PHYSICS REPORTS (Section C of Physics Leters)9,no.1 (1973) | 141. NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY GAUGE THEORIES* Emest S. ABERS and Benjamin W. LEE Institute for Theoretical Phystes, State University of New York, Stony Brook, W-Y. 11790, USA Contents: Introduction PART I, Gauge models of weak and electromagnetic 4. Gauge invariance in classic! fed theories 2. Spontancously broken symmeties 23. The Higgs mechaniem 4, Review of weak interetion phenomenology 5. Weak interaction phenomenolony (continued) 6. Unitarity bounds, Wimesons, PCAC. 17. The Weinberg Salam nods! 48 Phenomenology of the modet. Incorporation of Inadront 9, Models wivh neat leptons 10. More on model bultdng PART IL. Quantization and renormalization of gauge theories 11. Path integral quantization 12. Path incepel formulation of field theory ‘Single onders for this tase ‘ust be accompanied by cheek, Single sue price Df. 86.~. postage included. Perma * Supported in patt by NSF Grant No, GP32998X Received § April 1973 13. The Yang-Mils eld inthe Coulomb gauge 14 Intuitive approach tothe quamizstion of gay fields 15, Equivalence ofthe Landaw anCoulom gauges 16. Generating functionals for Greens functions and proper vertices 17, Renormalization in the o-modsl 18. BPHZ renormalization 19, The repulriation scheme of Hooft and Velunan 20, Feyoman rules and renormalzction of spontane- ‘ously broken gauge theories: Landau gavge 21. The Ry gauges 22, Proof thatthe renormalized $nati i indepen ent of § 23, Anomalous magnetic moment ofthe muon in the GeorgiGlashow model PHYSICS REPORTS (Section C of PHYSICS LETERS)9, No, 1 (1973) 1-141 Copies of his issue may be obtcined atthe price given below. AB orders should be sent directly tothe Publisher, Orders nt addres: Departient of Phy sis, University of California, Lox Angeles, Calif. 90024, USA, no us 2 re 132ES, Abers end B.W. Lee, Gauge theorles Introduction ‘The four-point Fermi theory of the weak interactions in the V-A form, together with the conserved vector current hypothesis, has long been known to be an incomplete theory. Even though it describes well y and beta decay, it is not a renormalizable theory, and higher-order ¢f- fects cannot be calculated. Physicists have long felt that mediating the interaction by vector ‘boson exchanges would solve the problem, but until a few years ago have been unsuccessful at doing 50. Perhaps the most significant development 7 theory in the last few years, both from a purely theoretical viewpoint and for its possible impact on future experiments, has been the construction of renormalizable models of weak interactions bused on the notion of spontaneously broken gauge symmetry. The basic strategy of this construction appeared in 1967 ) and 1968 in papers by Weinberg and by Salam. In these papers, the weak and electromagnetic interactions are unified in a Yang-Mills gauge theory with the intermediate vector bosons W* ang the photons as gauge bosons. The idea itself was not new. What was new in the Weinbera- Salam strategy was to attribute the observed dissimilarities between weak and electromagnetic interactions to a spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry. This mechanism has been studied by Higgs, Brout, Englert, Kibble, Guralnik, Hagen, and others since 1964. It takes place in a gauge theory in which the stable vacuum is not invariant under gauge transformations. In the absence of gauge bosons, non-invariance of the vacuum un- yJer a continuous symmetry implies the existence of massless scalar bosons, according to the Goldstone thcorem. In a gauge theory, these would-be Goldstone bosons combine with the ‘would-be massless gatige bosons (with two transverse polarizations) to produce a set of massive vector bosons (with three polarizations). In fact, the number of vector mesons which acquire mass exactly equals the number of Goldstone scalar mesons which disappear. ‘There are two attractive features of the model of Weinberg and Salam. The first is their ele- of t the electromagnetic and weak interactions. The second is the suggestion, stressed by the these - authors, that a theory of this kind might be renormalizable because the equa- n are identical to those of an unbroken gauge theory. Not much was known about the renormalizability of these theories, and so the development of the Weinberg-Salam theory lay dormant for some years. Two developments were responsible for the resurgence of interest in these models in 1971. The first was the quantization and renormalization of the Yang-Mills theory. After the pioneering works of Feynman, deWitt, Mandelstam, and Fadeev and Popoy, vigorous studies on the renormal- izability and the connection between massive and massless gauge theories were carried out by Boulware, Fadeev, Fradkin, Slavnov, J.C. Taylor, Tuytin, Van Dam and Veltman, among others. ‘The second is the detailed study of the o -model, which is the simplest field theory which exhibits spontaneous breakdown of symmetry. We learned from this study that the divergences of the theory wete not affected by the spontaneous breakdown of symmetry so that the same renormali- zation counterterms remove the divergences from the theory whether or not the symmetry is spos taneously broken. In 1971, G. ’t Hooft presented a very important paper on manifestly renormalizable formula- tions of massive Yang-Mills theories wherein the masses of the gauge bosons arise from spontane- ‘ous breakdown of the gauge symmetry. His formulation takes explicit advantage of the gauge free- dom afforded in such a theory. weak interaccific prediction for the pi in trying to detect them. One of the most difficult problems has been to include hadrons naturally into the scheme. There have been many proposals, some of them very complicated, Surely this is an important sub- Ject for further research. the muon anomalous magnetic moment and to weak decay rates, and, in some models, of electromagnetic mass differ- cnees. The possibility of doing such calculations has rendered the old “eatores methods obsolete. models with spontaneously broken gauge symmetries, and some of their phenomenologi Plications. Part If describes the path-integral formulation of quantum frogs theory, and its appl cation to the question of the renormalizability of these theories, Part | begins by reviewing the theoretical tools needed to construct the models. Section 1 de- srribes local gauge invariance and its application to non-Abelian gauge groups. Section 2 explains the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism and the ori ‘one obtains automatically massive vector gatige mesons, Uuy-breaking mass term in the Lagrangian. ‘The next three sections are a brief review of the phenomenolopy of weak interactions and Father onal theoretical ideas about them. They are far from a complete review ot the subject; Thage 4 elt Purpose was to make the series of lectures sel-vontained. The eobwece aera i clude few basic phenomena, the V-A theory, intermediate vector bosone ee itbe theory, and a few special topics which will be useful in later lectures, Section 7 describes the original model of Weinberg and Salam in some detail. Section & dis. Of neuteal ene etimental implications of this model, the inclusion of hadrons, and the quecon Of euteal currents, Section 9 discusses a class of models with heavy leptons sd describes in Hon 10, othe model of Georgi and Gleshow. Several other models are briefly dessivet ia eo. tion 10, Part IT is more mathematical. Its subject isthe development of techniques for calculating Digher order corrections to seattering amplitudes in spontaneously broke, gauge theories, and, ultimately, to show why they are renormalizable. The subject is formulates indie language of pathvintegral quantization. Since this language is not very familar to many physicists, we begin by reviewing it in detail, . Section 11 develops the integratover-paths expression for the time-translation operator, fol Towing Feynman, In section 12, the method is extended to quantum field ther” nnd general Fon sOF the Green's functions is obtained, Using this principle, in section 13 me ober ‘he rules for calculating the Green's functions for the YangMills theory in the Coulee gauge. | | 1 | { t | | |ES. Abers and BLM. Lee, Gauge theories s The Coulomb gauge is the easiest to quantize in from first principles; what is really needed is the rule for calculating Green's fumetions and the S-matrix in any gauge. In section 14, the elegant, though somewhat intuitive, prescription for doing this, due principally to Fadeev and Popov, is described. Section 15 contains a formal proof that the Landau and Coulomb gauges give the same renormalized S-matrix. In section 16, the generating functionals for the proper vertices are obtained and the idea of a superpotential is introduced. The o-model is discussed in section 17, as an example of the use! ness of this approach in renormalizing theories with spontaneously broken symmetries. In section 18, we outline the renormalization scheme of Bogoliuboy, Parasiuk, Hepp, and Zimmerman, whose topological analysis forms the basis for renormalizing gauge theories. The renormalization scheme of "t Hooft and Veltman is described in section 19, and the general application of all these methods to the renormalization of spontaneously broken gauge theories is discussed in section 20. Renormalization is done there in the Landau gauge, and the Feynman rules are derived. A more sneral class of gauges, called the Ry gauges, are derived in section 21, and in section 22 it is proved that the S-matrix is the same in all these gauges, and that the Goldstone bosons really do disappear in all gauges. As an illustration, the muon anomalous magnetic moment is computed in the last