, which we know we may not be able to get.
name
scalar
fermion
spin 1
??
graviton
spin
1
2
3
2
renormalization
EFT
quantization
s-matrix
symmetries
Particle data group, there is a particle data group. You Google it. Particle data. Used to be they
mail you a booklet every year. But these days they are all on-line. It is very fast. By the way, a
very good test whether you are any good as a particle physicist is to see how many pages of particle
data book you can understand not meaning just reading the English, but trying to understand the
properties.
There are a lot of confusing issues with quantum theory such as renormalization, EFT, quantization,
S-matrix, symmetries. But now in this quarter, we will mostly try to see what are the new issues
that arise in these categories for spin 1, you see that there are quite a bit of new things. We will also
have a chance to talk about normalization EFT again in the context of these series, just to give you
more examples of that. I think I also mentioned to you last quarter that historic Clee, quantum
4
1.1 Fermions
1 JANUARY 8TH, 2013 (INTRODUCTION TO FERMIONS)
historically quantum field theory is confusing. Is it more confusing than necessary because
unfortunately the first example of quantum field theory, everyone knows what is the first example
of quantum field theory, dynamics, is these particles. All issues tangle together. Historically, our
predecessors have to understand everything all together. That is why it takes a long time. Why
are these things interesting? First of all, they are seen in nature. Most of the particles we know,
elementary particles in nature, spin 1/2, spin one. We might have one elementary particle in spin
0, not so long ago. But before that, everything we know are in these two categories. Even people
suspect there is no spin 0 elementary particles. But we can go through some of those reasons if we
have a chance later. But we still dont know whether it is elementary particle, or not. Most of the
elementary are in these particles. They give you more differentiation of dynamics. We basically
are focusing on that. In this quarter we will basically do Fermian, as I said, and the spin 1. But
mostly, we will do this and that. And there is example, we will do this. We will see how much
those things already are taking up my time. But I do want to in the end, do a little bit of synthesis,
since I do want to talk a little bit about hicks mechanism, in the context of Q.E.D. Not our Q.E.D.
For the Q.E.D. in a different world. Sorry. Either for Q.E.D. in a different work or for Q.E.D. in
the BCS you conduct, inside of superconductor. That is sort of using all the knowledge, use all the
scalar, using the scalar field and using Fermian and Baxter. Also very, BCS series is also a beautiful
demonstration of effective field theory, by the way, if any of you actually read the journals. Lets
begin with fermions.
1.1
Fermions
Were not going to spend too much time because there is not too much deep about fermions and
there is quite a few things deep about scalars, about vectors.
It is very hard to keep track with consistent notation of everything deep. But concept is easy.
What we will do is not to talk about everything about Fermions, is to Ill try to talk about some
basic concept about Fermions, then I will try to basically focus on one special case that we will
need later. That is the Fermions we need which is the probably simplest one. But before I do that,
if you want to ever become a grand master of Fermions, here is something you can, you must have.
There is a review article by this group of people, okay. What else do we want to know? This is
1.1 Fermions
1 JANUARY 8TH, 2013 (INTRODUCTION TO FERMIONS)
a physics report. Its this big. You probably dont want to read it from cover to cover. But you
want to read enough so that you can, this has every single formula you want, that you ever need
about Fermions and also, if you actually do calculation with Fermions, you know that there are 20
different conventions and so on.
H. Dreiner, H. Haber, S. Martin physical report 494 (2010) [pdf]
They have all of them, and teach you how to translate between them, and I dont know whether
you have ever done latex, they have a macrofile that you can use your space time signature, so on,
relapse, the whole thing. It is a different convention, okay? But that is not the main point, why
this, that is one of the main point why this is useful. But the other thing, why this is useful is
these people are widely respected in the community for never make any mistakes, so everything,
anything I wrote on the board is inconsistent with them, they are right. I am wrong. In this
business, negative sign 1/2 is everything. There is nothing too deep about it. But you have to, if
you want to get the right number, you have to have, you have to get those things right.
What Fermion is, what distinguish Fermion and scalar is basically Fermions are representations,
different representation of Lorentz group. Why do we care about Lorentz group? Because its
symmetry. Its a space/time symmetry. Why do we, why is that obvious? Why is Lorentz group
symmetry, used for symmetry? Lorentz group is certainly not symmetry of this classroom. You
are sitting there. Im sitting here. We are certainly not in rotations. So its useful, if you think
about microscopic physics. When you go to a microscopically, we know for a fact that the theory
is, and we talk about the particles and that the scalars are the trivial representation of Lorentz
group. Fermions is the next representation basically. You will see that all these guys falls into
different representations of lower he wants group. It is interesting that nature use lower dimension
representations of loren t z group. As I said we have examples all of this, except of this. This one
we know how to write in theory but we havent observed. Nature has managed to use all of them.
That alone give you a strong motivation to suspect super symmetry is there. Now we are going to
talk more about representations and symmetry. Let me ask, nobody has never seen group theory
before, right? You heard of the word, group.
1.2
1.2
Group Theory
Group Theory
groups symmetries equivalent theories
So groups. Im sure you can look up the definition of group. Im not going to do that. Usually
we think groups are in physics, is a useful concept to handle symmetries. We know symmetry is a
powerful tool in physics. What symmetry says in physics is that there are different series that is
equivalent. Different theories are equivalent. This is the meaning of symmetry. If you think about
it, it is quite a powerful statement. Although, since we brought up in kindergarten getting used to
symmetry you think it is true but it is highly nontrivial. It means the, the difference is, in principle
I can write a theory facing this way and I can write a theory facing this way. The statement that
these two theories are equivalent is actually highly nontrivial statement. It means including all the
quantum corrections, calculate all the loop, no matter what you do, these two theories are the same.
Without doing that very complete calculation, you can already just, if there is a symmetry you can
say those two theories are the same. What is the symmetry, tells me that the theory, this way and
theory that way, is the same? What is the symmetry? That is the rotational symmetry. Typically
three spatial dimensions, for example, symmetries like SO(3), its called, everybody knows what
this means. Special orthogonal group. Rotations. How many parameters in this group? Three.
There is three rotation. For group there are elements, group elements.
Given group elements A, B, AB, we can have generators TA , TB with something like A = eiTA A
(abstractly for SO(3)). In physics, we work with representations of a group. A representation is
something the group acts on. In terms of representations, group elements, its useful to think of them
as being matrices M (A) . Every group corresponds to a matrix acting on some object.
For example, in SO(3) we have a rotational matrix R for every group element. So
~r R~r
where ~r is a 3-dimensional fundamental real representation. In quantum mechanics, we talk about
two components spinors s (2-dimensional complex representation) which acts like
~
r
e i 2 s
2 = l(l + 1),
L
which one definition is to keep ~r2 invariant. So all irreducible for SO(3) is labeled by l(l + 1), the
different values correspond to different irreducible representations.
SO(1,3) Lorentz group keeps x0,2 ~x2 invariant and has 6 generators. J , , = 0, 1, 2, 3 which is
[J , J ] = i ([g J ( )] [ ])
1
Li = ijk J jk ,
2
K i = J 0i ,
(i, j, k 1, 2, 3)
(boosts) [K i , K j ] = ijk Lk
[Li , K j ] = iijk K k
It has six generators. Three of them are normal rotation. But there are also three others, what
are those three others? Boost. So a general definition, I can write a general definition of this.
It is orthogonal group. So mu, and then nu, these are generators, from 0 to 3. And this is ante
symmetric under interchange nu and mu. Okay? So there are six of them. Lets just take J nu mu.
J sigma, so algebra is defined by the ante symmetric commutation relations. G ro, J mu sigma
minus mu .... okay. Ante semmette Rickize between these two. Next term is ante symmetrickize
between this set of indices and this set of indices, in the commute eighter, so the next set of terms,
the same thing here. But ro sorry, ante symmetrickize between these two. These are, if you want
defines, the algebra of Lorentz group. If you want to write this in a slightly more familiar notation
... (pause). I can define Li, which is one-half and ki, which is just J0i. I havent done anything
else. Im just calling, take part, take apart this, I should say iJk, is 1, 2, is 1, 2 and 3. There is
special directions. That is the only thing else. There is no J00 because its anti symmetric. Im
just taking different elements of this nu mu matrix and calling it different names. Okay? It is likely
redefine a subset of them. This is just a change, Im changing base of this operators. If you do
this, you observe ..... (pause). Okay? So this is the most familiar part. That is, this is the whole
point of writing it in this way. Okay? This is SO3 group. Epsilon iJk is anti symmetric answer,
which is also the structure constant of SO3. This is SO3, rotation. And this is saying that the
true boost, so these are the boosts so if you actually write the representation out, you can see that
this is boost. The two, the commutation, 2 boost does not commute. The equivalent to a location,
okay? That is just a saying that. And then moreover sorry, yeah, strategically cause this to be
confusing, but this is upper this is a generator. Rotation boost also does not commute. But you
can write it in terms of boosts. The whole point of writing this, this way, is just to understand
how the rotational group is embedded in the Lorentz group. This writing is obviously less coherent
9
10
11
1.3
1.3
Labels Representation
Labels Representation
Okay. As we said, the different representations, different irreducible representations are labeled by
envariants by invariants under the symmetry transformation. Okay? So, we wanted to, so lets
begin by some state K which is labeled by the momentum. Not that K. Sorry. This is K. This is
momentum. Im sorry about all this notation. But maybe its a good exercise, because the whole
thing about the, the whole difficult thing about the Fermions are conventions, so if you get through
all this, you ... okay? This is momentum, okay? What is the most obvious invariant of Lorentz
group?
(momentum) |ki
k 2 = k k = m2 labels representation
First of all, we know that, so therefore each mass, and the particles with different mass dont
transform into each other. Okay? The particle with certain mass after Lorentz transformation still
have the same mass. This means that the different representations with different mass obviously
does not transform into each other. So all the irreducible representations are labeled by their mass.
They all are just different mass corresponding to different representations. This is one of those
labels, labels representations. There can be additional labels, as you see, I didnt call this irreducible
representation. There are additional labels we can assign to reduce, fully specify ir reducible
representation. How do we do that? I can tell you the result. But there is also a way systematic
way of doing it. Primarily devised by Eugene Wagner which is called induced representation or
commonly known as the little group.
13
1.3
Labels Representation
little group
SO(3)
R SO(3)
|n, i
L, m
U (R)|n, i = M (R)|n, i
Okay? Therefore, a, for R, said it the other way, if R is SO3, UR on this state, okay, unitary
representation of this state is just a R for beta R, I can write it as a matrix. And this is just
nothing but the rotational matrix. Im just writing this so that you dont feel this is very mysterious.
This is the rotational matrix you know and love, okay? So spin 1/2 is just the E to the Is sigma
without theta we wrote earlier. Okay? Lets ask ourselves, armed with all this information, lets
ask ourselves what is U lambda? General transformation, on a general state vector. Okay? This
is the last ingredient we need to build irreducible representations. Okay? To do it in a very, how
shall I say, yeah, we will write it in a slightly different way. Okay? So this is the last sort of
nontrivial step. UL Ill write it. Then Ill explain. Okay? So this is, looks very weird. But to
understand why this is the case, all you need to know is the K, lambda K, okay, obviously, this
Lorentz transformation is going to take K to lambda K. Okay?
rotation
15
1.4 Symmetries
1 JANUARY 8TH, 2013 (INTRODUCTION TO FERMIONS)
time rotation. In this sense, so you can obtain everybody in the irreducible representation, you can
induce everybody in that irreducible representation by doing a little group rotation, and a boost. So
this is the so-called induced representation method. For us, it is not necessarily absolutely needed
that we have to do this all the time, because irreducible representation is known. But I thought
it would be nice to understand this method at least once. It is very useful, and a nice method.
Okay? So, okay? So all the Lorentz irreducible representations will be NML and L again is a 0,
one-half and so on. This is obviously the Fermion and the 1 is vector and so on. What else? As I
promised, I said that so this is unitary representation. But it must be infinite dimensional. Okay?
Because Lorentz group is noncompact. How do I see its infinite dimensional? Representation for L
is finite dimensional. Okay? Infinite dimensional comes from there, so infinite dimensional comes
from, there is infinite number of K, of momentum K, sorry, momentum K which is set by K score
and N score. There is indeed infinite number of members in this representation. And that infinite
numbers are related to each other by exactly the noncompact part of the group which is the boost.