section, and shown explicitly to be gauge independent. In the second half of Part IT we fail to give a comprehensive review of all the work done by others (among them, notably, "t Hooft and Veltman; Ross and J.C. Taylor) towards proving the renormalizability and physical acceptability of spontaneously broken gauge theories. For the moment we are not equipped to do so. We apologize to our colleagues and the reader for present- y only our views and strategy. It would be presumptuous to assert that the renormalizability ‘as been proved completely by us here or elsewhere. There are still some loose ends in our argue ments for that. We do hope, however, to have marshalled sufficiently strong arguments for it, so that serious students of spontaneously broken gauge theories can accept their renormalizability as something more than just a working hypothesis. ‘These sections are not a final report on a closed subject. Rather, they are a reasonably self-con- tained course of study about a beautiful idea. Indeed the mathematical elegance and aesthetic apeal of this scheme for constructing models of weak interactions is what convinces many physi- cists that it may contain a germ of truth. The fact that some of the phenomenological implica: sions of the various models may be tested in the near future is very exciting. We have benifited greatly for our education in this field, from discussions and correspondence with many of our colleagues, among them: C. Albright, T. Appelquist, W.A. Bardeen, J.D. Bjorken, S. Coleman, C.G. Callan, H.H. Chen, R.R. Dashen, LD. Fadeev, D.Z. Freedman, P. Freund, D, Fujikawa, H. Georgi, S. Glashow, D.J. Gross, R. Jackiw, W. Lee, Y. Nambu, A. Pais, E. Paschos, J. Primack, H. Quinn, A.L. Sanda, G. *t Hooft, S.B. Treiman, M. Veltman, S. Weinberg, M, Weinstein, L. Wolfenstein, C.N. Yang, J. Zinn-Justin, and B. Zumino. We would like to record ‘our gratitude to them. One of us (ESA) would like to thank Professor C.N. Yang for the hospitality of the Institute of Theoretical Physics. We would like to thank Mrs. Dorothy DeHart and Mrs. Hannah Schlowsky for typing the difficult manuscript. ate ipemomge eae ay Yeas‘ ES, Abers end B.V. Lee, Gauge theories PARTI GAUGE MODELS OF WEAK AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS 1. Gauge invariance in classical field theories sm a every space-time point, then we ate naturally le to the concept of gauge fields. CN. Yang, In field theories one takes as the basic object the Lagrangian density 2 which is a function of all the fields (x) in the theory, and their gradients 0,4,(x). The Lagrangian L itself is the space integral of £, and the integral over all space and time is called the action S: Sm f LEMar= fatx 2448), 2,8,00). aa The equations of motion follow from Hamilton’s principle, e 8 f Linar=0 aa for any ¢, and f2, where the variations of the fields must vanish at ¢, and ¢2. Hamilton's principle implies that the fields satisfy Euler’s equations se se 8b, ax 6(a9,/ax#) as ‘The idea of gauge transformations stems from the old observation that to every continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian there corresponds a conservation law. For example, suppose 2 has no explicit time dependence: the form of is independent of the time x®. Under an infinitesi- mal time translation, each of the fields @, is changed by 86 (x2, x) = Glx® + €,x) — G(x) = €86/fx and 5(249,) = €9, [2p,/0x°] Ge Similarly, 5.2 = €0.2/ax°: aL be 62 Se ss, 5+ 595 2] - & Using the equation of motion in the first term, one gets ae _ se), 82, (My) “axe “6 Zp (ie) ae Reape) GSES. Abers nd BW, Lee. Gauge theories or ae 52 22 ye f axe 50,4) xe a which can be rewritten aa 52 52%, kal le | 5 - Ls = [ 5(09,/ax°) axe. 1 6(VG;) ax Ce) The bracket on the left-hand side is the Hamiltonian density 9x). Since the fields are required to vanish sufficiently rapidly for large Ix, () aHiar=0 (9) where H = fd?x9(x) is the Hamiltonian. Continuing along these lines it is easy to see that in a Lorentz invariant theory, the energy, ) momentum and angular momentum can be defined and are conserved. In order for the equations of motion to be covariant, must be a Lorentz scalar density. This is one of the reasons that it is useful to work with £ instead of Hf in a relativistic field theory. Here we will be interested in conservation laws that are not consequences of classical space-time symmetries, For every conserved quantum number one can construct a transformation on the 1) elds which leaves .2 invariant. The simplest example is electric charge. Suppose each field @, has ‘charge q, (in units of e). Then define a group of transformations on the fields by $x) > exp(—ig,8)6,(x). 10) ‘The group is the group of unitary transformations in one dimension, U(1). It is not hard to see that 2 must be invariant under these transformations. Every term in 2 isa product of fields > G,q Under the transformation above, 100) 10) > OP LH # 42 Fg )B) CDF 460. © > Charge conservation requires that £ be neutral; therefore the sum q, + q2+ ..q,, must vanish. Some terms in 2 contain gradients of the fields as well as the fields themselves. But since @ is independent of x, 2,0; > exp(—ig,9)2,¢, 28 well, so these terms are also invariant. A transforma- ) _ tion lke (1.10) is called a gauge transformation, or more properly, «gauge transformation of the first kind. The invariance of 2 under the gauge group is called gauge invariance of the first kind, ‘of sometines global gauge invariance (because 0 is independent of x). The infinitesimal form of (1-10) is ) 86, = ~icgd, aay where in (1.11) € is an infinitesimal parameter. Global gauge invariance ca 62=0. (12) be succintly stated: If 2 depends only on ¢, and on d,4,, then eq. (1.12) gives th ey) oe tpermeyy enkaES. Abersant B.W. Lee, Gauge theories 62 52 0-50-82 a5 + Fog «las 54,” 50,0) ox, L5G,8) ‘Thus for the operation (1.11) which leaves the Lagrangian invariant there is a conserved current J" aos gylan with = SL. 5,0 ‘The gauge group has an infinitesimal generator Q. The q, ate just the eigenvalues of Q, and exp ig,6) is one dimensional representation of U(1) generated by Q. In quantized theory the ‘operator @ 2= fase is the charge operator, and 84, = ~iel, 1 A theory may contain more than one conserved quantity, and be invariant under a more com: Plicated group of transformations than U(1). The simplest non-Abelian exampk is isospin. Ine | theory with isospin symmetry, the fields will come in multiplets which form a basis for represen- {ations of the isospin group SU(2). Then we can define a gauge transformation by > exp(-i L -0)g 13) ie 416, [here # isa colurnn vector and L is the appropriate matrix representation of SU(2). For a doublet, for example, L =} (r are the Pauli matrices). For a triplet 4 ( { j j : siett* Since the generators, 7, of the group satisfy 17, T)) = iet*T,, the representation matrices satisfy the same rule : (L, L/) = ie/kL*, The Lagrangian 2 will be in- 1 Variant under any of the transformations of the group. | Under an infinitesimal transformation, : i i | 69 = -iL-e6 (4) where we may think of ¢ as three independent infinitesimal parameters. Thus if is a two component isospinor, Bred, 69 and if @, are the components of an isovector,atv he 13) blet, 4) ES. Abersend BW. Lee, Gauge theories 89, = eel, Isospin invariance requires 5.2 = 0 for all ef. The idea is easily generalized to any internal symmetry Lie group G. Let 7; be the group gensra= tors, and cy, the structure constant (1) Ty) * ieyaTy. (1.15) ‘The fields 4, will transform according to some (generally reducible) representation of G. The T; are represented by the matrices L.A finite gauge transformation is > exp(-iL- ag (1.16) the corresponding infinitesimal one is 86 L-e6 «7 where the number of independent parameters 6) is the dimension of the group. The Lagrangian 2s invariant under the group: 6.2 = 0. It is well known that electrodynamics possesses a formal symmetry larger than gauge transfor mations of the first kind. The gauge transformation can depend on the space-time point which is the argument of the field: 46x) > 93x) = exp{—ig 900) 14,00. (1.18) This is called a gauge transformation of the second kind, or local gauge transformation. The in- finitesimal form of (1.18) is 59,08) = ~ig,0(0)6,(x). 1.19) Here @(x) is an arbitrary infinitesimal function of x. Terms in the Lagrangian which depend only on the fields are obviously invariant under (1.18). Terms with field gradients, such as the kinetic energy term, need more care. The reason is that, from (1.18) 2,9 > exp{—ig,002)) 2,,6)(%)— ig,l2, 000] exp{—ig, 49) 4x). (1.20) The second term is the difference between the way 2,9, and @, transform; but the Lagrangian will be invariant only if it is a product of terms all of which transform like (1.10). with the sum of the 4g, vanishing. Electrodynamics is made invariant by introducing the photon field according to the following rule, usually called minimal coupling: A gradient of a charged field, 3,¢,. is allowed to appear in 2 only in conjunction with the photon field, A,,, in the combination (3,,--ieq,A,,)#,. A, is the field of a spin-one meson — the photon — which is our first example of a gauge boson. We require it to transform under local gauge transformations in a special way, so that the combination (2, ~ieq,A,) 6) transforms like ¢,(x) in (1.10). That is, (8, —$eq A 430; () = exp {ig BO}, = i¢g,A,,)6,00). aay Then £2 will be invariant under local gauge transformations as well. Putting in what we know ea tae shee10 ES, Abersond BM. hee, Gauge theories for 2,4,'(s), we get expt igg (0) 38, 6,(8) — i Ld, 6811 exp (ig 8 (8) } 6) —ie yCODERP (iy BO) 18,09 = exp{—ig0Ge)} 8, 4,02) — ied A ls dexp {ig 000) } 6,00). (1.22 The solution to (1.22) is Agi) = 52,069 + AC) (1.23 