You can go to any K from N via boost. Is this okay? Okay. So, next time we will focus more on
Fermions. So this is a general representation of Lorentz group. Again, if you havent received the
E-mail, and want to be on the E-mail list, let me know. And send me an E-mail and Ill add on to
it. I will see you on Thursday.
1.4
Symmetries
This is a little bit of a tangent. There are two kinds of symmetries. Kind of symmetry, this kind
of rotational symmetry is one kind. And as we will soon talk about generalization symmetry, and
but we also have concurring, translational, physics theory right here. It is the other end of the
universe is the same, maybe its the same. That is called concurrent symmetry. Translation is also.
But these are called space/time symmetries. So on, so forth. There are other kinds of symmetries.
Another kind of symmetry which we sometimes called a flavor symmetry. For those of you who
learn a little bit of standard model, this is not to be confused as the narrow sense, the actual flavors,
although that flavor is example of this kind of flavor symmetry. But flavor symmetry is some kind
of internal symmetry. An example with complex scalar being
ei
16
1.4 Symmetries
1 JANUARY 8TH, 2013 (INTRODUCTION TO FERMIONS)
which rotates between the real and imaginary component of the field .
17
Last time we started to talk about how to build a representation of a Lorentz group using the
little group method. We talked about, for a mass of particle, we can start with a single vector,
a special full vector the little group is the one that keeps this vector invariant [SO(3)]
n = (m, 0, 0, 0)
Therefore, reducible representation of mass of particle has two things one is its momentum which
satisfies k 2 = m2 . There is another label here which is irreducible representation corresponding to
the rotations of SO(3).
|k, i
(L, m = L L)
This irreducible representation is obviously classified by the momentum, angular momentum, and
m (not the mass of the particle, but depends on L). That is a full representation of, so in other
words, the particles, particles in form representations of the Lorentz group, we can distinguish them
by their mass, by their spin and there are infinite number of members in irreducible representation
as they are infinite number of case that satisfy this. So it is infinite number of dimensional representation which is a little bit different from the usual representations where we used to have the
representations of rotations and so on. Those are finite dimensional ones. This is, everything is
consistent, as we said that we need the unitary representations of Lorentz group, the states. The
particle states has to form unitary representations because we want to conserve property probability. On the other hand the Lorentz group is not compact because there is a boost and the
parameter space of boost is not compact. It is a 0 to infinity. Therefore, there is a theorem saying
that you cannot have a finite dimensional unitary representations of a noncompact group. But
this, everything is consistent, this is unitary but its infinite dimensional. This has to be, this needs
to be infinite dimensional because we know particles can come from infinite number of different
momentums. So everything is, is this okay with everyone? This is as group theory will be, okay?
So in this course, I think, it is useful at least to remember a little bit of that. The next thing, so
this is a mass of particle. This applies to any particle. It doesnt, it is not even just Fermion or
anything you want. As we said, so far we know how to write nice looking field theories for these
18
2.1 Example
2 JANUARY 10TH, 2013
kind of spin par. For spin higher than 2, we can write down something but it is not very nice.
3
1
L = 0, , 1, , 2
2
2
massless particle For massless particle, for massless particle there is also a special vector, momentum
vector of massless particle. But its not this one. It does not have a frame, this is the full vector for
vector particle and this one doesnt. What is the special vector. Anybody know? Is what? That
is as special as it can be. You can put this anywhere. But lets put there.
k = (k, 0, 0, k)
where the (0, 0, k) is SO(2) - also a rotational group. Its rotation in two dimensions, not three
dimensions. How many generators are in SO2? Just one. Just one rotation. So this, the irreducible
representations of this guy, is also characterized by L. Okay? And the projections. Okay. The only
thing different is that there is only two projections here. (L, L). Spin up, spin down.
2.1
Example
For a massive particle with spin 21 , we have possible values 12 . For a massive particle with spin
1, we have values 1, 0, 1. For a massless particle with spin
1
2
particle of spin 1, we have values 1. (This last part underlies the Higgs Mechanism the main
difference).
2.2
How does a field operator transform? Under the Lorentz group. As I said, again, last time, its major
difference here, there are two. A is that the field operator does not need to be unitary. It is not a
state. It does not have a direct connection with a probability. It does not need to be, whatever unit
representation the field operators lives in, it does not have to be a unitary representation. These
is that we usually look for only finite dimensional representation of field operators. The reason is
the following. For particles, I said we can have infinite number of possibility, infinite number of
different momentums. We want to have infinite dimensional representation for particle. For field
operators, usually we only have finite number of fields to talk about. We have electrons. We have
19
M 1 () (x)M () = M (1 x)
The field operator is a function of X. Usually the definition of Lorentz transformation is the following. Okay? Transformation, is realized by a matrix. Its a matrix. Lets try to motivate this
a little bit. Lets first imagine, there is a scalar. Okay? There is nothing scalar so this does not
exist. There is at most .... for real scalar there is not even a phase. I must say this.
2.2.1
So for scalar, there will be just fi X will go to Phi, okay, this is a particular way of
(x) (1 x)
We are just imagining that if I imagine there is some field configuration, here, okay. Im just taking
this to a Lorentz boost, Im just taking it here. Therefore, the new Phi at the particular point will
be the older Phi as if you do inverse on X. Im trying to explain this but you have to think about it
yourself. This does work. This is called the active way of thinking about symmetry transformation.
Transform the field. Another way of doing it is called passive way. You can try to think about
rotating the axis.
My way of thinking about the transformation is that transforming the field (shifting it) is effectively
equivalent to shifting the field operators instead for a specific transformation .
So, lets see what are the possible representations. To do this, we are looking for something else. We
are looking for a finite .... to do this, its useful to recognize the following fact. So again, remember
that we, during the last lecture we write the general formula for the Lorentz transformation on
20
k i = J 0i
1 ~
~
J~ = (L
iK)
2
j
i
k
[J
, J
] = iijk J
This is the thing that always bugs me about group theory and in general mass there seems to be a
lot of tricks going on. There is. You have to be smart to be a mathematician. You have to somehow
stare at these things and notice all these facts. It is not like us, we start with .... ([inaudible] The
merit of doing this, is that you observe that this is zero. You separated the algebra, the algebra
into two parts that actually commute with each other. In other words, the full algebra is that sum
of sub algebra generated by J plus, another sum of sub algebra generated by J minus. Separately, J
plus/minus I, J plus/minus J, the algebra, sub algebra itself is SU2 or SO3. So the two sub algebra
here, so this way means that Lorentz group is well, decomposed into the algebra, the algebra of
Lorentz group can be decomposed into a sum of two sub U2, SU2 sub algebras. Hmm? (pause).
K is not compact. The stuff generated by K is not compact. Whatever a symbol you put it here, I
dont really care. But how you tell that this is what it means, okay, this is what it means.
Lorentz SU(2) SO(2)
So, therefore, all the irreducible representations, all the irreducible representations can be labeled
as a product of this plus and minus. All the irreducible representations are labeled by a quantum
number in plus and a quantum number in minus. That is all I wanted to say. The quantum number
in plus and minus, or in SU2, or SO3, same locally, are easy. Right? So everybody knows its the
Eigen value of 1/2, or Eigen value of, so the Eigen value of SU2, SA plus or minus is labeled by
J plus/minus. Again, this is where this Eigen value is 1 where N is again 1, 2.... okay? 0 as well.
21
1
2
SU (2)
irreps (j+ , j )
j =
n
(n = 1, 2, )
2
i
i
Li = j+
+ j
All the representations can be denoted as J plus, J minus. Okay? That is a product of these
two numbers. As long as I specify the quantum number under plus and minus I specify the
representation. These are all finite dimensional representations. Okay? Again, its different. That
is not, Im not looking for infinite dimensional representations anymore. Okay? So this, the
dimension is dimensional representations. Okay? (pause). The different, it is not here the term.
Lets see how they transform. Very deep. (chuckles). Thank you. Okay. Now, of course, we know
that you can also have a better way of representing this. Well, lets just do it.
(0, 0) : spin 0
1
1
( , 0) : spin (fermion)
2
2
1
1
(0, ) : spin (fermion)
2
2
1 1
( , ) : spin 1 (4 vector)
2 2
2.3
Fermions, spin
1
2
Okay. Now, lets go to talk about Fermions. Lets talk about these two representations. Field
operators in these two representations. (pause). 01, and 10, these are not irreducible. You have
to yes. So, yeah. Okay. Lets do Fermions. Firmiance Fermions. We are almost through,
with Fermions. Okay, so spin 1/2. So these two representations, lets just look at them. This
decomposition is useful, because I can immediately write down the transformation rules, because I
know how to write. I know how to write down the generations in arbitrary number of dimensions, so
thats all known. But before we do that, lets make another sort of general comment. In Fermions,
we are used to think about it, its a column vector, complex column vector, two-dimensional complex
column vector. This is what we usually think about. On the other hand, we know the location of
group is SO3. Whatever locally is SO3, it is rotation. There is a little bit of mystery here, because
22
SO(1, 3) (1, ~ ) =
X =
2.4 ( 12 , 0) representation
2 JANUARY 10TH, 2013
consistent with Lorentz transformation, that defines a set of transformations.
X 0 = M XM 1
M SL(2, C)
rotation: e 2 ~ xe 2 ~ SU(2)
~a R()~a
You say that, you say there is a vector, A. You do a rotation. Okay? But what you want to do
is to ask, what is this rotation, how do you translate into SU2? How do you translate into SU2?
What you do is, you form this combination, and ask how does this combination transform another
rotation. This transformation transform as, and this is SU2 rotation. If you remember, okay? You
can show that this, another way of saying, if you show this, you can show that this exercise in
quantum mechanics is that this, that after this, A goes to a rotation by theta of A. It is based on
vector. It is rotated by theta. Anybody knows what blog sphere is? Yeah, but so Im just saying
that this is a common trick of mapping a real rotation into a universal cover group. In quantum
mechanics, the question is how to map SO3 into SU2. What you do is to form this combination,
and do the rotation on this combination. That is SU2. In particular, this is indeed a rotation
because this and that acting on X, in the end, is equivalent to just rotate this vector by theta. This
is the mapping between SU2 rotation and normal space time rotation. Its very similar.
2.4
( 21 , 0) representation
Again this means that its 1/2 under J plus, is 0 under J minus. That is all it means. So the field
operator we call it C. Probably not the best. This is my way. If you have another way, use your
way. The official way is, I dont know what is this. Whatever. Okay? The question, the problem
with this is, another one is zeta which looks like that but never mind. So because of this 1/2 0,
so there is the infinite, that just shows you how much less people try to put to make Fermion
rotation because this is 1/2 0. Because later on we will talk about 0 and 1/2 representation. So
in this representation of course these guys, these are two components. Two components, complex
in general. Okay? So we are labeling the components this by alpha. Alpha is 1 and 2. We only
24
2.4 ( 12 , 0) representation
2 JANUARY 10TH, 2013
are allowed to use alpha, not anything else. Alpha beta maybe. You will see where it is coming
from later. Under the Lorentz transformation, under Lorentz transformation goes to M, M is the
complex 2 by 2 we identified that way. We can identify in, well, you dont even have to go through
the exercise. But if you do, well, that is the 2 by 2 matrix.
M
And we write alpha, beta. Okay. Notice these two are strategically located, and this one is
closer to and this one is further away from M. They have a lot of meanings, because this means
that this, this index is closer to that. In this case it is obvious. In some cases it is not very
obvious. This is not even very, not even very easy because usually beta will be just here. Anyway,
everything has a lot of meanings. You will see what. Okay. Alpha and beta are 1 and 2 obviously.
Immediately, the one thing you want to see for any transformation is what is the invariant tensor
in that transformation.
12 = 21 = 1
The form invariants, the point of doing upper and lower indices, easier to form invariants. Okay?
You identify, suppose I define something for epsilon alpha beta, where alpha, 12 is negative 21.
Answer is 1. Have to be careful with this matrix. Sometimes people use the other convention. That
is why convention is everything in this business. So
M M =
This has alpha beta. It will also transform under this. Lets make it also transform under that.
You can show that epsilon alpha beta M, okay, now alpha is on this side, beta is on this side.
Gamma on this side. This you can show is just a determinant of M, times another epsilon tensor
basically. But then the determinant is 1. Because S over there, SLC, you see it, and so this is
okay? In group theory language, this means that this is a numeric tense or. This is like in Lorentz
transformation with , g .
=
(M 1 )
=
=
=
=
25
2.5
~ = i ~
K
2
M = 1 i
~ ~ ~ ~
,
2
2
~v
~ =
c
(0, 12 ) representation
Now we talk about 0 1/2. Okay? Again, this is just taking the J minus, and switch the ro and
J minus and J plus. You say okay, that is trivial. That is trivial. But usually, there is, because
obviously, you can write down some relations between these two representations. That is why
sometimes it can get confusing. Okay? The fundamental, denoted by something called dagger
just to confuse you. Because its on this, it is Lorentz transformation on the right, if you want,
on this side. And 1/2, so I cannot use alpha anymore, because alpha I used to label the other
representation. Okay? So some genius come up with a representation called a dot representation.
Is it called alpha dot. That is not my fault. I have to tell you what the convention is. If I invented
weel it would be more confusing Weyl. At this point there is no meaning. Im not implying
this is a dagger of anything yet. That is just a notation. This is where I start. On the other
hand, obviously there is a root of this notation, where does this come from? You can show that
this representation and 1/2 0 presentation are conjugate of each. More specifically, which was
26
= ( )
(M ) = (M ) = M
Now, its very easy to just derive the transformation laws of this, in terms of the transformation
laws on that. So, goes to M star alpha dot, beta dot. And this I can slightly rewrite it to make it
more hermitian conjugate, beta dot, alpha dot. See the subtle difference between these? It is all
very important. Or if you are lazy, write it like this. But you have to be very careful. You have to
understand what this means. Even this stuff sometimes there can be confusion. Some book decide
not to use this, they use bars. Also, you can in terms of this, in terms of this matrix, you can also
work out what is this guy. We formed earlier, we formed earlier how does this transform. Okay?
It just transforms as this close to M dagger on the other side. Therefore, you can figure out how
this transforms, how this guy transforms.
X =
M XM
M 0 0 (M )
() = =
As I said, I havent, so far we havent said anything really really deep. But there is all this
bookkeeping with Fermions you have to go through, because there is two kind of representations,
there is anti commuting itself, epsilon tensor and so on. Obviously, you also have sigma dagger.
This, okay. That is another invariant. You can define epsilon tensor with dot indices as well. This
is just dot. And this is ..... okay? These things are very useful, because so these are first set of
Lorentz invariants you can write down. Lorentz invariant is very important. You want to write
down LaGrangeians. This looks like a mass terms, because as one Fermion times another Fermion.
But we can also have other Lorentz invariants.
2.6
Lorentz Vectors
= (1, ~ )
(1, ~ )
27
2.7 1-fermion
2 JANUARY 10TH, 2013
The obviously, the right thing to do, Im going to write down the right thing to do, is the following:
Now here is the first time we meet with bars, sigma mu bar is one. You can show this transform
is like a vector. This transform, these are Lorentz vectors. So is this one. They transform vector.
That is all I want to say. Okay. Very good. Now we are in a position to write down our first
LaGrangian.
2.7
1-fermion
Okay? Lets have one Fermion. Lets just have that. Okay? Nothing else. This is Lorentz invariant
because that is a Lorentz vector.
1
L = i
m( + )
2
This is a mass of Fermion. Ill write it down. Then Ill make a few comments. You need this.
You need this, because this is the hermitian conjugate of that, first of all. And why isnt Fermion
times Fermion not vanishing? Usually I would say Fermion times, because exclusion principle I
cannot have the same twice because this is different Fermions. There are two component in this,
two component in this. One component of that times second component of that. They are different
Fermions. That is the little bit, it is another confusing thing if you just write them like this. But
usually its much better. That is a minor, lump into this rotation. Okay, several things. Lets
consider a limit, where mass M goes to 0.
m2
28
()2
2.7 1-fermion
2 JANUARY 10TH, 2013
Second of all, lets say do we know an example of this in nature? Something that we usually the
answer is no. Okay? The Fermion, answer is no in nature, model is neutrino okay. We dont know
whether it, it is consistent with this but we dont know. Electrons allow this. So this set of, this
kind of Fermions are called, because it only has one Fermion, it is its own anti particle these are
called Majorana Fermions.
Im doing the whole Fermions, if you notice, a slightly different from the older textbooks. Old
textbooks start with the same but I assure you Majoranna is much better the two components
you use, the language is much better. The two components, this kind of two components language
and this is a generic thing called a Weyl Fermion (2-component). If you only have one Weyl Fermion
its Majorana, in four dimensions.
Consider 2 species ( 12 , 0) fermions i , i = 1, 2.
L=
X
i=1,2
1
i
m(i i + i i )
2
2
2
where J is U(1)Q charge current. This theory looks like QED with electron and positrons.
29
Spin-1 vectors: photons , W and Z vectors, and gluons. These are called the force carriers. Why?
Can think about two electrons interacting via a photon intermediary. The force carrier refers to
the fact that you can draw this kind of diagram, saying that there are scalars instead of vectors
using the Yukawa theory talked about earlier. There are other vectors, QED vectors, such as
, 0 , a, .
In Effective Field Theory, the cutoff is much larger than the mass of the vectors. In QCD, the
cutoff is approximately the same as the vector, about 1 GeV. Also, last quarter, we said that for
theory that has a cutoff much bigger than the characteristic mass scale of the theory, there is a
pretty nice name to it renormalizable relevant operators are small, suppressed by some large
cutoff.
3.1
Photons
What kind of theory describes vectors? Gauge theory. Lets discuss vectors and focus on photons for
now, E&M. One thing we learned is m = 0. This is spin 1 and for massless spin representation
for Lorentz group, we see that a little group of SO(2) [irreducible representation] works here.
Identify a special vector k = (E, 0, 0, E). This is easiest because mass is zero. Why SO(2)? Two
polarizations ( has 2 physical d.o.f). We can also see this from Maxwells equations - dF = 0 or
F = 0.
F = A A
What is the solution of the wavefunction of the photon? It is in terms of this vector potential with
some polarization vector
A = eipx
In momentum space (p-space)
p F = p (p p ) = p2 (p )p = 0
So there are two kinds of solutions.
30
1. = p2
F = 0 identically longitudinal polarization
2. p2 = 0, (p ) = 0 transverse
We can see that there are two polarization vectors that satisfy this kind of condition. But we can
always add another term because p2 = 0
= + + + + p
3.2
We always wanted to do things in the manifest Lorentz invariant way so we dont have to check
every time. How do we describe a vector, writing down, writing it as a Lorentz invariant, as
possible. Obviously the way to do it is promote it to a full vector. This usually requires us write
things in terms of A mu. Not A1 , A2 but A . Not just two polarizations. This has 4 degrees of
freedom. But we immediately see there is a problem here we know there are only two physical
degrees of freedom which means that we have a redundant description. There is something about
this theory that needs to tell me that I can remove this redundancy. That is the gauge equivalence,
gauge invariance. Redundant means there are also many equivalent descriptions of the same theory,
because there are two physical variables here.
We know A eipx so how do we reduce it?
1. impose p = 0 take 4 d.o.f. 3 d.o.f.
2. physical =
1
2
Secretly, there is Lorentz invariant theory, so what is the mechanism? What is the secret of keeping
the theory Lorentz invariant?
3.2.1
Lorentz Boost
+ (p)p
(p ) = 0
We require the theory to be Lorentz invariant which means and + (p)p is the same physical
state. It refers to the same particle, just view it in two different Lorentz frames. In a more familiar
31
((
gauge equivalence, (
gauge
symmetry,
gauge redundancy. Speaking roughly, it means the true theory
(((
D(A)S [A]
identical
D(A )S [A
Gauge symmetry is not a symmetry. It is a redundant theory. I think I sort of made this point
last quarter but let me make it again. It is very important to understand. We have two, we have
real symmetries, such as global symmetry. One global symmetry is rotational symmetry. I can just
rotate. Rotational symmetry means I have two different theories N. one theory I call this X, this
Y. In another theory I call this X, this Y. These two theories give you the same, if you calculate
the same physical quantity they give you the same result. That is a symmetry. In principle these
are two theories, and thats, symmetry need not hold for any particular physical system. It is a
physical statement, whether I have two theories are different or not. On the other hand, we see
that this is not a symmetry. It means that this is just the same theory. I have infinite way of
describing the same theory. Talking about the same physical degree of freedom.
tl;dr Gauge Redundancy is the best terminology.
We need to do gauge fixing. I implicitly fix the two gauges. This kind of requirement implies strong
constraints on physical observables such as S-matrix. We work with
M = M ;
invariant + p
32
:::::::::::::
= D (k) = 2
Ag + B 2
k + i
k
unitarity of S-matrix only 2 d.o.f. on initial & fixed state
Consider a special process [include image with blocks]
k k
i
Ag + B 2
J
M = J D J = J 2
k + i
k
Recall the Optical theorem
Now, we sum over the physical polarizations = and have two parts the left part is
and the right part is
. We havent done anything else yet, this is just unitarity. Remember
that the optical theorem relates an imaginary part of the amplitude to a physical amplitude
square with intermediate particle on shell. Therefore, because this is S-matrix element, you
sum only the physical polarizations.
Choose
1
k = E(1, 0, 0, 1), = (0, 1, i, 0)
2
Define
k = E(1, 0, 0, 1)
33
so
= g +
k k + k k
k k
+k k
k k
kk
is not Lorentz invariant, does not contribute b/c of gauge invariance, b/c k J = 0
g
k k
+B 2
k
|M|2 =
|M
|2 (
+(
|M3 |2 + |M1 |2 + |M2 |2
((0(
M M = g M M = (
(
((
but from before, we saw that since the second part doesnt contribute, we can replace
g
X
=
M0 = M3
Okay. Everybody happy with QED so far? Today we will continue with QED. Last time we start
to calculate a scattering process. Let me say again, for the next couple lectures, we complete in
34
k 0 = k
{ , } = 2g I44
+ = 2g
Tr( ) + Tr( ) = 8g
We can also do more complicated traces by running through cyclical permutations (definition of
trace)
Tr( ) = Tr(2g )
= Tr(2g 2g + 2g )
= 4(g g g g + g g )
There are some other things you can say. For example, you can show that the trace of gamma mu,
gamma mu, gamma ro is 0. Or lets begin with a simpler one. First of all, trace of gamma mu is 0.
Explicit verification, or there is nothing that is a number, okay? There is no constant that carries
a mu indices. There is nothing. As I said there is only, the only thing that is a number that carries
over indices is the G mu, mus, are the G mu, mus. Then you can show that the G mu G or gamma
mu gamma mu gamma ro is zero, mostly because we can permute this and that reduce down to
that.
Tr( ) = 0,
Tr( ) = 0,
Tr(odd # ) = 0
0
Tr (
p me ) (p + me ) = 4 p0 p + p0 p g p0 p
me 0
Im going to take the limit that the electron mass is zero. Just to simplify my equations. Muons
are much more heavier than electrons. In other words, in order for that process to go through, the
36
4.1
Renormalization of QED
1 0 2
L = (F
) + 0 (i
m0 )0 e0 0 0 A0
4
1/2
1/2
A0 = A z3
0 = z2
3 = z3 1, 2 = z2 1, 1 = z1 1, m = z2 m0 m
1
A 3 (F )2 + (i
2
A
m) e
m ) e1
L = (F )2 + (i
4
4
4.1.1
And then there are some rules involved (including the Feynman gauge, photon propagator, full
propagator, fermion propagator, and so forth).
4.1.2
X
(p = m) = 0
d X
(p)
=0
dp
p=m
m is a pole
Y
(q 2 = 0) = 0
ie (p0 p = q = 0) = ie
37
canonical normalization
+ (p2 )p
M
p M = 0
I remind you that the one identity, we mean that, so what we said is, its crucial to ensure that
this is the piece that ensures the series of Lorentzian variant, and, so sorry, its consistent to have
a gauge equivalence, and Lorentzian variants at the same time. So, you can take a different point
of view, as we said, at the beginning, if you just insist on, Im going to talk about a quantity thats
... if you want to start out with something, like this, and under Lorentz transformation, it goes
like this. It goes to like times some alpha, in general. Polarization vector has this kind of boost.