or BA, (x) = == 9,008). a2 In addition to terms coupling the photon field to the charged particle fields, there could be quaciratic kinetic encrgy and mass terms coupling A, only to itself. The solution is well-known Define the field-strength tensor F,,,: Fy %Ap— Ay” a2 ‘Then 8F,,, = 0 under (1.23), and therefore the photon kinetic energy term, will be gauge invaria if it is constructed out of Fy,: Less G20 ‘The coefficient —} is dictated by the requirement that the Euler-Lagrange equations result in Maxwell's equations with the conventional normalization of the electric charge e. ‘A photon mass term would have the form —fm?4,,4", which obviously violates local gauge ie variance. The conclusion is that local gauge invariance is impossible unless the photon is massles It is supererogatory to observe that the photon was not discovered by requiring local gauge ir variance. Rather, gauge transformations were discovered as a useful property of Maxwell's equa- tions. However, in quantum electrodynamics, gauge invariance ullows one to derive the Ward— Takahashi identities which in turn allow one to prove many theorems, including, most importar as we shall see, the theory's renormalizability. The gencralization of local gauge invarianee to non-Abelian groups was first studied by Yang and Mills, for the ease of isotopic spin, SUC). It is elementary to generalize their idea to any in ternal symmetry group. Let the group have nerators T, as before: (TT) = ici Te az A collection of fields transforms according to lx) + g(x) = exp [iL 0} 66x) = 106) a2 where @(x) is a column vector and L/ is a matrix representation of the generators of the group. ‘The Lagrangian 2s assumed to be invariant under transformation with constant 0/. The prob is to construct a theory which is invariant under local gauge transformations 6/(x) as well, by ir troducing vector fields A/(x) in analogy with clectrodynamies, Under a local gauge transformation g(x) + UlDI9(W) a.ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gouge theories a and therefore 3,900) + U(O)2, 668) + (2, U@)}6(. 1.30) 21 ‘The idea is to introduce a covariant derivative D,g(x) which transforms like dix): D,o6x) + UO)D, 90). (.3iy Then, if 3,6(c) appears in 2 only asa part of D, ¢(x), £ will be invariant under local gauge transformations. The covariant derivative D,.9(x) is constructed by introducing a vector field Ai(x) For each di- mension of the Lie algebra, and defining ) Byte) = @, ~igh-A,6) 600). 1.32) he coupling constant g, analogous to e, is arbitrary. How do the Aj, transform in order to ensure (1.31)? That is, 4// must be defined so that the » * quantity Di! = 3,6" — igAdLig’ Y = 0,UO))#«) + U0)8,9 ~ igh, “LUC, (133) £ sequal to ) (002, -igd, De. ~ (134) The solution is “igh, LUG)#= ~igUOA, -L6-@, UO, 035) on, since (1.35) must hold for all Ay b= UO)A, LU O)—=0, UU") x = UOVLA, LLU 0)3,0O NUE). (1.36) We leave it as an exercise to show that the transformations form a group: in particular, if i LA, = UGA, -g 0), UCO)] U0) and L-Ay = UG')[A, “EL = U-1090, UO") U8), then Le y= UO" A, -L F U-16")0, U6") U0") aT2 ES. Abersand BW. Lee, Gauge theories where U0") = U(B")U(O). This transformation rule appears to depend on the representation, but in fact depends only on the commutators (Z', 1/] whose form is representation-independent. This fact becomes apparent from the infinitesimal transformation: DbAl, = — dua + iLYALOIL) — joie Le == 12,0 + OAL UI = — 22,00 — Babe, lk 37) Since the L/ are lincarly independent, bi = 0 + cysGlAh. (1.38) The transformation properties of Af, do not depend on the representation L/. Next we must construct the analog of the kinetic energy term, i. the term 2, which contains only the fields Aj, and their derivatives. Because these fields do not all carry zero quantum num- bers under all the 7; (unlike the photon, which is electrically neutral), 2, cannot have the simple form it has in electrodynamics. In fact, from (1.38), itis easy to see that BlO,Ay ~ BALI = CyB ~ A)+ cy (GgONAE — 0,0) AE] 0.39) £e will be invariant if itis constructed out of a tensors Fi, according to 2, = -}F, Feet . 40) Provided the Fj, transform covariantly like a set of fields in the regular (adjoint) representation. of G. Therefore we must add something to 0,4 — 2,j, to cancel the unwanted terms in (1,39). Now from (1.38) ‘ ~-PIOOAE — 048) + ecm OAZAS* CrnlrimBABAL. AD cy SLALAST The first terms (times g) can just cancel the unwanted piece of (1.39). The last two terms can be rewritten, using the antisymmetry of the structure constants, as [ima ait ~ Creme ALAS (1.42) Let 7" stand also for the regular representation matrices. Then (T"),, = =i yx» and the bracket in (1.42) is imi ny ~ Come ing = (7% Tyg = i ax T ing = Cura + ‘Therefore,) ES. Abers end BW. Lee. Gauge theories 3 CyB Ayg) = EE 10, 9NAE ~ @BDAE + 648! y am So define Fi, #=2,Ab — 2,A4 #8 CyeAy Aue (1.43) then Fw = Cyn Fite a.4a) and 2, = —}F1,F*"! is invariant. Under finite gauge transformations, U(@) = exp(—iL 0"), F! transforms as F,,“L-> UG), LU"(6) so that Tr(F,, * L)? ~ F,y °F is invariant. ‘Agair, a maseterm of the form } m? A, A# would violate the local gauge invariance. We conclude by summarizing the construction of local gauge theories with non-Abelian sym- rnetries, Start with @ Lagrangian — (6, 8,¢,) invariant under a Lie group G with generators T, and structure constants ¢,,,. The fields transform according to some representation exp(—iL- 8) of the group, with constant 0". Add to the theory a set of vector fields A‘,, one for each T!. The full Lagrangian is LF By + Lulby, 0, ~i8A, “L)4)). . (4s) The firs: term is Ye, <-1F,, (1.46) where . FL, =3,A4— d,AL +8 cy, AlA aan The transformation rule for the gauge bosons is 1 LA, = UO)L-A, U0) — 2, ONY). 1.48) where here 6 is a function of x. One final note. If G is a direct product of two or more subgroups, the coupling constants ¢ associated with each subgroup need not be the some, ibtiography ‘The standard teferences on non-Abelian gnuge theory ate: LCN. Yang and R. Mils, Phys. Rev. 96 (1958) 191, 2. Utiyma, Phys. Rev. 101 (1986) 1597. 5.M. GelhMann and S. Glashow, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 15 (1961) 437. ‘The Werd-Takahashi identities were fist discussed ine 4.3. War, Phys. Rev, 78 (1950) 1824, 5.¥, Takahashi, Nuovo Cimento 6 (1957) 370. We shall discuss the use of these identities in gauge theories extensively’ in Part I. In the generalized sense, these Kentites are "= precisemathematical statements about the effects of gauge invariance (or other symmeties) of the Lagrangian on Green's fune=“ ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theories 2, Spontaneously broken symmetries Ieny view i correct, the universe may have & kind of se you may hve one preferred dzeetion ofthe axis; in another part, ‘he dicotion of the avis may be different. YY, Nambt Nature seems to possess usefull syntmetries which, unlike electric charge conservation, are not exact symmetries of the $-matrix. Familiar examples are isospin, strangeness and SU(3). A tradi- tional way of thinking about them is to imagine that the Lagrangian possesses a part which is exactly symmetric and another, in some sense “small”, term which violates the symmetries. This idea is behind our conventional picture of a “hierarchy” of interactions ~ strong, electromag netics and weak ~ in which the stronger interactions possess more symmetry than the weaker ones. Another type of symmetry is PCAC, which even in the exact symmetry limit is not a syn metry of the physical spectrum, that is, particles do not occur in equal-mass multiplets which can be assigned to a representation of the group (in this case SU(2) x SU(2)). Nevertheless the Ward-Takahashi identities and current-algebra predictions of SU(2) x SU(2) symmetry are phy: cally useful By now it is well-known that the second kind of symmetry can be obtained from an exactly syminetric Lagrangian, provided that the physical vacuum is not invariant under the symmetry group. Such a symmetry is populisly called a “spontaneously broken symmetry”. The mechanics of how this works is the subject of this section. Then we will go on to see what wonderful things, happen when the symmetry of the Lagrangian is made into a local gayge symmetry of the kind described in the first lecture. It isinstructive to begin by understanding how a field theory is like a collection of anharmonic oscillators, A simple Lagrangian density with only a single scalar field is L= 7 (062 9) — 3u7@? — Io" Qn For simplicity, let there be only one space dimension. Then the Lagrangian is I f 20, nar = fal) a) are el] . (22) We may think of @(x, £) as being a canonical coordinate at cach x. Divide space into unit cells of length € labeled by the coordinate x,: x,—x,_, = €. Then we may replace the integral defining L by adiscrete sum. The discrete coordinates are g,() = (x), 0, and L becomes oy 1 1 t= DUG) saa se ao] enES. Abers ond BW. Lee, Gauge theories Is The second term represents a coupling between coordinates at adjacent points, and the last term makes the potential anharmonic. The canonical momentum is y= ig,/dt and if we define Pete tat vee the Hamiltonian is - 1 H=D [bors a? + Me] - (2.4) Field oscillations are bounded only if \ > 0, which we therefore require. In the usual case 4 > 0 also. To do any kind of perturbation calculation, we must find the minimum of the po- tential, Plate an" ra and start with the unperturbed harmonic oscillator solutions as the zeroth approximation (these are the “free field” solutions of field theory). Whatever V is, we must have q, = q,_, at the mini 0 of the potential;4.e., all the g, are equal. If u? > 0, the function V tooks like fig. 2.1 and the minimum occurs at q, = 0. On the other hand, if p3 < 0, the potential looks like fig. 2.2. Now 4=0is not a minimum. There are two symmetric minima at q = #{—n2/A] "2, In field theory, the ground state is the vacuum. What we have shown in an admittedly heuristic ‘manher is that if 4? < 0 the vacuum expectation value of the field is not zero; rather, itis inde- Pendent of x (q; = q;_,) and has the value *[—4?/A]'@ to zeroth order in perturbation theory. Let be the vacuunt expectation value of the field: (=U t[—w/A] 2. (2.5) her value of v may be chosen, but not both. We may by convention choose the plus sign, since Lis invariant under ¢ > ~¢. The only symmetry this simple Lagrangian possesses is reflection invariance: > ~. Clearly the new vacuum is not an eigenstate of this operation, since v # —v. In this way the symmetry is “spontaneously” broken. Define a new field ' by Fig. 2.1, The potential funetion for positive «2 ig. 2.2. The potential function for negative 42,ES. Abersend B.W. Lee, Gauge theories (61,=0 so we can do orlinary perturbation theory in ¢". In terms of @" (up to a constant) $(0¥9'0,6') + w2" — dug"? — 49" 2.6) The bare states have (positive) mass ~24?, but do not exhibit the symmetry of the Lagrangian in an obvious way. : A slightly more complicated model has two fields, which we may call o and 1: L=$fa,00%0 + a,rd"n| — (a? + 9) en where . Vm 3 ura? +9?) +40? +)? (2.8) 2 is obviously invariant under O(2)[=UC1)} 0") (cos) sind) fo (?) ee i) ()) 9) The minimum occurs when . aV/o0 = 0= oly? + Mo? + m*)] (2.10a) aV/an = O= wle? + No? +a). (2.10b) Clearly when 4? < 0, the absolute minimum occurs on the circle Vo7F a? = [~p7/A] . We can always define the axes in the o—m plane so that con, = [#1 "%, (, = 0. [Another approach is to add explicitly a small symmetry-breaking term co to V, as in the o-model of Gell-Mann and Lévy. Then the minimum occurs when ol? + No® +) =, [yu +o? + 7?)] =O, no solution to these equa- HAY"? The The term co picks out the particular direction in (9, 1) space. There tions except = 0, and o[4? + Ag?] ~c; in the limit c= 0, either o = 0 oro first solution is a minimum when 4? > 0. the second when 1? < 0.) As before, when 4? < 0, define 0 4a), ind rewrite 2 in terms of s and m instead of o and m: Le S Lasts + dard] + ts? — NCO), ss? + a2) — ENG +P, Qu)ES. Abersand B.W. Lee, Gage theories "7 Evidently, s is the field of a particle with positive mass ~ 24* while the w-field is massless. This is our first example of Goldstone’s theorem. If theory has a symmetry of the Lagrangian which is not a symmetry of the vacuum, there must be a massless boson, Here is a more general example. Let g be an n-component real field, with Lagrange density 22 30,906) — pu? dg! — DIET. (2.12) 2 is obviously invariant under the orthogonal group inn dimensions, O(n). If n? < 0, the poten- tial has a ring of minima at v= [~1°/AJ"” i.e. there is a minimum whenever 6/9! = ~n3/A. Let us choose the mth component of ¢ to be the one which develops a vacuum expectation value. That is to say, considering ¢ as an #-component column vector, 2 original symmetry group, O(n), has $n(n—1) generators. The new feature in this example is that there is still a non-trivial group which leaves the vacuum invariant. This is the subgroup of O(n) which does not mix up the nth component with the others; it is O(n—1), with }(n~1)("—-2) generators. Let £, be the $n(x—1) independent matrices generating O(n). Let /, be the subset which form the surviving symmetry O(n—1) (0, = L,; for i, /# n]. Then call the rest k; [ky = Ly). These are n=1 independent &,. Instead of simply subtracting the vacuum-expectation value of the field to define new fields as before, we can parametize the n field in a way which will be more useful later, Define and &, 1 0), and the 1 & fields are massless. Thus to each generator of the original group which leaves the vacuum invariant, there corresponds a massless Goldstone boson. The fact that the number of massless bosons is the same as the number of broken generators seems to be an accident of our example, the -dimensional representation of O(a). But it isin fact general, Write any Lagrangian in terms of the n real scalar fields ¢,, which form an n-compo- nent vector ¢ (a complex representation can always be turned into a real one by doubling the number of basis vectors) . 3,0: 39 — Vi). (2.14) Of course, 2 may contain other fields (e.g. spinor fields) which couple to each other and to 6, but these terms are not relevant here. /(9) is a polynomial in @ which is invariant under some group G (and not uncer a larger group containing G). G has N generators Ty, and ¢ transforms according to an n-dimensional (in general reducible) representation L*: 56 = i0°L°9, Because the representation is real, iZ® must be a real matrix; so Z* is an imaginary matrix, and because it is Hermitean it is antisymmetric. Because V is invariant under G, its response to an in- finitesimal group transformation (specified by 6°) is ave Y esLe6, 2.15) a" Since 6% are arbitrary, we obtain N equations wv, 36,21" Q.16) for all. Differentiating again, we get ar ov pag +2" pe <0, 217 aoe, Ui ag, Q17 Now evaluate (2.17) at @ = v, the value of ¢ which minin OV /PH)g-6 = 0. The result isES. Abors and B.W. he, Gauge theories 97 1120,06 yay LY, =. 2.18) lonw Ly If Vis expanded about v, there are no linear terms, and the constant term is irrelevant ¥ =-4M3(6 — v),(6 — 0), + higher order terms, “Therefore 2° /8,29, evaluated at ¢ = v is just —M}, where 43, is the mass matrix, and so AP) LA = 0 (2.20) > foreacha. or Let be the M-dimensional subgroup of G which remains a symmetry of the vacuum. If L* isa generator of $, Lv = 0, and so (2.20) contains no information about 4/?. For each of the N~ Af vectors £9, which are not zero, (2.20) says that A? has a zero eigenvalue. If the vectors L°v in fact span an N — M dimensional space, we have demonstrated that there are N — Mf massless (Goldstone) bosons in the theory. This fact is almost obvious from our examples. To construct a formal proof, define A*? = (Lv, L*u). {(a, b) means Z, afb, even though we have a real vector space.] Since L* is Hermitean, A°* = (v, L°L%). Then ) At AM =(v, [L9, L8]v) = cag, (v, L70) = 0, 21) the last equality following again because L is antisymmetric. Therefore let A be the fg 0X GY a0 matrix obtained by restricting «and 8 fo those values for which L®v # 0. is symmetric, and can be diagonalized. Then let 0 be the (N — M) x (N ~ Mf) orthogonal matrix which diagonatizes A: 21°? = (QAO) = (7717, OF L5v). ‘ Now 0*L7 cannot annihilate v, since then it would be in S, which it manifestly isn’t. Thus O* LY # 0, and the diagonal'elements of 4’ are all positive, and the space spanned by the O°7L7, )__ crequivalently the L°, is. ~ M dimensional. The L? which do not annihilate v are independent, which completes the proof that M? has N — M non-zero eigenvalues. The matrix A°% will play a fundamental role in the next section. Bibliography “The exploitation of the WardTakahashi identtics to extract physleal consequences of spontaneously broken symaetry is ‘pied by he eof Sparano token hal SUC) x SUC nih sw een af cet ape amt cat S.L. Adler ond RLF. Dashen, Curent Algebras (W.A. Benjamin Ine, 1968), ) 2.5, Weinberg, Dynamics and Algebrate Symmetries, n: Lectures ia Elomentary Particles and Quantum Field Theory, Vol. 1. e@5. 5. Doser, M. Grisru and H. Pencleton (The MIT Press, 1970), 3. BIW. Lee, Chiral Byeamies (Gordon and Breach, 1972), For the discussions of the -moe, soe 4.1. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. (N-Y.)2 (1958) 407. S.J. Polkinghorne, Nuovo Cimerte 8 (1958) 179. 6-M. GelhAfann and M. Lévy, Nuoro Cimento 16 (1950) 705 and ef. (3] above. pores0 ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theores ‘The Goldstone theorem. and, in fact, the Goldstone mode of symmmetty in quantum field theory Cie. spontaneously broken symmetry) wae frst discussed in 7.3. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19 (1961) 15 and later elaborated by 8. Y. Nambu and G. JonwLasinio, Phys, Rev, 9.4. Goldsione, A. Salam and S, Weinberg, Phy 10.5, Bludman and A. Klein, Phys.Rev. 1 1961) 345; 124 (1961) 246. ev. 127 (1962) 965. (1982) 2363, ‘The importance of the Goldstone theorem in a physical context was fist expounded by 11 ¥. Namba, Phys. Rev. Letters 4 (1960) 380 3. The Higgs mechanism In this section we shall discuss Lagrangians with spontaneously broken symmetries which also possess the kind of local gauge invariance which we described in the first section. The combina- tion leads to an exception to Goldstone’s theorem which provides the basis for a class of renor- malizable models of the weak and electromagnetic interactions. * The simplest example is constructed from a single self-interacting charged field ¢ with Lagrangian £= (3,9%2,8) ~ 1769 — NEO). By ‘This Lagrangian is invariant under a U(1) group of transformations: o> ga eng, 62) Next we introduce a gauge field 4,, and construct a Lagrangian invariant under local gauge transformations. Following the prescription derived in the first section, we obtain 2= [@, + ie A, )6*(0* — ie A*)O] ~ w29*d — GO)? — LF, PY G3) where F,, = WA, — 2,4, Under local gauge transformations, 900) + 9) = exp (—10()} 600) OF) > GC) = exp{i0(x)} 9x) Ay 7 Ay FA, ~ 43,600) G4) and 2is invariant under the transformations (3.4). If u? > 0, (3.3) is just the Lagrangian for charged scalar electrodynamics. If u? < 0, we must shift the fields to write 2 in terms of those with vanishing vacuum expectation values. ‘The Lagrangian (3.3) possesses the same O(2) symmetry as the (0, #) model discussed in eq. Q.7), transforming according to (2.9). The correspondence is o//2 + Reg, mh/Z Im ¢. Just as 0 could always be chosen to develop a vacuum expectation value, we can assume, without