This can be a arbitrary function of P in principle, scatter function. And because S matrix element
is proportional to this, therefore, Lorentzian variance has to be consistent with this picture. I
have to require this is 0. Okay? This is the version of Lorentz, one identity. This is the gauge
transformation. That is the gauge transformation on the photon field. In this way of saying that,
the fact that the theory is the equivalent under this kind of, this set of gauge transformations,
is essential in guarantee the Lorentzian variants. It means that this must be zero. Okay? So,
this sounds like, this sounds very reasonable. This almost is a drirvation derivation, sometimes
you can think of this as a dare ivation if you think gauge symmetry, this is really fundamental.
And thats fine. That is probably the quickest way to see that this has to be true. If you buy
this, that the theory is gauge equivalents. But to be very strictly speaking, this is a statement of
just equivalence between the gauge transformation and the one identity. These two statements are
equivalent. But it is not really a proof of this identity itself. In particular, in the following sense,
we know that we havent shown that the theory, if you just compute these things, it actually satisfy
this property. Okay. You have just shown that these two statements are equivalent.
We have to fix the gauge, and we do this by introducing a term like this into the Lagrangian
( A)2
LG.f.
2
Let me repeat that proof. It is interesting proof. You should go through it. Yeah. You mean
whether this term is, has a counter term or not? What is the question? You add this term from
the beginning. One of the things we will show is that this term is not renormalized. That is a
38
5.1 Proof
5 FEBRUARY 14TH, 2013
consequence that we will show. Okay? That is part of the result. After we are done, similarly you
will see, okay. That is what we do. We are going to start with LaGrangian gauge fixing term, and
show that that is the case. Okay? Without using explicit gauge symmetry, without using gauge
symmetry.
5.1
Proof
S-matrix
hf |ii = i
5.1.1
Example
5.1.2
1
1
p21 m21 p22 m22
Schwinger-Dyson Equation
n
h|T
X
S
a1 (x1 ) an (xn )|i = i
h|T a1 (x1 ) aai (4) (x xi ) a an (xn )|i
a
i=1
which contains the action S with respect to any variation of any fields. (Note differentiation
follows the Feynman rules weve defined before along with the fourier transformation **** Ask
about functional differentiation)
S
= 0 classical equation of motion
a
39
d4 x ei(k+ki )x f (x, xi = x)
= f (k + ki )
5.1.3
Renormalized QED
E.O.M. Z3 2A = z1 j where j = e
hf |ii = i
z1
z3
= M
M = 0 (Ward identity)
So
h|T j (x)(x1 ) (xn )|i = i
with the conserved current symmetry = . This is a statement of global symmetry and does
not depend on whether your gauge is fixed or not. Therefore, we can make the replacement
k M =
d4 x eikx h|T j |i = 0
5.2
40
5.2
G (q, p0 , p) = iz1
= (2)4 (q + p p0 ) S(p0 ) ie (p0 , p S(p)
S(p) =
i
P
p m (p)
q G = i(2)4 (q + p p0 ) S(p0 ) (ieq ) S(p)
Z
= z1 dx dy dz e x h|T j (x)(y)(z)|i
But we can also see that this one is taking, again, the expression upstairs, its just so. Again, I
dont write the exponential. TJ mu, okay? That is just that. Im taking the derivative with respect
to X. Derivative with respect to X. Okay. Now we say, great. Why is that great? Because this is 0.
Okay? Unfortunately, no, that is not 0. Okay? We will have to be careful with this. Okay?
So, because now, Im not talking about the S matrix anymore. Okay? Im talking about, Im talking
about actually a matrix element. Now you do have to worry about all those Delta functions. Im
not doing S matrix anymore. It is not S matrix. Its a greens function. So this is, this is again to
conserve the current of our U1 symmetry.
= z2 j
J = z2 e
conserved current
Lets explicitly write those Delta functions out. Okay? Okay, again Im using Schwinger-Dyson
equation. I dont know which board its on. I think I erased it. But that is just the SchwingerDyson equation for conserve the current. Okay? Im just writing it out. There are two Delta
functions corresponding to when X and Y gets closer, and, or X and Z gets closer.
+ e 4 (x z)h|T (y)(z)|i
Okay? Again, so its these two point functions, obviously are connected to the propagators. These
are just the propagator, two propagator. So psiY sidebar Z, these are just the fourier transform of
41
h|T (y)(z)|i
=
d4 k ik(zy)
e
S(k)
(2)4
This SK is just the, this propagator here. Okay? Now Im going to put all these things together.
So I have this, okay? I have this. But I did not use this, provided in terms of the sum of two,
two-point functions. Two, two point functions are just a propagator. Let me put everything in,
and then write it more carefully. The end result for that is that I have this, E5P, C1 over C2.
Okay? So C1 I inherited from here, and C2, I inherit from here. This is important, C1 and C2,
normalization constants. Q, ESP minus ESP prime. Okay? These are, again these are the two,
two-point functions, which is just a full propagator.
z1
(2)4 4 (q + p p0 ) eS(p) eS(p0 )
z2
= q S(p0 )(ie )S(p)
q G (q, p0 , p) =
where the last line was derived from drawing diagrams and looking at the diagram. The reason
I wanted to do that, in the end there is a relation between this three-point function and those
two-point functions. So you see this is already quite nontrivial. Right? This means that ward
identity, or more specifically, the conservation of a global U1 symmetry, the global, exist in global
U1 symmetry. There is a nontrivial relation between a general three point function, three point
vertex function, and the full two point functions. Again, this is exact. Okay? Let me, when we
went through all this, not because we cannot calculate one loop to verify this but because this
is exactly wrong. The only thing that we relied on are just this existence of symmetry, and the
Schwinger-Dyson equations which are all exactly right.
These are 4 by 4 matrices. Let me multiply from this side S inverse from P and from this side
S inverse P. This side S inverse P and from this side S inverse P. Okay? Just to make it looks
nicer.
iq (p0 = p + q, p) =
z1
eS 1 (p0 ) eS 1 (p)
z2
But before we even do that, lets just say this is, behold, 1 over U, exactly Delta function. Lets
see how to use it. As PQ goes to 0, so of course you say this is 0. Until you notice the other side
is also 0. Okay? If you say this means 0 equals 0 you havent graduated yet. This means that you
42
z1 = z2
Yeah, you can divide both of them by Q. Either way you want to do it, there is a expansion you can
do, that is what Im going to say. Okay? We know that origin of the table expansion, this is 0, this
is gamma mu. This is our renormalization symmetry. That is just the condition we choose.
Under this condition, after you do your tailor expansion which is trivial, when those things are
getting very close by its trivial, you will see that the nontrivial result you get is the factor in front
is what? Here you are using this. You are using that. You are using everything. Okay? This is
our proof that these two normalization constant is the same, as we demonstrated at the one loop
order already, Delta 1 is the same as Delta 2 but this is the exact proof.
5.3
In fact, Im not going to give you the full proof. But just show you how this thing will go, and in
the one intermediate step we will actually obtain another useful result. Okay? This is even more
like, even more direct in a sense you will see. We know that everything is specified by some Z
function. For QED partition function can be written down as like this. The passage, I havent told
you how to do past integral in Fermions and we are not going to use it here. Lets just pretend we
can do it.
Z
Z[J] =
Z
( A)2
4
That is not the conserve current. We need to introduce os strom from Fermions. Im not going
to use that so let me just dot dot dot. Okay? If you want to calculate correction functions with
Fermions [inaudible] only thing annoying is that the source term is familiar in your case. But we
havent talked about variables. We are not going to use it. Okay. Thats that. But that is as ab
initial yo as it can be, there is nothing more general than starting from that. Now lets do gauge
transformation. Lets transform. Just be done with it. Now let me write. Suppress all the indices.
43
= ei 0 ,
DA = DB
D = D 0
We are changing variables from A B and so on, these measures are not invariant. Were doing
a phase shift.
Z
Z[J] =
Z
1
0
0
2
0
From that I derive this DB, psi bar ... again, gauge invariant, that doesnt change, because its
gauge invariant. I can just call the field new names. That is what I mean by gauge invariant. The
second term changes under this transformation. The second term changes, to alpha .. there is a
derivative acting on that. Becomes a box. That, and J, the third term changes too, by the way.
So J.E minus D alpha. Okay? So everything changes. Lets do some manipulation. First I wanted
to, just to be confusing, I will relabel B as A. I just go back. I want to compare with the original
LaGrangian basically. It is just a name.
relabel B A, 0
Z
Z[J] =
Z
Z
1
1
(A)2
+ J 2 A
(2)
exp i J
DADD exp i Lgauage-inv (A, )
2
2
So all of this, Im just coming from, Im squaring this and recombining the form. Box alpha square,
so the whole thing, the whole thing times another exponential, I alpha, I alpha D mu J. Okay?
And Im not asking you to follow every single step. But you see the gist of this. Im just taking the
function and do a gauge, go from there. Not make any assumptions whatsoever. This is a constant.
Its not a constant but it is a constant as far as past integral is concerned. We know any constant
in past integral doesnt matter, I just get rid of. In principle I can write a overall constant in front.
But its cumbersome. Why dont I just assume thats one. Okay? So lets see.
So, lets see what this means to us. This means if you compare this with the original LaGrangian,
this actually means CJ is C, the same Z but only a shift is J. This looks like a shift on the source
term. Okay? Nothing, nothing fancy. Im just shifting the source term.
R
1
Z[J] = Z J 2 ei J
44
45
Anybody tried homework already? Easy? Trivial, right? It is only QED calculations. Later has
loops. But that is only QED loops. The first time is always hard, you have to do it at least
once. The second time, you begin to do actual, it will be harder. Then you discover people dont
really do it. The software help you do it. You have to write software, because all the procedures
is pretty standard. The real difficult part is not to write down a loop, is to actually evaluate it.
The real process has hundreds of diagrams. You talk about QCD process, for example. You can
actually make a living doing that. Today we will wrap up ward identity and move on to the next
subject.
6.1
Ward Identities
Let me briefly recap what we did last time. I remind you, the last time, the goal is to start out with
a gauge fixed Lagrangian, and demonstrate ward identity. Last time, close to the end we embarked
on another different approach, trying to demonstrate explicitly ward identity is true.
We started out with the partition function the grandaddy of everything if we know it, we know
the whole theory. All the correlation functions can be obtained by differentiation with respect to
this current, for each field you have a current. Lets just write it formally, gauge invariant (GI =
gauge invarient, GF = gauge fixing)
Z
Z
4
(A)2
2
Now we would like to start out with this lagrangian and do gauge transformation. Gauge transformation is doing this
A = B (x), = ei 0
DD = D 0 D0
DA = DB
LGI (A) = LGI (B)
relabel B A
46
LGI (A)
Z[J] = DADD exp i LGI (A)
+ J 2(x) A
(2) ei J
2 2
2
Lets write the corrections. So always in this square bracket, J mu ... alpha X, A mu, okay, that
is one term. The other one is box alpha square. Okay? This one is a constant. Its a constant so
it goes away. This means that this one is not, it does not have anything that will integrate over,
or integrate over A. It does not depend on J. It is not something that we care about in the end.
It is just a constant. So also known as doesnt exist, okay? So we can see, the overall constant,
past integral doesnt matter. The whole thing, so this also times yet another exponential I can
A independent exponential looks like that. This one is not quite a constant because it depends on
J. It is a constant as far as the functional integral is concerned. But we want to keep it because it
depends on J. Thats it. That is the result. I havent made any assumptions. I just did a dumb
gauge transformation.
The new J looks like
1
J J0 = J 2(x)
So now you can also write this, you recognize this is just the statement that Z[J], the first part is
just old Lagrangian. The first part is the old Lagrangian. This one is, plus this term is just old
Z[J].
Z[J] = Z[J 0 ]ei
W [J] = W [J ]
47
6
Z
W [J] = W [J]
W [J]
1
+ +
d x 2
J (x)
4
d4 x J (x)
So since alpha is arbitrary, this guy is arbitrary. Okay? The same thing you do with classical
mechanics variation of principles. You make a variation and the fact of the derivation the rest of
it is 0. So this kills that. You get our first identity, which is box minus plus mu J mu is 0. Okay?