loss of generality, that ), = v2 where v is real,HS, Abers aud BW. Lee, Gauge theories 2 Instead of shifting $ by subtracting (@), from it, we will parametrize 6 exponentially, as we did with the real n-vectorsin section 2: The new real fields are & and n, defined by 9 = expliEfuy(v + DIVZ 1 = pqle ++ iF + quadratic and higher order terms). (5) The field & is associated with the spontaneously broken U(1) symmetry. In the absence of the gauge field A,,, we could conclude that the £ field was massless, because when (3.3) is written in terms of & and 9 there sno term quadratic in . This argument no longer works. Let us write 8.3) in terms of A, and n = FFP £490 a, 1t a, EOE + fet? A, AH — JT evA, oH E+ un? + cubic and higher order terms G6) where we have the relation v = —y/A. The 7 field has mass ~2u?, but the fields 4, and £ have gotten mixed up in a way whose interpretation is not immediately apparent. Without the term -vZev A, d* & in (3.6), we could have concluded that the vector field has mass u? = ev? and that the § field is massless. A correct procedure would be to compute the combined propagator for the A, and é fields, find the Feynman rules, and examine the poles of the $-matrix, We'll do some of this in later lectures, but there is an easier way to discover the particle spectrum. Recall tha\__)2 Lagrangian (3.3) is invariant under local gauge transformations (3.4). Choose the gauge function to be &(x)/v. Then (3.7a) (3.76) Since 2 is invariant under these transformations, PFI, + ied + nL [G* — ied +n) — $20 +n)? Tw tnt FF" (3.8) where F',, = 3,4. ~ 2,4, Eq. (3.8) can be expanded as follows: £> UF, F'! + 49,non + Lev? ALA +36? Aon(2u + n) — }nXBdv + u) — dug? — LA nf. GB.9) In this gauge there are no terms coupling different particles, so that the (bare) spectrum can be simply read off the quadratic terms. There is a scalar n-meson, with mass 3220? +p (which in zeroth order is ~2u”), a massive vector meson A, with mass ev, and no particle corresponding to In fact, the E-field has disappeared altogether! It has been “gauged away”. ‘Where has it gone? From eq. (3.7b), we can see that it is responsible for the longitudinal com- Ponent of the vector field in the new gauge. It’s clear that there are the same number of actual Particle states as there were before we redefined the fields in eq. (3.5). Originally, thore were two SSeS ceme i eer smmseameeRen ES. Abersend BW, Lee, Gauge theories real scalar fields and a massless photon with two possible polarizations. For positive p2, this is th correct collection of particles. When y? < 0, we have just seen that the theory describes one scalar particle (1 helicity state) and one massive vector particle (3 helicity states) so the total nur ber of degrees of freedom — in the sense of particles with fixed polarizations ~ is the same in eac case. In the gauge (3.9) 2 looks like an ordinary field theory of particles, each decoupled from cack other in second order, and therefore is manifestly unitary order by order in perturbation theory. This gauge is frequently called the unitary gauge, or U-gauge. (The U-gauge is “manifestly unitary in the sense that the Fictitious particles, whose Green’s functions have singularities that apparent violate unitarity, are manifestly absent. We do not mean to imply that the unitarity of the S-matrix, or even the correct Feynman rules. are obvious in this gauge.) However since it contair a massive vector meson, whose propagator Yor lange & grows as k,k,/in?k? instead of By ~ kyk,/k*)[k? characteristic of massless vector fields, this model is not obviously renor- malizable in the U-gauge. In the original Lagrangian (3.3), the fields admit gauge transformations (3.4) and it is necessar to choose a condition, such as 044, = 0, which fixes the gauges. In Part II, we will show that the theory is renormatizable in such a gauge, which we shall call a renorntalizable gauge, or R-gauge In R-gauges, there are spurious poles in the vector and £ propagators, which must cancel in all ‘S-matrix elements since they are absent in the U-gauge. The R-gauge formulation is not manifest unitary. For a non-Abelian example, we let the symmetry group be SU(2), and put the scalar mesons i the triplet representation. The fields transform according to 59, The part of the Lagrangian containing ¢ is (2,0, * ge" ALO, ) (Md, + ge AM 9,.) — 1092) Gale iclLig = ee 4, where Vis an SU(2) invariant quartic polynomial in 6. When # = 0 is a minimum of V, (3.10) is an ordinary, isospin conserving gauge invariant, ‘ang-Mills type theory. Our interest is in the spontaneous symmetry-breaking case: If V has @ non-zero minimum, we can always perform an isospin rotation so that it is the taird component which acquires a vacuum-expectation value: w-(' tol ‘The vacuum is no longer invariant under 7, and >, but 73 remains a good symmetry: there is on conserved quantum number, 75 or electric charge. We parametrize $ as in the previous lecture: fo\ {® 0 [=r +! 8, + higher orders eu vn! ‘n oF eG L BLES, Abersand BW. hee, Gauge theories 2 The fields 4 and & are the would-be Goldstone bosons associated with the two broken degrees of freedom. Since the Lagrangian (3.10) is invariant under local SU(2) transformations, we may make the following gauge transformation EL! + BL)}6 (EL BLA exp td GL + BL) 2 1, expt LL! + BLN x expt (GL! + BL}. @.12) Again, since @ = [,8.] the fields E, and & completely disappears when the Lagrangian is wr yn in the new gauge: 9nd + serve ef Al AM — Vi(v+n)?] + higher order terms + terms independent of . (3.13) ‘The term in (3.13) quadratic in the vector fields is SAP [AZ A® + ALAM] G14) why? = g*v?. The vector mesons corresponding to the broken symmetry generators have ac- quired/a mass M = gv. Since the 7 symmetry survives, there remains one massless vector meson, AR. “The general features of a spontaneously-broken gauuge model should now be clear. We start out with a Lagrangian 2 invariant under local gauge transformations of some group G. There are scalar fields which transform under an n-dimensional representation. There are N gauge mesons, AG. The Lagrangian is given by f FaylO + F1@, — ig*L*Ag)G(" — ig®L?A**)5] ~ V(6) + terms with other fields. (3.15) Here, F&, is given by (1.44); the g® are independent of a within any simple subgroup of G; and ¥(@) is a fourth-order G-invariant polynomial in @ which is minimized by setting 9 = v. Now we suppose the symmetry-breaking leaves the vacuum invariant under an M-dimensional subgroup § of G. There are M generators L* satisfying L*v = 0. There remain (N — M)L* for which Ly # 0. We showed in section 2 that the Lv span an N — M dimensional space, and that in the absence of the gauge mesons there would be N — M massless scalar particles. We can parametrize ¢ by 9 = exp(Zig, L*/vv +). (3.16) ‘The sum is over those (NV — M)L® which do not annihilate v. The vector 7 represents as many in- dependent fields as there are dimensions in the part of the n-dimensional representation space orthogonal to all L¢v. (== N +) Next we make the gauge transformation defined by omenES. bers ond BW. Leo, Gangs theories oY expC iB L409. and ALT= oof jee) aw = exp (hur?) ta, exp! ne). G17) i Le) exp (j in the new gauge, £ depends only on the n, and the gauge fields 4/2, N — M of which are now massive, The term in responsible for the vector meson masses is Her Lev, PLvyAgare, (3.18) Since we may always restriet ourselves to real representations of G, sv tut £, being Hermitean, is antisymmetric, the vector meson mass matrix, (APF = geeh(v, LAL) (no sum over «, B) G.19) is symmetric and positive definite. with a. 6 restricted to values for which L¢y # 0. Except for the coupling constants 2°, (M?)** is just the matrix A® we defined in section 2 ‘Thus, the V ~ M Goldstone bosons are not physical massless particles, but are absorbed into the longitudinal components of the A’ ~ Af massive vector bosons: as can be seen from eq. (3.17), eazy a 2) AEA AL g0u8? + OCF). ‘The number of the independent degrees of freedom for a given momentwm remains the same. The masses of the physical vector mesons are the eigenvalues of (M2). The remaining M vector mesons remain massless, corresponding to the surviving M-dimensional symmetry subgroup S. Weinberg has discovered an elegant proof that the unitary gauge always exists, In that gauge, x) has no components in the subspace spanned by the Goldstone bosons, which we know is the space spanned by Lv. Therefore (L%, 6'(x)) = 0 (3.20) defines the unitary gauge. (This definition is just as good as the more familiar definition of a gauge by imposing a condition on the vector fields.) Therefore, if #(x) is the scalar field in any gauge, there is a unitary gauge provided there exists a local gauge transformation O(x) = exp {i OL") such that (1%, O(x)8()) = 0 3.21) for all « and all x. For any x, O may be any element of the representation of G defined at x. We have chosen only real representations, so O is orthogonal. Consider the scalar product (v, 06) (3.22) For fixed 9, the scalar product (3.22) isa real number which depends on O. As long as the Lie group (of which O in an n-imensional real representation) is compact, (3.22) maps the group into a compact portion of the real fine, and therefore has & maximum and a minimum, Let Oy beES. Abersand BLW, Lee, Gauge theories amatrix 0 which is an extremum of (3.22). For any O, if we vary O slightly 50 =O ~ exp{—ie(x)L9}0 = ~iee(x)L20, Since O, makes (3.22) take on an extreme value, 0= BW, O8)o204 =U 508)o.0, = -ie%(v, L°049) = ~ *(L*u, 0,9). (3.23) Since e* is arbitrary, , (Lv, 0,6) = 0 for all @, s0 6 = Og@ satisfies the unitary gauge condition. Therefore the unitary gauge always exists: it can be obtained by making a gauge transformation O from an arbitrary ¢ which ex- } \_temizes (v, 09) at each point x. IfG is simply connected. the real numbers (v, 06) form a com- pact segment of the real line, and therefore have two extrema, a maximum and a minimum. Gen- erally, i (@', v) is one extremum, (—g', v) is the other, and the physics of the two gauges are the same, In nature, M is apparently 1; the only conservation law associated with a massless vector meson is charge conservation. Nevertheless, it is instructive to consider the more general case. In the next sections we will consider the application of these ideas to models of wesk and elec- ‘tromagnetic interaction. bibliography “The Higgs mechanism was‘est discussed in the eontext of relativistic eld theory in 1 Higgs, Phys. Rev. Letters 12 (1968) 132. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Letters 13 (1964) 321 S.P.M. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Letiors 13 (1964) 508, 4G. Guralnik, CR. Hagen and T.W.B. Kibble, Phys, Rev. Letters 13 (1965) S85. 5. PN Higgs, Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1456. ‘The group theoretic ramifications ofthis phenomenon were first dscused in IW. Kibbls, Phys.Rev. 155 (1967) 1558. ‘The poof ofthe existence of the Urgage follows closely the presentation of ¥ 1S. Weinberg, General Theory of Broken Local Symmetries, Phy: Res. D? (1973) 1068. 4. Review of weak interaction phenomenology In later sections we will discuss a class of models for weak end electromagnetic interactions hich utilize the idea of spontaneously broken gauge symmetry. One constraint on these models 's that they reproduce the known phenomenology of weak interaction. We will review some im Portant features in this section. Our notation will be that of the textbook by Bjorken and Drell. The Dirac y-matrices areES. Abersand BW. Lee, Gauge theories cuff 0 0 -« cintyignr a (0 0 ee a) el) nemvere(d 8) They anticommute wecording to (y#, 7} = 2g", and y#,-75) = 0. The spin matrix is @ tis easy to see that of = $1 4/4, The Lagrangian for a free Dirac spinor with mass m i £= WONT — MYO) which leads to the equation of motion [see (1.3)] liy-a-mly Most of our information about weak interactions comes from spontaneous decay processes, in which the energies and momenta transferred are small compared to the high energies available to study strong and electromagnetic interactions in particle accelerators. Therefore there is no rea~_ son to expect that a phenomenological description of known decays will be correct at higher ener- gies, but nevertheless a more complete theory must, agree with what we know at low energi The only known leptons are the muon, the electron and the neutrinos. All known experi are consistent with lepton number conservation if we assign “lepton number" +1 tou", €", and v, and ~1 to u*, e*, and B. Furthermore, the decays a" = e° + ot x” > €° +e" +e* are not seen, even though they conserve lepton number. Apparently there is also a conserved “muon number" which forbids these processes. The neutrino associated with the muon is different from the neutrino asso- ciated with the electron. Experimentally, neutrinos produced in the decay a” > pr + are not seen to produey electrons by inverse beta decay » + n+ p+". Therefore, we believe there are two, doublets of leptons, (a, »,.) and (e", ¥.), which ate distinguished by a quantum numbey. It is pos: sible that the muon quantum number is multiplicative (like parity), but there is at present no par- ticular evidence for this unattractive idea. : The mass of the muon is 105.6594 ¢ 0.0004 MeV. It has a lifetime of (2.994 # 0.0008) x 10% seconds, decaying almost always into e° + »,, +¥,. Other modes, if they exist, are very rare. The lectron mass is (0.511004 + 0.000002) MeV and it has a lifetime of at least 6 X 10" seconds As far as is known, the muon and the electron are identical in all properties except for their masses, the large difference between which isa major puzzle, Perhaps the empirical relation m= am, 3) which is accurate to better than one-percent, provides a clue. The neutrinos appear to be massless althouigh experimentally it is not possible to put such fantastic upper limits on their masses as are known for the photon. The electron-neutrino eer- tainly weighs less than 6 x 10"* MeV, but the muon neutrino may have a mass of an MeV or more. Nevertheless itis attractive — and consistent with experiment — to assume both are exactly ‘massless, as we shall see below. Cis important in gauge theories that the photon be exactly massless. From the fact that the carth's magnetic field has been detected tens of thousands of miles away, one concludes that the Compton wavelength of the photon must be of this order at least, corresponding to a mass less than 10 MeV, IF the neutrino has a finite mass, it must occur in both helicity states, since a positive helicity state can be transformed into a negative one by Lorentz, transformation. If the neutrino is exactly | i t iES. Abersand BW, Lee, Gauge theories 7 massless, either helicity state provides a complete representation of the Poincaré group, and only parity conservation would require both to occur. Formally. it is easy to see that under the trans- formation + ~ys¥, the kinetic energy term in (4.1) is invariant while the mass term is not. If the mass is zero, the free Lagrangian is invariant under this transformation. The interaction part ‘of the Lagrangian will be invariant provided the neutrino field occurs only in the combination wy Let us introduce here a notation which will be useful later. On any spinor field, let Py, = }(1—7s). and Py = 3(1 +s). Py and Pp are projection operators, in the sense that P? = Py, Ph = Pay PP, = PyPy = 0, and P, +P, = 1. Any spinor field y can be broken up using P, and Pp: VE ULE Uy FPL + Pah Tl ~ sb 431 t4e)y Ga) ‘The free Lagrangian becomes: P= iV yy a, +P Ry We — mPa t+ Davy). (4.5) If m # 0, the breakup (4.4) has no Lorentz invariant meaning. If m = 0, Yq ia solution to (4.2) with spin analog the direction of the momentum, ¥}, a solution with spin in the opposite direction. They have positive and negative helicities, respectively. These facts are easily obtained from the massless Dirac equation, (7 = aip = 0, w! yf isa unit vector in the direction of the neutrino’s momentum, and from the definition of ‘sed the spin operator ¢. The decay spectra in those weak decays for which there are the most data, namely n-+ p+ e"+7,, We +7, 40, and a” > w+ 7,, plusa large collection of nuclear decays, show no sign of right- handed (positive helicity) neutrinos or left-handed (negative helicity) anti-neutrinos. We will as- sume that there exist only left-handed neutrinos, which is possible only if the neutrinos are exactly massless. Finally, itis easy to show that if only the left-handed neutrino field, y4 (0), appears in the Lagrangian, the neutrino remains massless to all orders in perturbation theory. Under the operation {> a5 Ux), NC) > — WIG) 7,, and therefore Y(x) + YG)ys- These rules hold for the inter scring fields. Therefore the neutrino propagator (inchiding interactions) is S@)= fate explin- KITHTO)” ~ fate explip- I THGO) Ys (4.6) Therefore Sehys = -9sS(~) and, VS) = Spr. aD In general, Sp) = y- p + 6m + Oy: p)?. From (4,7), the term in 6m is forbidden, and 5-0) = 0; the full propagator S(p) has a role at y-p = 0.ES. Abers and B.W. Lee, Gauge theories jibliography ‘The notations we adopt for Dirac 7 matrices and spinors ate those of 1. 1.D. Bjorken and 8.D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (MeGrawHill, New York, 1964) Appendix A, p.281 Particle parameters we quote inthe text ae From 2. Particle Data Group, Reviews of Particle Properties, Phys. Letters 39 (1972) 1 For the upper bound on the photon mass. ce 3.AS. Goldhaber and MLM. Nieto, Phys. Rev. Letters 21 (1968) 567. For reviews on the 47D. Leeand CS. W pies discussed inthis locate ee the excelent article ‘eat: interactions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sc. 15 (1965) 38. 5. Weak interaction phenomenology (continued) ‘The idea that all known weak decays can be described by a local four-point interaction is due te Fermi, and such interactions are called Fermi couplings. Following the discovery that weak decay: violate parity conservation, Feynman and GellMann proposed that the correct form for the Fermi interaction is GUC COZ. 6.) Hore J,(x) is a charged current, which has a lepton part and a hadron part: IA) = 1,09 + 8,00. (5.2) The lepton part of the current is 1OO = BOW = 1) + Tyr = 1), 09. 3) From (5.2) and (5.3) the p-decay spectrum can be calculated, and seems to be in agreement with experiment. The rate for u 2° + e° + vis in good agreement with CVC, but since the branching ratio of this mode to the principal mode, > a’ +y, is 10, the uncertainty is about 7%, which is too large for us to start worrying about tadiative corrections. Decays of spin-zero heavy nuclei provide the best tests, because their rates ean be accurately measured; but these calculations are plagued with nuclear physics complications These have been estimated carefully for nine low-mass, spin zero nuclei. The result depends only ‘on two parameters, the cutoff A and a model dependent number Q which depends on the under- lying field theory. (In the quark model, @ = {.) For a wide range of A and 0, gy is the same with- in experimental uncertainty for all nine nuclei. For @= + and A = 30 GeV, comparison with a-decay gives .976 = cos(0.22).. (5.15) sonable values of the parameters give gy = 1. ‘Thus, all our knowledge of non-strange B-decays is consistent with h, containing a term gy lV}, — V2) —(A} ~ 143) (5.16) with | ~ gy ~ 0.02. Since gy + I, these vector currents alone do not generate a SU(2) group as the lepton currents do. ‘The decays of strange hadrons are consistent with the idea that h, contains a strangeness-chang- ing vector and axial current term. From the observed absence of decays like =° + p +e +7, we conclucle that this term changes hypercharge by no more than one unit. From the absence of de- cays like E* + n +e" +y or Z°> E” +e" +, one concludes that the strangeness-changing current changes the hyperchange (strangeness) and the electric charge by the same sign. This is known as the AS = AQ rule. Asa consequence, the change in 7° is always #!, suggesting that this current has T=} Let us writeh, as a sum of a AS=Oand a AS= 1 part Ty = Bh? + gh. GAD Af) has the form (5.14), and is the third component of an isotopic triplet. It is natural to extend this idea to SU(3), and assume that /) is the charged AS = AQ, T=4, member of an octet of currents (i.c., the one that transforms like K"). By comparing a large number of decays, there is rather striking evidence that this is indeed the case. Therefore we can assume — since it is not in contradiction with experiment — that 1h = LW) — (ag id) (5.18) whereES. Abers ond IW. bee, Gouge theories ” Fi Jvsoodx (5.19) are the generators of SU(3) and the Aj,(x) are an octet of axial currents. Although SU(3) is not an exact symmetry, the matrix elements can still be estimated. The con- clusion is that (5.18) does not disagree with experiment, but that gg is nowhere near 1. The best fitis &slBy ~ 0.25. (5.20) In 1963 Cabibbo observed that within experimental error, ahtat=1 (5.21) Therefore 1, = 6038 HO) + sind Hi? exp(2i0F7 Vi{*exp(—2i0F), (5.22) where F7 is the 7th generator of SU(3). In this way universality can be recovered, and the discrepancy between gy and 1 understood. That is, if (5.22) is correct hy, is a correctly normalized component of a multiplet of currents which generate an SU(2) group. The angle 6 is called the Cabibbo angle, and is somewhere around 0/7 0.25. Its origin is unknown, and a plausible explanation would be very interesting. ste there any neutral currents? We discussed leptonic neutral currents in the last section. The existence of the charged strangeness-conserving currents in (5.22) naturally suggests also neutral strangeness-conserving currents. Experimentally the existence of such currents is at this time an ‘open question, which we shall return to in section 8. By commuting f{!) with Ty, (which is the charge associated with h{®"), one obtains a neutral, strangeness-changing current, transforming under SU(3) like K°. Experimentally, these currents do not seem to mediate leptonic weak interactions. Decays like 3° + p + e* + e” are never seen. Furthermore, the upper limits for branching ratios of K° > u? +p" or Kt-> a* +0 + Pare of the ‘over 10"*. Any model for weak decays must account for the absence or suppression of those octents, Note that in writing (5.18) we tacitly assumed that (is a left-handed current like 4). If, in fact, it were right-handed—V + A instead of ¥ — A—it would commute with Tj, and no Strangeness-changing neutral current would exist. This idea has been occasionally suggested, but seems contradicted by experiments. Bibliography ‘The ideas of CVC and the ¥'— A interactions were proposed by LRP. Feynman and M. GelkStann, Phys. Rev, 109 (1938) 193, 2S. Gerschtein and J.R. Zel'dovich, JEVP (USSR) 29 (1955) 698, ‘ECG, Sudarshan and RLE, Marshak, in: Proc. Padua Conf, on Mesons and Resently Discovered Particles (1987). ‘The frst and thed references here, end of keel in 4: Kabir (ed), The Development of Weak Interaction Theory (Gondon and Breach, New York, 1963). important papers on weak interaetions published around 1956-1962 are col2 ES. Abersend BW Lee, Gnge theories For 9 quick tsson in weak intrsetens 86 fr example 5.4.D. Bjrken and 5D. Dre, um Mechunies (McGrail, New York, 1964) s6e8. 10.10-10.17 6.. Gosirowier, Ekamentary Particle Piysies John Wiley and Sone, New York, 1966) Chapters 29-34 ‘The radiative corrections to decay were discussed in 7. RE. Beheends, RJ. Finkelstein ad A. Sitin, Phys, Rev. 101 (1956) 86. “The radiative corrections to decay were ditcusted in 8.1. Kinoshite and A. Siti, Phys. Rev. 113 (1989) 1452. 9.5.M,Perman and A. Sirlin, An. Phys (N.Y.) 20 or the theory of the radiative corrections to Paeeays ofthe pions and spin 0 nce, see 10.F. bers, D. Dicus,R. Norton and HR. Quinn, Phys, Rev. 167 (1968) 1461 11D. Dieus and R, Norton, Phys. Rev. BY (1970) 1360, 12. MAB. Bog J Bernstein and A. Sith Phys. Rev. DS (1972) 2597, ‘The Cabibbo theory was proposed in 13.N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Letters 10 (1963) $31 For a recent review of the Cabibbo theory. both rom theoretical and experimental viewpoints oe 14. LoM, Chounet, J-M. Guild and MK. Guia. Leplonie Decays of Hudrons,Piysiex Report 4C (1972) 199. Thee thors comelude that present evidence on the f-decaY support Ya ather than 7+ A for she strangenese-changing current. 6. Unitarity bounds, W-mesons, PCAC We conclude our tour of the weak interactions with these topics: unitarity bounds, W-mesons, and PCAC. Although equation (5.1) adequately describes decays, it cannot be a complete theory. When the interaction (5.1) is used to describe scattering, the Born approximation must fail at some energy, since the amplitude cannot be strictly real. Unlike electrodynamies, the Fermi coupling (5.1) does not lead to a renormalizable theory, so it is not possible to make these higher-order corrections. For any leptonic scattering, the cross sections are not proportional to the lepton mass. The only other nal parameter available is G. Since the cross-sections are proportional to G, they are dimensionally constrained to grow like o~ Gs 6.1) neglecting the lepton masses. Because of the local form of (5.1), the cross-sections are restricted toa single partial wave, so there is a unitarity bound Us (6.2) o which is violated by (6.1) when Gs is of the order | For example, consider ¥, +e > ¥, + 6". Ignoring the electron mass, the spi tion is O~ Gsf3m, erences (6.3) Since the electron which interacts with the noutrino is left-handed in this limit, and b, is right- averaged crosssecES Abersand B.W. Lee, Gauge theories 3 handed, the total angular momentum atong the direction of motion in the center of mass is 1, so the spin must be 1, not 0. Therefore scattering takes place in the spin-one stats, if the electron mass, mg, can be neglected. From she Jacob-Wick expansion for the scattering amplitude in the helicity representation, we have Y, eatseai 6 =F BO When saaa Mls unos no (64) i where y are the helicities of the four particles, d! are the dimensional representations of rota- tions about the y axis, and ¢ is the partial wave, normalized so that Im j= (q/W¥)iv?. (g and WW are the cm. momentum and V5, respectively; W * 2g.) Since (6.1) is a point interaction, there is no orbital angular momentum, ané the spin is one, so only j= 1 contribuies to the sum in (6.4), There is only one helicity state for each particle, so 3 ava Ga taina- nd") = 2 tha-1aan—rall + cos®). From unitarity, Wl? is bounded by 2. So in the forward direction lim 71s, Ol < Gfx and from the optical theorem F G4r*/eW) Im T(s, 0) < 482/s. ‘The spin averaged cross-section includes both electron helicity states, so $0< 2ar/s. (65) ‘Comparing (6.3) with (6.5), we learn that (6.3) violates the unitarity bound when. os = (WG) STE = 2.7K 10%, = 25x 10*GeV* (6:6) ‘The smallest such bound is obtained for the inelastic process v,, +e" > v, + u". The V— A spin yyefunetion is antisymmetric, so that this process has only j= 0. Since ¢° for this amplitude is an ‘nédiagonal matrix element of (W/q){exp(2i5) — 1}/2i, |f°1< 1. The total v, +e" > v, +H" cross section is =12n* or e 4 o=t firranc ce) 5 and this spin-averaged cross-sectioy ‘2n/s. By ditect calculation, 7 is Gs/m so that the Born, approximation equals the unitarity bound when s = #V/3/G = 4.2 x 10° GeV?, The upshot of all this is that the form (5.1) for leptonic weak decays violates the unitarity bound at about 700 GeV total center-of-mass energy. ul A popular modification of (5.1) is obtained by recognizing the analogy between (5.1) and second order electromagnetic interactions. The amplitude for electron-electron scattering can be caleu- lated from the Feynman graph of fig. 6.1 The contribution of fig. 6.1 to the amplitude 7 is kES Abers and Bit, Lee Gauze theorles co) 00) ew) 0 fa) tp.) nop ew) Fig 6.1. Photon exchange graph in eleetcon electron seatering Fig, 62. W exchange graph in ev elastic scattering. wie? _ 1 ge MPI UCP DS fPAY MPs) |. (6.8) where the spinors are normalized so that u*w = E, and k is the momentum transfer. The numera- tor has a current-current form, just like (5.1). We introduce a charged vector meson W,,, interact- ing with the weak current (5.2) according to oe + hel 69) W is negatively charged. Then v + ¢” + v + e* is described by the graph in fig. 6.2 B oa “a Ak 1 See MDI — yuto dara — nD a le oA 6.10) In the Fermi theory (5.1), the amplitude for v + e+ » +e" is ic Ve psd ~ Ys PIU PAIYC — Ys)UCPE poe (6.11) For low k, (6.11) and (6.10) are indistinguishable provided shyly = GV. (6.12) From the Dirac equation, ‘y- & can be replaced by m, in (6.10), so that the second term in the propagator does not grow faster than the first. The amplitude is damped by a factor 1/K? com- pared to Fermi point interaction, and doesn’t come into glaring conflict with unitarity. Neverthe- less, the theory is not renormalizable, as can easily be seen by calculating the amplitude for vty W4W- In fact, if] renormatizable theory is constructed using W mesons coupled to charged currents, the theory must contain additional particles to cancel the divergences in graphs with W* mesons alone. All the models we are about to describe contain charged W mesons to moderate the weak