Is this okay? Is everything okay? Lets put like X back. This is all X. Everything is with respect
to X. Okay? You can call this ward identity too. You can call many things ward identity. Lets
take another variation. Lets take another functional derivative out of this equation. Okay? So
basically because this is identical is 0, lets take another functional derivative of it. Okay? Of JY.
Just to be, so lets be careful, lets put labels on these things. Now, this gives you 1 over ... let
me be careful, box X, D square, Delta square WJ. Mu Y is the same. Im moving this term to the
other side. Okay? Partial X mu, Delta X minus 1. This is still partial X. Mu becomes mu because
Im taking derivative with Delta J mu. Im just using Delta J mu X, Delta J mu Y, the Delta mu,
mu, Delta X minus Y basically. That is all I have done. The reason I wanted to do that is this
looks very much like a 2 point function already. This part is just a 2 point function. Remember
this is how we derived our propagators. Take the two functional derivative of generating functional
W.
1
W [J]
2
J (x) = 0
J (y)
J (x)
1
2 W [J]
x 2x
= x (x y)
J (x)J (y)
This gives you a 2 point correlation function. Which is related to the full propagator. So in
particular, full propagator, two point function, is defined by just this. Again we did this with
scalar field last quarter without the mu and mu. But that is not, there is nothing new really with
mu. At J equal 0, this is our 2 point function. Okay? This is our 2 point function. Now, what does
this mean? I can take this definition, put it in here, and what does this mean? This means that 1
over XKC partial mu X mu box X, by the way, this all just means that Im taking derivative with
respect to X. Mu, mu, X minus Y, D mu X Delta X minus Y. Okay? Or 1 over KCP mu P square
Delta mu, mu P is P mu.
2 W [J]
= (x y)
J (x)J (y) J=0
48
6.1
Ward Identities
1
2x (x y) = x (x y)
x
or
1 2
p p (p) = p ***
So lets see, I can get rid of this already. That equation means, so okay, lets start out from another
point of view. Okay? What is the general form of mu new? Just general form. General form,
of mu and new, of Delta new mu. We know it has something to do with the momentum. The
momentum will enter, we know between mu and mu, the things that can give you mu and mu
are the momentum and G mu mu. Using that, you can just argue that the most general form of
whatever it is, is the following. Its just this. Okay? Thats it. Okay?
p p
p p
1
= 2
g 2
F (p2 ) + 2 G(p2 )
derive this from an effective lagrangian
p
p
p
Let me call it, give it a symbol. Applying this to that gives you, lets see P mu, P mu, cancels that,
so it gives you that P mu over KC. Sorry. Let me just .... (pause). Yes. Times GP square gives
P mu. Okay? Im just using that identity on this one. This means P square, although in general
is a function, you think it can be a function of P square based on Lorentz invariants, but its not.
It is just a constant. Okay? Exact ward identity implication this term is just a constant which is
KC, period. Nothing okay? All right. This means that for exactly, exact 2 point function, you
can always write this form. This is always KC. It is just the gauge fixing parameter. No matter
what you do. Okay? I mean independent of renormalization, and independent of anything. That
is why also we decompose it this way. This is exactly just the gauge fixing term basically, showing
up itself in propagators. Okay? We can also look at it a little bit carefully.
***
p
G(p2 ) = p
G(p2 ) =
So this, you see that I can derive this from this effective LaGrangian. I can derive this from
an effective action, actually. But effective LaGrangian. How do I derive this propagator from
LaGrangian? It is coming from the LaGrangian of this form. P square plus P mu, P mu, A mu, P,
F minus 1P square and A mu. Okay? Starting out with this LaGrangian, you ask yourself what is
the propagator of A? You get that. Okay? Here, so now this is momentum space. You may not feel
comfortable with momentum space because we write it in LaGrangian position space. So but this,
the first term, the first term in position space is just, so the first term is just the following. F mu,
49
6.2
It is not a very good word, but that is the technical term. We will see why its not a very good
word. SSB. Basically, the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking as opposed to explicit symmetry
breaking, so you have spontaneous symmetry and explicit symmetry breaking. Explicit means
there is no symmetry. But why do you call it a explicit symmetry breaking if there is no symmetry
50
~si ~sj
i6=j
Lets consider the grand state of this theory. Lets consider the grand state, lowest energy level.
Ground state, the ground state means that obviously, you want to minimize H. Okay? There can
be many very complicated configurations. But the one thats actually really minimize the local
ground state is everything is aligned. Everything is parallel. That is where the product is biggest
because there is a negative sign and this is a ground state. This is magnet. Here is a physicist
inside a magnet. A small physicist in the big magnet. What he will see is that all the spins are
aligned. This is the ground state. What he would conclude from that observation is that there is
no rotational symmetry. The quantum, the state does not have a rotational symmetry. Right? You
just pick out a direction. It could also pick up this direction. It could also pick up that direction.
That also has some deep meaning to it, by the way. But nevertheless, right now lets all agree
that it will pick out a direction. It will point towards some direction. That is the ground state.
Okay? That ground state, consider there is only a 2D rotational symmetry around that axis, SO2.
This is the symmetry that preserve the ground state. That is example that ground state does not
51
V () = 2 2 + 4
2
4
1
L = ()2 V ()
2
Z2 symmetry
52
Talked about the Nambu-Goldstone theorem, with the Goldstone m = 0 which can be seen by
symmetry or under the shift + v.
Then we started to do a more slightly general analysis U(1) to see this breaking
a a + a ()
a ()
b
2 V ()
V ()
a
+ () a b
=0
a ab =ab
ab =ab
0
0
{z
} |
{z
}
=0
=0
So from this I can already derive that an equation, so I expand this out and take the derivatives
and derive the equation. So this actually so lets just write it down. This means delta A phi D
phi, phi A is zero. Identical is zero, I just explain. Because alpha is arbitrary, and and I take
another derivative out of that. Okay? And set everything to its vacuum value. So the this will
be so Im just repeating the last part of our lecture last time. So lets take the derivative over
35 B, some other field strands, and D phi D phi A, but I wanted to set this into this (inaudible)
vacuum value, okay? And theres another term which you keep (maybe it was three phi B back
there). But taking the second derivative with phi AB equals phi AB zero, okay? And thats zero.
Okay? So there are there are in general two solutions, and well, first of all lets observe, this is
zero, because this is zero, because my condition that this is a vacuum, so this is this is my ground
state. Now, then, therefore this has to be zero, and there are two cases where this can be zero. A
is is delta A phi well, error at the vacuum zero, okay? And this means the symmetry this
means no SSB in phi A. Theres no spontaneous symmetry in that field, even you give it a value
it doesnt break anything, doesnt break symmetry. Or theres no vac, either way. Okay? B so
thats a possibility. So that but thats just original paste, whatever my ground state is, doesnt
break symmetry, okay?
a ( = 0 ) = 0 No SSB in a
53
a (
Now, for the case that ground state actually breaks some of the symmetry for those field values that
actually breaks the symmetry, you are end up with and let me write down this equation again.
Whatever and D square D phi A, D phi B. Okay? So then you ask, whats the importance
of this one? You realize that for the potential, in general you can write them down as V phi
zero, where everything is plus of you just Taylor expand, doing a Taylor expansion around its
ground state. So this is a constant, and the first (inaudible) terms all vanish, because again, my
condition. Then the secondary (inaudible) terms are like this. Okay? Theres small fluctuations.
Its exactly that. Okay? They are higher order terms, but this term is exactly the mass matrix,
okay? This now its a constant because I set all the fields into their vacuum value, so that this
is the mass matrix. Okay? Mass of the scaler field. Its a matrix in general, just again, I said
like last time, where were used to the fact that if we have a coupled system, harmonic oscillators,
okay, so the frequency is in the generic base is a matrix, okay? And they (inaudible)ize it, you
find eigen values, eigen (inaudible). So this is just like an eigenvalue equation and this tells me
that for everything for every value thats actually for every field of variation thats been broken
by giving fields (inaudible), there is this combination, which is which is a serial eigenvalue state,
which is a ghost (inaudible) mode. So this is the ghostal mode (I dont know what hes saying
there. (maybe not serial).
1
V () = V (0 ) + a b
2
2V
+
a b ab =ab
0
7.1
7.1
SO(2)7
SO(2)
So lets lets just try to see. So this may be a little bit more abstract. Lets try to see this in this
U1 example. Lets try to see how this works. Lets try to write things this way. Okay. So lets try
to do this for the U1 example. Lets erase this co-sat stuff. So let lets lets not talk about the
U1 but instead talking about SO 2, okay? Its just to for for a change. Okay? So we argue that
this is equivalent talk about the U1 rotating by a complex face or just SO 2 (inaudible) in those
two. So phi complex field or will be like this. I can equal it just just think about the two real
fields, okay? In SO2 rotation, two real fields are rotated by this, okay.
Lets start with = 1 + i2 .
0 =
cos sin
sin
cos
1
2
For small
0 = +
{z
()
1
2
Now we know theres a Goldstone and that that is actually telling me what the Goldstone mode
is. Okay? If I set so that delta phi zero is where the Goldstone mode is, if I set the phi to its
vacuum value. Okay? So lets see what this is.
vac: 10 = v, 20 = 0. So
(0 ) =
0
0
So first of all lets recall that the last time I said that the existence of phase transition does depend
on dimensions. Okay, does depend on dimensions. So last time I already said it. In the case of
discrete symmetry breaking, okay, there is also a degenerative vacuum but theres no Goldstone
mode, but even that case you can say that the D equals to 1, there is no excess speed, okay? In
one-dimensional, okay? Because one dimension thats just quantum mechanics. And we argue in
quantum mechanics the ground state is not a symmetry breaking state. In quantum mechanics
theres something like this, minus the ground state is plus this is the ground state period, in
55
Now, lets talk about continuous. So we are worried about the fluctuation like that, okay? From
point to point is you can have a large fluctuation. So lets again just take some simple example.
Lets I parameterize my field this way. I can parameterize my field this way. My worry is that
the value of my vacuum can fluctuate from place to place. My pi can be at different values, okay?
If thats the case, then theres in the (inaudible) phase transition theres no long-range order. I
can not talk about a single phase. Where I am pi is phi or where you are pi is 1, so I dont know
we are not in the same phase. What happens is really there is no meaningful way of talking about
phase transition. There is no other parameter in that case. Okay?
= vei/v
Consider a space volume with size R ( v on length scale R; v/R)
Z
S
dD x ()2 RD
v2
v 2 RD2
R2
So the infinite wisdom of calculating action is that the thats actually whats characterized the
contribution of a certain field configuration to the pass integral, its proportionate to the action.
Okay? So in particular is this. Okay? Thats your weight, okay? And by the way, this means
that, you know, when H (inaudible) R goes to zero, exactly you want to minimize the action, okay?
You want to minimize the action. Thats exactly where the classical limit is. I assume youre all
familiar with that story. But I can plug this in ( I guess limit). This means HR V square, R, D
56
e ~ e
v 2 D2
R
~
1
v
dD k
k2
D 2 1R divergence
57
J = 0
Z
Q=
d3 xJ 0 (x)
dQ
=0
dt
[Q, H] = 0
Consider the ground state |i and undergo a transformation | 0 i = eiQ |i. Since [Q, H] = 0 then
|i, | 0 i are degenerate in energy.
Okay, let me see. Remember, we always start with a conserved global symmetry. A conserved
global symmetry means there is a conserved current, meaning that equals zero modulo (inaudible)
terms. So for conserve current, I can define something, well call it a conserved charge. Okay. And,
you know, the fact that the current is conserved means that the DQ/DP is zero. Okay? Okay. Now,
another way of saying this is a conserved current is that this is zero, okay? Thats just another way
of saying this is a conserved charge, okay. Now I consider consider ground state sign, lets just
call it the sign. And now lets consider transformation of ground state. Okay? Which is E to the
IQ alpha (inaudible), okay? This is the generator of the symmetry, which is the charge, and thats
a small, and lets call this a side prime, but because QH is zero, so because QH is zero, zero, you
can show that the xi and the xi prime degenerate. In energy (zi or xi) so this is a statement you
have degeneracy of vacuum. And this is not a very good argument. Its very easy to go through,
but its not a very how should I say, its not thats the way you see it on textbook all the time,
I think, and its not very good in the sense that I have just argued, you know, this doesnt even
58
h0|(x)|0i =
6 0 SSB where we
d4 p
(ip )G (p)eip(xy)
(2)4
Z
d4 p
= h0||0i
(i)eiP (xy)
(2)4
e (p) = p g(p2 )
G
59
e (p) = p h0||0i
G
p2 | {z }
pole at p2 = 0
SSB:6=0
Moreover, I claim this proves the Goldstone theorem. Why? Anybody knows why? So whats the
meaning of I have a zero mass particle? It means that some greens function there is a physical
pull at the mass equals zero (maybe hes saying Lagrangian??)
So here is zero pull. Okay, this is a formal way of proof there is a massless particle, that you can
construct any green function you want. You identify the post, okay, or the physical post should
show up in the green function, in some greens functions. They dont have to show up in all greens
function, any all of they hope, bub at least if there is a mass if theres a physical particle with
mass, you should be able to come up with a greens function, where the Poe equal to the mass, okay?
And we came up with a green function and we find our Poe. Thats basically it, and it (inaudible)
depends on the fact that this is known zero (or nonzero). Is it okay? This is very formal. It doesnt
depend on the fact that the have to go around the Mexican hat potential and so on and so forth.
Okay? I dont know whether you found this is very comforting, but I think that the shift symmetry
argument is pretty good already in the beginning, but this is just in case you wonder whether its
a theorem or not, this is a theorem.
60
7.1
SO(2)7
i
d4 p
= if h0|(0)|pi i
eip(xy)
4
2
x
(2) p + i
Z
d4 p p
=
f h0|(0)|pieip(xy)
(2)4 p2
So it takes a little bit of insight, but it doesnt take very long insight to show its similar
similar to things that we go through and we derive the Cline Gordon propagator basically in the
first quarter to show that this is the following. Of course, I mean, these things all factor out, so
Id write it out first, and the next step is a little bit you have to convince yourself a little bit, but
its its the same that we did with with our D 4 P (writing on board). Its nothing but just
that. Okay? Again, this is a very this is identical steps. We went through identical steps when
we derived (inaudible) and operator. You can go back to the easier because there are actually two
Poes you complete. Depends on which one is bigger, you each completed counter above or counter
below, exactly get these two terms. Okay?
And if you look at the work weve shown before, you can get that
f
h0|(0)|pi
| {z }
= h0||0i
=1 (normalization)
f = h0||0i
So, in fact, this is usually normalized to 1. You can check with our normalization. This matrix
element is 1. So in this case F is just a okay? So this is the same. Let me just let me just
say that in word so you know Im not going through this scene just to have fun. So there is
a matrix element, okay, of the symmetry current, pitching vacuum and the warm particle state,
okay? Thats what this is (or one particle). Roughly speaking this is the probability amplitude
of getting a one particle state on a vacuum from the symmetry current itself. Okay? Statement
No. 1. And that matrix element modulo this general piece, that matrix element has a strength,
okay, which is (inaudible), okay? And the F this is completely general but this F is exactly the
same as the strength of spontaneous symmetry breaking, okay? Remember, this again, this is
62
63
Okay. So far, we have been talking about spontaneous [inaudible] just with the scalar field. Its
see so called spontaneous symmetry breaking of global symmetry. Although I think Ive told you
also that gauge symmetry is not a symmetry. That is the only symmetry. Okay. That is always a
spontaneous, although you frequently heard a word of spontaneous symmetry, spontaneous breaking
of gauge symmetry, but that is a misnomer. So that is gauge symmetry is, I think I told you that
gauge symmetry is not really a symmetry. But we are going to use that word anyways, consistent, so
commonly used. Today we are going to talk about what happened if we gauge the global symmetry.
Remember still our canonical example is a complex scalar field.
V () = 2 + ( )2
and when 2 < 0 you will have this Mexican hat potential. And there is a radial mode. Just to
remind you, we decided the distance away from the center, called v for vacuum expectation variable
of this field
|| 1
hi = v =
2
m2h = 2v 2
This is what we have done so far with this scalar field. Now I want to put a photon into this system.
Okay? For the gauge field into this system, and so I will introduce a gauge field. A mu. Again, you
want gauge field. You want vector field lets say, U1 gauge field. There is a gauge transformation.
Im going to gauge transformation associated with this view 1.
1
A A (x)
g
And I will also say has a charge +1, like an electric charge. So transforms ei(x) . The
Gauge transformation is just that, A and with charge +1.
Kinetic Terms
1 2
( )
2
Kinetic terms looks like in original theory, okay? Now this is not quite invariant under that. Okay?
Lets call this gauge transformation. Okay. But as we already learn in QED the trick is write some
64
(x)
v
I already have two degrees of freedom to parameterize. There is an angular variable that takes you
around the circle and there is this radial mode, which we call h. Now we have to work it out a
65
ei v
D =
2
i
h + i + ( )h + ig(v + h)A
v
|D |2 =
z
}|
{
z
}|
{
1
1
1 2
2
2
2 2
(h) + ()
+
g (v + h) A
2
2
2
1 1
1
+ 2 ()2 h2 + ()2 h
4v
2v
1 g
+ g()(v + h)A + ()h(v + h)A
2v
|
{z
}
goes away by gauge transformation
g2
2
m2
A A2
2
+g 2 vhA2 +
g2 2 2
A h
2
mass term
things. Okay? All these coefficient are fixed. All these things are fixed. Basically, by the form of
this, like this. All of these are completely fixed. Okay? So, you know, in other words, in order to see
whether, so, okay, let me first say a few oh, in order to see whether, just in order to test whether
this scheme that we have drawn up so far, to give gauge a mass is correct or not, it is not enough
to just see that. Okay? It is far from enough to just see that, just see a Higgs boson as I would say,
Ill comment later on. But it is very, you know, very important to also measure these couplings
because these couplings are precisely related to each other and related to the mass. That is why
its important even if, even as you discover some boson, it may not be the Higgs boson, you wanted
to measure these couplings. So you want to measure the coupling with a Higgs, with two As, and
you want to measure the coupling with the Higgs, two Higgs with two As. Okay? This is U1, but
you must have read a newspaper for SU2 version of this, for some reason that is more important.
And this is more or less measured already. This is almost impossible to measure. But that is the
prediction, even measuring this is already a big confirmation of how this works. You must know
what these things are called. This is called Higgs mechanism. I will clarify the terminology further
later. This is Higgs mechanism. But, this week there is a big meeting in morian, everybody know
where it is? I dont. It is somewhere in Europe. It is a ski resort. Doing physics is great. You go
66
Coulomb
Phases
2 > 0, no SSB
mA =0
2 polarizations: =1
charged
2 massive scalars
2 < 00
mA 6=0
3 polarizations: =1,0
= would-be Goldstone
h= radial mode
Table 1: Phases
to ski resorts. And having meetings, and that is usually some place where big experimental result
gets announced. I was just told that the official name now for that meeting at least, of everybody
else is going to call it Higgs boson but for that meeting it is going to be called BEH boson (Brout,
Englert, Higgs).
And now we proceed to the dropping of the names.
So anyway, but those days, people, when you write a paper, you have to, it was even before my
time, so it was when you write a paper, you call up your friend say Im going to send you a preprint.
Months later the preprint arrived and so on, so forth. These days, if you have anything in your
head, you put it on Facebook first.
Everything is uniquely normalized of course. But Im just going to do the classic. Actually Im
not going to normalize it. That is going to take another three weeks to do, introducing goldstone
which we havent even talked about. Im just going to do the classical, mostly classical part of the
story. Okay? This is called the Higgs mechanism. Maybe you have been slightly wondering what
exactly is going on. This is nice. But when Peter Higgs likes to give a talk, Ive seen one of his
talks, his talks, is my life as a boson. Have you seen that? You should go to see the talk. It is
interesting. He said when he first wrote that paper, he went to Princeton and Harvard and MIT to
give talks. Everybody assured him he is completely wrong, because the existence of goldstone after
symmetry breaking has been proved by some, I dont know, called C style algebra or whatever,
some axiomatic quantum field theory. So lets understand a little bit better, just in that vein. Of
course, axiomatic quantum field theory doesnt understand in this. That is almost totally useless
endeavor. Okay. Lets try to understand why exactly we get a mass. Or why do we get a mass?
This is a completely correct but you may want to, may want me to say it in a more deeper sounding
way to get convinced. Here is a slightly deeper way of saying it.
I have goldstone and I have radial mode. But this guy obviously becomes our H in the end. But this
67
68
69
U (1) :
4 d.o.f.
1 : Q1 , 2 : Q2
h1 i = v1
h2 i = v2
so
|D 1 |2 +|D 2 |2 + V (1 , 2 )D 1 |{z}
= ( + igQ1 A )1
| {z }
A=1,0
mA
You know one of them is gone. One of them which is whatever a Goldstone is going to be going
to the, is going to the mass, the massive A vector field. That massive vector field has to have one
Goldstone, has to eat one Goldstone to become massive because otherwise it doesnt have three
polarizations, so its just wrong. But then the rest of the three, still remaining, you still have three.
The other three scalars. This theory has three extra scalars. Without going through the whole
exercise, the exercise itself is pretty simple, multiply things out and look at the mass and so on and
the couple. Now, what if I also do another exercise, suppose 2U1. 1U2. I have two U1 symmetry.
I have two gauge bosons. A1 and A2. Suppose I have that now, suppose I have a charge, a particle
that is charged under both. I can have that too, right? I can have a particle charge under 2U1
symmetries, and with Q1 and Q2. Suppose I have that. So this sometimes can be summarized in
the diagram like this. It is called U11, U12 and 5 I guess. Now, depends on what field are you in,
this diagram have different names. This diagram has different names. In some fields its called this.
This is actually called a minimum moose, longer lattice, quiver, but anyway, so Im just preparing
you for something. These are the sides and this is called the link.
U (1)1 ) U (1)2
| {z } | {z }
A1
: Q1 , Q2
A2
and you can imagine that is the link between the two sites U (1)1 , U (2)2 .
D = ( + iQ1 g1 A1 + iQ2 g2 A2 )
70
71
component. Okay?
=
L
R
= R
, L
= m(L R + R
L )
So that, okay? That is that, okay? That is just that. Fermion mass is mass. This okay? Im
multiplying them out. Okay? Lorentz invariance, this basically is fixed by Lorentz invariants.
Lorentz invariants basically is saying that left-handed and right-handed for massive Fermions are
not good quantum numbers, because they mix. That is basically what Lorentz invariants is telling
us for massive Fermions. On the other hand, there could be situations that those two charged under
different gauge symmetry. That would carry different charges under gauge symmetry. Okay?
Under U (1) Under U1, under U1, there can be two situations, okay? One is that Q left is the same
as Q right. The left hand Fermion and right-handed Fermion has the same charge under this U1.
So, ah, I should actually say something slightly different. Now, lets look at the kinetic terms. Lets
look at the kinetic terms. The kinetic terms looks like this, looks like this.
( + iQR A )R
( + iQL A )L + R
L
This is 2 by 2 poly matrices basically Pauli. It doesnt matter for our argument but these are
kinetic term. This is gauge invariant, kinetic terms. Gauge invariants does not tell me anything
about QL versus QR, okay, of the kinetic terms. There is no limit. I can just set this whatever I
want. There are two situations. Case one is QL equals QR. This is called a vector like, Fermions. It
doesnt mean the Fermion becomes a vector. It just means that the left hand and right hand have
the same charge. This means that it is invariant. That just means that this term is invariant, if QL
is the same as QR, and the charge of this, rotation of this is opposite of the rotation of that.
invariant
i) QL = QR vector-like m
not invariant
m
ii) QL 6= QR chiral
This is gauge invariant. Then there is another situation with QL not the same as QR. Okay? In
this case, this is called the kierl, the Fermion is called the curial. In that case, it is not invariant.
That cannot exist. A term like that cannot exi For kierl Fermion does not have mass basically,
that is the statement. Just because you can assign left-handed and right hand Fermions, different
charges. Lets consider an extreme case.
72
y(L R ) + y R
L )
hi = v
yv (L R ) + h.c.
|{z}
m
= m L R + h.c.
QL is 1, QR is 0. That is one of those cases. There is nothing, you cannot write a mass term
basically. Okay? Look at this mass term, only QL carries charge. U1 rotation is certainly not
gaiblg gauge invariant. So now you wonder is there any way to give those Fermion masses,
because after all we live in a world with Fermion masses, where Fermion has masses. Maybe you
say, okay, maybe the Fermion world is all vector like, but it is not. Unfortunately its not. We
will talk about it too. Suppose I give you a pair of Fermions, how do you give them mass? The
trick is again there is a spontaneous symmetry break. It is going through spontaneous symmetry
break.
Consider , Q = 1, hi = v.
= (v + h) yhL R + h.c. =
9.1
m
hL R
v
Standard Model
So, are you all, you have all seen standard model at some point? Particles and interactions? Not
see it but know about it. Standard model, so the story we just said about U1 is important for
understanding the most intriguing part of, not the most intriguing but at least the most, one of
the most interesting part of the standard model. Standard model are controlled by gauge similar
trees symmetries.
gauge symmetry
SU (3)C
SU (2)L U (1)Y
SU (2)L
doublet
u
d L
73
9
scalar: H =
h
H0
SSB
h
v + h + ia
Y =
1
2
SU (2)L U (1)Y
which gives 3 massive particles W , Z and a massless photon. We have 3-Goldstones
yu H QL uR + yD H c QL dR
|{z}
(udLL )
actually which way is the left-handed. Lets call this left-handed. Lets call this right-handed. Okay.
They carry different charge, if you want, under SU2 gauge interaction in the most extreme way.
One of them couples to them, one of them dont. Okay? But this too also interchange each other
under parity. Okay? So means that if you imagine you put a mirror here, this goes to that. Okay?
So if you put a mirror here, this just goes to that. Okay? Gauge interaction SU2L violate parity, so
this is parity violation. Is there anything wrong, violating parity? Nothing. It can be violated. It
is violated in nature. Nothing, nothing goes horribly wrong. For a long time we thought it would
be, parity is obviously a symmetry but its not. But again very similar to what I said here, very
similar to what I said here. You see the statement I just made is not completely consistent with
Lorentz invariants, of massive Fermions at least, because we know from experiment these things
gets, all have mass. By the way this is called opt because usually we write it on top, I dont know,
top down, the term strange is a little bit, I dont know why, maybe strange that they dont think
it should be there, and charm is just try to make a good name. I dont know. But this is not
consistent with Lorentz invariants because for massive Fermions, so there is a very intuitive way of
understanding why mass makes two polarizations, because for massive particle there is a rest frame.
Once you get into the rest room you lost a direction, there is no direction. In the rest room you can
pick any access of your polarization vector, and obviously left-handed can become right-handed.
Right-handed can become left-handed. Its your choice. In the massless case it makes sense because
there is no rest room. You are always moving in that direction. You always use that direction as
your reference, polarization. For massless Fermions there is a direction. We also know that this
symmetry is broken. The good thing is, so at this point in order to accommodate massive Fermions
you need to do one of those two things. Either break the symmetry or break Lorentz symmetry.
Lorentz symmetry we are not breaking. We are not breaking this one. But we know this is broken.
74
75
unitary gauge
Ill write a mass term like that. Okay? You say wait, that is all wrong, right? It is not gauge
symmetry. We all know we need gauge symmetry, blah blah blah, but actually we dont. First of
all we dont. Lets say we do, but the usual story tells you that now gauge symmetry forbid this
term. That is why I need to introduce, that is why I need to do this whole Higgs boson mechanism
that write a cowritten derivative, give you a mass, that part of the story is wrong. The reason is
that, the reason this is wrong is that this is a secret to the gauge symmetric.
in general gauge Okay? Its not gauge symmetric when you fix to a unitary gauge which is not
such a big surprise. But suppose lets work in the slightly more general gauge. In general, in a
general gauge I can write this as this following form. You see this is completely gauge invariant.
Remember in gauge transformation A mu goes to A mu D mu, alpha we already said there is no
need to realize Pi, Pi shift as of this. Under this gauge transformation this is completely invariant,
complete gauge invariant.
m2
2
1
F F + A A +
4
2
v
76
A A + ,
On the other hand we know these two are completely [inaudible] to each other, there is nothing
different. Using gauge transformation I can gauge only Pi it become this, become unitary gauge.
Therefore, this is actually gauge invariant. There is nothing wrong with that. Gauge invariance
does not prevent you to write down a mass term. It is completely fine. The only thing you have to
remember is now there are three degree of freedom. But that is the real physical statement, between
massive and massless gauge boaston is not whether its gauge symmetry or not. Its whether there
is three degree of freedom or not. That what Im trying to get at. This is a real physical statement
is that. Goldstone is everything. The eaten Goldstone captures the essence of the physics really.
This also tells you that the LaGrangian sometimes can be very deceiving. Although we are getting
really used to doing everything with LaGrangian, but LaGrangian sometimes can tell you, teach
you a very wrong lessons, because it can hide things. You can hide things with LaGrangian.
You can do horribly wrong things with LaGrangian. If something looks horribly wrong, it can be
completely fine. Okay? So for that, lets just digress. Let me give you an example of something
that looks horribly wrong but is completely fine. Lets actually take this example. Lets take
this one. If I square it out, it goes like, Im going to be using shorthand, but I think its pretty
understandable what these things are. Its A square plus 2 Pi, 2D Pi, A plus, Im actually setting,
by the way, I think Im not being careful with gauge couplings, Im setting gauge coupling to one
in this case.
1 2 1 2 2
F mA A + 2A + ()2
| {z }
4
2
2
But general lesson is still there. This part of the story is a little bit schematic. That, okay. So this
is also known as a negative Pi box Pi after integrated by part. Now the next thing you observe
is that this is a quadratic in Pi. This is a quadratic in Pi. Nothing goes beyond that. When
something is a quadratic in a field, we dont even need to do preservation theory. We can just do
exactly its a gaussian, if its quadratic its gaussian. I can integrate this out basically. I can
perform D Pi exactly. Integrate out. In fact, I dont need to do that. I can use the equation motion
77
m2A
1
2 + a(2)2 2 2
2
p (p m02 )
Because, well, lets go do it. We know that this is completely fine. This is just a kinetic term for
the Goldstone. Goldstone needs to have kinetic terms. Anything that can legitimately be called
a Cal man field needs a kinetic term is fine but this is not fine with these two. With these two
now you can solve it. If I use this to write down my propagator, this is going to be a P square in
the propagator there is going to be a P to the force in the propagator. Therefore, the propagator
will have the form of P square, P square minus P prime square, something like that. That is my
propagator. There is a pole in P square equals 0, that is fine. Thats Goldstone. But there is
another pole. Okay. Once you have P to the fourth there is another pole. There is another pole
on the order of MA square over A. This is certainly unphysical. There is something wrong with
this theory, a theory just like that. Because you are introducing a spurious poles, this will be,
okay?
pole
m2A
unphysical
a
a must be small
To make this theory healthy, A must be, be small so this pole is above your cutoff. You can put this
in. But there is a limit, how big this A is. This kind of story tells you that Pi teach us a lot. Keep
the Pis around, they really teach you a lot about what is allowed to have. Not gauge symmetry
itself. But you have the Pis around, tells you how healthy a theory is. Okay? So lets do SU2
version of it, of Pi, SU2 version. Lets do SU2 version. Imagine everything here SU2, lets imagine
all these things are SU2s. Lets define a few things. A will be sigma AA. This is SU2 generators.
Pauli matrices. The appropriate quantity now, we want to have is, another is the, instead of E to
the I Pi, we will have E to the I sigma A Pi A over V, which I will call E to the I Pi over V, but
79
U = ei
a a
v
= ei v
= aa
()2 2
2
2
L = v trace |U | + trace () +
+
v2
2
80
10
10
Okay. So far, we have been talking about spontaneous [inaudible] just with the scalar field. Its
see so called spontaneous symmetry breaking of global symmetry. Although I think Ive told you
also that gauge symmetry is not a symmetry. That is the only symmetry. Okay. That is always a
spontaneous, although you frequently heard a word of spontaneous symmetry, spontaneous breaking
of gauge symmetry, but that is a misnomer. So that is gauge symmetry is, I think I told you that
gauge symmetry is not really a symmetry. But we are going to use that word anyways, consistent, so
commonly used. Today we are going to talk about what happened if we gauge the global symmetry.
Remember still our canonical example is a complex scalar field.
V () = 2 + ( )2
and when 2 < 0 you will have this Mexican hat potential. And there is a radial mode. Just to
remind you, we decided the distance away from the center, called v for vacuum expectation variable
of this field
|| 1
hi = v =
2
m2h = 2v 2
This is what we have done so far with this scalar field. Now I want to put a photon into this system.
Okay? For the gauge field into this system, and so I will introduce a gauge field. A mu. Again, you
want gauge field. You want vector field lets say, U1 gauge field. There is a gauge transformation.
Im going to gauge transformation associated with this view 1.
1
A A (x)
g
And I will also say has a charge +1, like an electric charge. So transforms ei(x) . The
Gauge transformation is just that, A and with charge +1.
Kinetic Terms
1 2
( )
2
Kinetic terms looks like in original theory, okay? Now this is not quite invariant under that. Okay?
Lets call this gauge transformation. Okay. But as we already learn in QED the trick is write some
81
(x)
v
I already have two degrees of freedom to parameterize. There is an angular variable that takes you
around the circle and there is this radial mode, which we call h. Now we have to work it out a
82
10
ei v
D =
2
i
h + i + ( )h + ig(v + h)A
v
|D |2 =
z
}|
{
z
}|
{
1
1
1 2
2
2
2 2
(h) + ()
+
g (v + h) A
2
2
2
1 1
1
+ 2 ()2 h2 + ()2 h
4v
2v
1 g
+ g()(v + h)A + ()h(v + h)A
2v
|
{z
}
goes away by gauge transformation
g2
2
m2
A A2
2
+g 2 vhA2 +
g2 2 2
A h
2
mass term
things. Okay? All these coefficient are fixed. All these things are fixed. Basically, by the form of
this, like this. All of these are completely fixed. Okay? So, you know, in other words, in order to see
whether, so, okay, let me first say a few oh, in order to see whether, just in order to test whether
this scheme that we have drawn up so far, to give gauge a mass is correct or not, it is not enough
to just see that. Okay? It is far from enough to just see that, just see a Higgs boson as I would say,
Ill comment later on. But it is very, you know, very important to also measure these couplings
because these couplings are precisely related to each other and related to the mass. That is why
its important even if, even as you discover some boson, it may not be the Higgs boson, you wanted
to measure these couplings. So you want to measure the coupling with a Higgs, with two As, and
you want to measure the coupling with the Higgs, two Higgs with two As. Okay? This is U1, but
you must have read a newspaper for SU2 version of this, for some reason that is more important.
And this is more or less measured already. This is almost impossible to measure. But that is the
prediction, even measuring this is already a big confirmation of how this works. You must know
what these things are called. This is called Higgs mechanism. I will clarify the terminology further
later. This is Higgs mechanism. But, this week there is a big meeting in morian, everybody know
where it is? I dont. It is somewhere in Europe. It is a ski resort. Doing physics is great. You go
83
10
Coulomb
Phases
2 > 0, no SSB
mA =0
2 polarizations: =1
charged
2 massive scalars
2 < 00
mA 6=0
3 polarizations: =1,0
= would-be Goldstone
h= radial mode
Table 2: Phases
to ski resorts. And having meetings, and that is usually some place where big experimental result
gets announced. I was just told that the official name now for that meeting at least, of everybody
else is going to call it Higgs boson but for that meeting it is going to be called BEH boson (Brout,
Englert, Higgs).
And now we proceed to the dropping of the names.
So anyway, but those days, people, when you write a paper, you have to, it was even before my
time, so it was when you write a paper, you call up your friend say Im going to send you a preprint.
Months later the preprint arrived and so on, so forth. These days, if you have anything in your
head, you put it on Facebook first.
Everything is uniquely normalized of course. But Im just going to do the classic. Actually Im
not going to normalize it. That is going to take another three weeks to do, introducing goldstone
which we havent even talked about. Im just going to do the classical, mostly classical part of the
story. Okay? This is called the Higgs mechanism. Maybe you have been slightly wondering what
exactly is going on. This is nice. But when Peter Higgs likes to give a talk, Ive seen one of his
talks, his talks, is my life as a boson. Have you seen that? You should go to see the talk. It is
interesting. He said when he first wrote that paper, he went to Princeton and Harvard and MIT to
give talks. Everybody assured him he is completely wrong, because the existence of goldstone after
symmetry breaking has been proved by some, I dont know, called C style algebra or whatever,
some axiomatic quantum field theory. So lets understand a little bit better, just in that vein. Of
course, axiomatic quantum field theory doesnt understand in this. That is almost totally useless
endeavor. Okay. Lets try to understand why exactly we get a mass. Or why do we get a mass?
This is a completely correct but you may want to, may want me to say it in a more deeper sounding
way to get convinced. Here is a slightly deeper way of saying it.
I have goldstone and I have radial mode. But this guy obviously becomes our H in the end. But this
84
85
11
11
86
U (1) :
4 d.o.f.
1 : Q1 , 2 : Q2
h1 i = v1
h2 i = v2
so
|D 1 |2 +|D 2 |2 + V (1 , 2 )D 1 |{z}
= ( + igQ1 A )1
| {z }
A=1,0
mA
You know one of them is gone. One of them which is whatever a Goldstone is going to be going
to the, is going to the mass, the massive A vector field. That massive vector field has to have one
Goldstone, has to eat one Goldstone to become massive because otherwise it doesnt have three
polarizations, so its just wrong. But then the rest of the three, still remaining, you still have three.
The other three scalars. This theory has three extra scalars. Without going through the whole
exercise, the exercise itself is pretty simple, multiply things out and look at the mass and so on and
the couple. Now, what if I also do another exercise, suppose 2U1. 1U2. I have two U1 symmetry.
I have two gauge bosons. A1 and A2. Suppose I have that now, suppose I have a charge, a particle
that is charged under both. I can have that too, right? I can have a particle charge under 2U1
symmetries, and with Q1 and Q2. Suppose I have that. So this sometimes can be summarized in
the diagram like this. It is called U11, U12 and 5 I guess. Now, depends on what field are you in,
this diagram have different names. This diagram has different names. In some fields its called this.
This is actually called a minimum moose, longer lattice, quiver, but anyway, so Im just preparing
you for something. These are the sides and this is called the link.
U (1)1 ) U (1)2
| {z } | {z }
A1
: Q1 , Q2
A2
and you can imagine that is the link between the two sites U (1)1 , U (2)2 .
D = ( + iQ1 g1 A1 + iQ2 g2 A2 )
87
11
88
11
component. Okay?
=
L
R
= R
, L
= m(L R + R
L )
So that, okay? That is that, okay? That is just that. Fermion mass is mass. This okay? Im
multiplying them out. Okay? Lorentz invariance, this basically is fixed by Lorentz invariants.
Lorentz invariants basically is saying that left-handed and right-handed for massive Fermions are
not good quantum numbers, because they mix. That is basically what Lorentz invariants is telling
us for massive Fermions. On the other hand, there could be situations that those two charged under
different gauge symmetry. That would carry different charges under gauge symmetry. Okay?
Under U (1) Under U1, under U1, there can be two situations, okay? One is that Q left is the same
as Q right. The left hand Fermion and right-handed Fermion has the same charge under this U1.
So, ah, I should actually say something slightly different. Now, lets look at the kinetic terms. Lets
look at the kinetic terms. The kinetic terms looks like this, looks like this.
( + iQR A )R
( + iQL A )L + R
L
This is 2 by 2 poly matrices basically Pauli. It doesnt matter for our argument but these are
kinetic term. This is gauge invariant, kinetic terms. Gauge invariants does not tell me anything
about QL versus QR, okay, of the kinetic terms. There is no limit. I can just set this whatever I
want. There are two situations. Case one is QL equals QR. This is called a vector like, Fermions. It
doesnt mean the Fermion becomes a vector. It just means that the left hand and right hand have
the same charge. This means that it is invariant. That just means that this term is invariant, if QL
is the same as QR, and the charge of this, rotation of this is opposite of the rotation of that.
invariant
i) QL = QR vector-like m
not invariant
m
ii) QL 6= QR chiral
This is gauge invariant. Then there is another situation with QL not the same as QR. Okay? In
this case, this is called the kierl, the Fermion is called the curial. In that case, it is not invariant.
That cannot exist. A term like that cannot exi For kierl Fermion does not have mass basically,
that is the statement. Just because you can assign left-handed and right hand Fermions, different
charges. Lets consider an extreme case.
89
11
y(L R ) + y R
L )
hi = v
yv (L R ) + h.c.
|{z}
m
= m L R + h.c.
QL is 1, QR is 0. That is one of those cases. There is nothing, you cannot write a mass term
basically. Okay? Look at this mass term, only QL carries charge. U1 rotation is certainly not
gaiblg gauge invariant. So now you wonder is there any way to give those Fermion masses,
because after all we live in a world with Fermion masses, where Fermion has masses. Maybe you
say, okay, maybe the Fermion world is all vector like, but it is not. Unfortunately its not. We
will talk about it too. Suppose I give you a pair of Fermions, how do you give them mass? The
trick is again there is a spontaneous symmetry break. It is going through spontaneous symmetry
break.
Consider , Q = 1, hi = v.
= (v + h) yhL R + h.c. =
11.1
m
hL R
v
Standard Model
So, are you all, you have all seen standard model at some point? Particles and interactions? Not
see it but know about it. Standard model, so the story we just said about U1 is important for
understanding the most intriguing part of, not the most intriguing but at least the most, one of
the most interesting part of the standard model. Standard model are controlled by gauge similar
trees symmetries.
gauge symmetry
SU (3)C
SU (2)L U (1)Y
SU (2)L
doublet
u
d L
90
11
scalar: H =
h
H0
SSB
h
v + h + ia
Y =
1
2
SU (2)L U (1)Y
which gives 3 massive particles W , Z and a massless photon. We have 3-Goldstones
yu H QL uR + yD H c QL dR
|{z}
(udLL )
actually which way is the left-handed. Lets call this left-handed. Lets call this right-handed. Okay.
They carry different charge, if you want, under SU2 gauge interaction in the most extreme way.
One of them couples to them, one of them dont. Okay? But this too also interchange each other
under parity. Okay? So means that if you imagine you put a mirror here, this goes to that. Okay?
So if you put a mirror here, this just goes to that. Okay? Gauge interaction SU2L violate parity, so
this is parity violation. Is there anything wrong, violating parity? Nothing. It can be violated. It
is violated in nature. Nothing, nothing goes horribly wrong. For a long time we thought it would
be, parity is obviously a symmetry but its not. But again very similar to what I said here, very
similar to what I said here. You see the statement I just made is not completely consistent with
Lorentz invariants, of massive Fermions at least, because we know from experiment these things
gets, all have mass. By the way this is called opt because usually we write it on top, I dont know,
top down, the term strange is a little bit, I dont know why, maybe strange that they dont think
it should be there, and charm is just try to make a good name. I dont know. But this is not
consistent with Lorentz invariants because for massive Fermions, so there is a very intuitive way of
understanding why mass makes two polarizations, because for massive particle there is a rest frame.
Once you get into the rest room you lost a direction, there is no direction. In the rest room you can
pick any access of your polarization vector, and obviously left-handed can become right-handed.
Right-handed can become left-handed. Its your choice. In the massless case it makes sense because
there is no rest room. You are always moving in that direction. You always use that direction as
your reference, polarization. For massless Fermions there is a direction. We also know that this
symmetry is broken. The good thing is, so at this point in order to accommodate massive Fermions
you need to do one of those two things. Either break the symmetry or break Lorentz symmetry.
Lorentz symmetry we are not breaking. We are not breaking this one. But we know this is broken.
91
92
unitary gauge
Ill write a mass term like that. Okay? You say wait, that is all wrong, right? It is not gauge
symmetry. We all know we need gauge symmetry, blah blah blah, but actually we dont. First of
all we dont. Lets say we do, but the usual story tells you that now gauge symmetry forbid this
term. That is why I need to introduce, that is why I need to do this whole Higgs boson mechanism
that write a cowritten derivative, give you a mass, that part of the story is wrong. The reason is
that, the reason this is wrong is that this is a secret to the gauge symmetric.
in general gauge Okay? Its not gauge symmetric when you fix to a unitary gauge which is not
such a big surprise. But suppose lets work in the slightly more general gauge. In general, in a
general gauge I can write this as this following form. You see this is completely gauge invariant.
Remember in gauge transformation A mu goes to A mu D mu, alpha we already said there is no
need to realize Pi, Pi shift as of this. Under this gauge transformation this is completely invariant,
complete gauge invariant.
m2
2
1
F F + A A +
4
2
v
93
11
A A + ,
On the other hand we know these two are completely [inaudible] to each other, there is nothing
different. Using gauge transformation I can gauge only Pi it become this, become unitary gauge.
Therefore, this is actually gauge invariant. There is nothing wrong with that. Gauge invariance
does not prevent you to write down a mass term. It is completely fine. The only thing you have to
remember is now there are three degree of freedom. But that is the real physical statement, between
massive and massless gauge boaston is not whether its gauge symmetry or not. Its whether there
is three degree of freedom or not. That what Im trying to get at. This is a real physical statement
is that. Goldstone is everything. The eaten Goldstone captures the essence of the physics really.
This also tells you that the LaGrangian sometimes can be very deceiving. Although we are getting
really used to doing everything with LaGrangian, but LaGrangian sometimes can tell you, teach
you a very wrong lessons, because it can hide things. You can hide things with LaGrangian.
You can do horribly wrong things with LaGrangian. If something looks horribly wrong, it can be
completely fine. Okay? So for that, lets just digress. Let me give you an example of something
that looks horribly wrong but is completely fine. Lets actually take this example. Lets take
this one. If I square it out, it goes like, Im going to be using shorthand, but I think its pretty
understandable what these things are. Its A square plus 2 Pi, 2D Pi, A plus, Im actually setting,
by the way, I think Im not being careful with gauge couplings, Im setting gauge coupling to one
in this case.
1 2 1 2 2
F mA A + 2A + ()2
| {z }
4
2
2
But general lesson is still there. This part of the story is a little bit schematic. That, okay. So this
is also known as a negative Pi box Pi after integrated by part. Now the next thing you observe
is that this is a quadratic in Pi. This is a quadratic in Pi. Nothing goes beyond that. When
something is a quadratic in a field, we dont even need to do preservation theory. We can just do
exactly its a gaussian, if its quadratic its gaussian. I can integrate this out basically. I can
perform D Pi exactly. Integrate out. In fact, I dont need to do that. I can use the equation motion
94
m2A
1
2 + a(2)2 2 2
2
p (p m02 )
Because, well, lets go do it. We know that this is completely fine. This is just a kinetic term for
the Goldstone. Goldstone needs to have kinetic terms. Anything that can legitimately be called
a Cal man field needs a kinetic term is fine but this is not fine with these two. With these two
now you can solve it. If I use this to write down my propagator, this is going to be a P square in
the propagator there is going to be a P to the force in the propagator. Therefore, the propagator
will have the form of P square, P square minus P prime square, something like that. That is my
propagator. There is a pole in P square equals 0, that is fine. Thats Goldstone. But there is
another pole. Okay. Once you have P to the fourth there is another pole. There is another pole
on the order of MA square over A. This is certainly unphysical. There is something wrong with
this theory, a theory just like that. Because you are introducing a spurious poles, this will be,
okay?
pole
m2A
unphysical
a
a must be small
To make this theory healthy, A must be, be small so this pole is above your cutoff. You can put this
in. But there is a limit, how big this A is. This kind of story tells you that Pi teach us a lot. Keep
the Pis around, they really teach you a lot about what is allowed to have. Not gauge symmetry
itself. But you have the Pis around, tells you how healthy a theory is. Okay? So lets do SU2
version of it, of Pi, SU2 version. Lets do SU2 version. Imagine everything here SU2, lets imagine
all these things are SU2s. Lets define a few things. A will be sigma AA. This is SU2 generators.
Pauli matrices. The appropriate quantity now, we want to have is, another is the, instead of E to
the I Pi, we will have E to the I sigma A Pi A over V, which I will call E to the I Pi over V, but
96
U = ei
a a
v
= ei v
11
= aa
()2 2
2
2
L = v trace |U | + trace () +
+
v2
2
97