inter- actions. From (6.12), the sign of G is determined to be positive. In principle, this sign can be measured by looking for the parity-violating interference between 4 weak and electromagnetic or strong term in eg., p+ p> n* nore +e" wh ty ‘The radiative corrections to both 4 and 6 decays in W-meson theories are ambiguous and depend on the method of computation. If one adopts the f-limiting procedure of Lec and Yang, the ratio of the rates for 4 and 6 decays is finite. For a W mass > 2 GeV, one obtains | —gy > 0.024. Finally we mention the suecess of the idea that the strong interactions are approximately in-ES. Abers ond BW. Lee, Gauge theories 35 variant under SU(2), X SU(2)x. The generators are the 7{ discussed above, whose charged com- ponents are the weak currents, and the 7, constructed like Tf, replacing V — A by V +A. Thus for nucleons, “fare ot t= T= fer G>T? woo The fox Gods EM yor, (6.13) From 7, and 74, we may construct =7! T= +Th (6.14) which are just the isotopic spin generators, and the axial charges Ts Th Th (6.15) The group algebra is U7 ha Thu = ie TER (Ti, Tk =0 (6.16) or 4 Ti ier (71, TU) = it Tf h7h RTE, (6.17) ‘The charge 7} is the space integral of the time component of the axial current. The idea of PCAC (partially conserved axial current) is that SU(2), ® SUQ)g. is an approxi- mate symmetry of the strong interactions, realized in the Goldstone mode and that the pions a/_ dhe Goldstone bosons in the symmetry limit, their mass being a measure of the symmetry breaking. Thus the Lagrangian has the form 2 Loy + 62" (6.18) where ¢ is “small” of the order M2/m? and Os yy, is invariant under the group. ‘The matrix element of the axial vector current 4i(/i,, ~ /|,) between the vacuum and a one- pion state with momentum p is stern (pyy = ee Pau APP 6.19) OD) =o ae ; Except for the normalization constant F,, the form of (6.19) is dicated by Lorentz inva The value of F, can be determined from the decay #” > u* +5,. From equations (5.1), (5.14) and (6.19) we calculate the total rate for x” decay to beES. Abersend B.W. Lee, Gauge theories Pn w+ 0) = GAR FHn2 ~ my aed. 6.20; From the meusured pion life time 2.60 x 10° sec, and from the value of G obtained from H> e+u +0, the value of F, is determined to be F, = 93 MeV. 6.20 As a consequence of (6.19) CRHAL() RIP)? Fre expl—ip- x) = Fymiclgi(x)inl(p)) 6.22) e Qnpev2E, “H cal where g(x) is the renormalized pion field. In the sym! metry limit (€ > 0), m’ this limit, any matrix element of 44x), and 3A! = 0. In My, = DIALO)Ia> » 6.23) has a pole at g? = 0(q = py ~ p,) of the form iF 4, May = 7 (oY (O) Ia (6.24) q where f(x) = 0¢/(x) is the source of the pion field Low energy theorems in the unphysical world with an exactly conserved axial current can be obtained from (6.25) and its generalizations. The content of the PCAC assumption is that these are approximately true in the real world. Here are some examples. Let a and b be nucleons. Then the most general form of (6.23) is 1 ! Gap MODE IY ~ ax7sHG Ful, (6.25) From the conservation of the axial current, we know that (6.25) multiplied by q# is zero, therefore Mg (a?) = @7h(q?). (6.26) From (6.24) and the fact that g By HAIN = 5 Wy )rysu(p,) (6.27) (where g is the pion-nucleon coupling) we obtain the Goldberger-Treiman relation F,=Mg,Olg (6.28) where g4(0)= g, Experimentally, ¢2/4n* ~ 14.6, so.Mg,/g* 83 MeV; comparing with the value 93 MeV ob- tained from m-decay, one gets an idea of the accuracy of PCAC. Many other soft-pion theorems can be obtained from (6.24). The Full power of the method be-ES. Abers and BW. Lee. Gause theories ” comes apparent when two or more soft pions are considered simultaneously, for then the commu- tators (6.17) of the SU) x SU(2) group enter the calculation For example, let THQ) = [ebITIAMs)Af(O))larexp(-ig- x)" (6.29) where a and b are nucleon states with momentum p and isospin indicesa and b. T has a double pole at g? = 0, whose residue is proportional to the forward #N scattering amplitude T_(q) "9° ro = FLT foie. cerf (O)yladexpl—ig- x)a*x + less singular terms Ge FR quge ) rip? @P where T,,¢ is normalized as in (6.4). Next we contract (6.30) by multiplying 7*” with q,, Ty (q) + less singular terms at q + 0 (6.30) 6.31) On the other hand, from (6.29) a ¢ pif wrarcosjcona] explig: x)d'x. Because 2, = eITCAPCr), Af(O))1a)5(x®Jexpl—ig x) d*x = wietit f(oIVZ(O)ladexp(—ig: x)54(x)d*x where we have used the local form of the second of equations (6.17), ), only the equal time commutator remains. (FO, 4701 5G) = ie? 7,(0)54X). (6.32) Since the vector currents are conserved, (DIF YO)Ia (6.33) Combining (6.33) with (6.31), we obtain 1 Tyy = Sara veal ety (6.34) where (T))j, = —ieiyy are the pion isospin matrices. Equation (6.34) is a threshold theorem for +N scattering in the symmetry limit. We can apply eq. (6.34) to the rea: world at the real thresh- old (» = p- q = Afm,), since the nucleon pole terms, being P-wave, do nct contribute there. Im- Portant corrections to eq. (6.34) for the real world are symmetric in # and j, so we shall deal only38 ES Abors end BLM Lee, Gauge theories with the antisymmetric part. The result isa formula for the difference between the /= 4 and 1} scattering lengths. Using the Goldberger-Treiman relation (6.28) for F,, this difference is predicted to be \ 3g 1 Mm, aaa — raya = 7 (6.35 ean 40n * og Meh Mm, see This is an equation for G, in terms of measurable scattering lengths, as well as a relation be- tween @,, and dq. Both are well-satisfied experimentally. Assiiming that T,.,(q) satisfies an unsubtracted dispersion relation, one obtains a sum rule for Bq» ignoring terms of order m2/M3: 1_urPl ds. se ay lots) - oS) (6.36) BAF pang? SM which is the original form obtained by Adler and Weisberger. In eq. (6.36), 5 = (p +q)’, and o* is the total m* p cross section. Many other soft-pion theorems can be found using similar methods. The reader is referred to the book by Adler and Dashen for a more complete treatment. Finally we mention an example of a class of theorems which aren’t true. Let led THM = (y(E, K,y(€), KaAMODD (6.37) be the matrix clement of the neutral axial current between two photons and the vacuum. Eq. (6.37) should contain a pole of the form Fy S ery¥ie(Oyd (6.38) ¢ = ky + kz and (y7lj2(0)b is proportional to the n° > ‘yy amplitude: T(xyy) = mye VERE Cry lig!) (6.39) Kinematically, 7(x° + 7) must have the form T= Leet ghiaphlQ?)- (6.40) Physically, fun?) determines the w° lifetime. We assume f(m2) ~ f(0) to relate physical quantities to the predictions of PCAC. ‘The non-pole term in 7*”* must be a three-index pseudotensor. The only term first order in the momenta one can construct which is symmetric in the two photons is ety — kay i But this term violates electromagnetic gauge invariance, which requires ky, 7!" = kwT#™*=0, | We conchide that 1 iF g* o> regione EP T= soeerpon om ? eg 8ES. Abersond B.W. Lee, Gauge theories » when T'#"* js at least second order in the momenta, We multiply (6.41) by q* and use the con servation of A? to obt PK ak saflq?) + qT. (6.42) Since q,7¥”* is at least third order in the momenta, it follows that (0) = 0. Ithas been shown that /(0) = 0 cannot in general be maintained in perturbation theory because of the singularities of the theory invalidate the formal arguments, Experimentally, f(m2) = O(n2/AP2) predicts far too small a pion decay rate. Correct expressions in perturbation theory can be obtamed itwe set ar 208 5 ore) (6.43) an where F is the electromagnetic field tensor and Q is usually the same model-dependent number which entered our discussion of radiative corrections to B-decay. The value = f, characteristic of a simple theory with one elementary charged fermion, like the proton, is in good agreement with experiment. The original Ward identity 3,4" = 0, is recovered in models with an equal number of positive and negative fermion fields. Identities based on (6.43), which are correct in perturbation theory, are called anomalous Ward identities. Bi__Jeraphy ‘The unitarity bounds on weak proceses ae basod on unpublished notes of one cf us (ES.A), See also LAD. Dolgo, LB. Okun, Vl Zakharov, Nucl Phys. B37 (1972) 493. 2... Appelquist and J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D4 (1972) 3726, termediate vecior meson theory For the discussion of radiative corections to wand f-decaysin 3. TD. Lee, Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 8995, TD. Lee and CS. Wa, op. ct. 4. RA. Shaffer, Phys Rev. 128 (1962) 1452, 4 the Goidbeaget-Treiman tention, and the Adler Weisberger relation, see 5. ML. Goldboiger and S.8. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 1178. 6.S.L Adler, Phys. Rev. 140B (1963) 736. TWA. Weisberger, Phys. Rev. 143 (1966) 1302. 8.5. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Letters 17 (1966) 616 9. RAF, Dashen and M, Weinstein, Phys. Rev. 183 (1969) 1261 ‘These subjects are excellently reviewed in Adler and Dashen, op cit For the subject of anomalous Ward identities, se 10,18. Bell and R. Tackiw, Nuovo Cimento $1 (1969) 47. MSL. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2426, This subjects reviewed in [2-S.L- Adler, in: Lectures on Elementary Particle and Quantum Field Theory. eds. 5, Deseret al, (MIT Press, Cambiidge, 1970) 13.8 Jackin, in; Lectures on Curzent Algebra and its Applications (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970). A non-Abelian generalization of eg. (6.43) i gven by W4.W.A. Bardeen, Phys Rev. 184 (1969) 1848, 18.1 Jsand R. Zumino, Phys. Letters 378 (1971) 95. eee core een40 ES. Abers and BW Lee, Gauge theories 7. The Weinberg-Salam model In this section we will deseribe the first model. which was proposed about five years ago by Weinberg and Satam and which combines the weak and electromagnetic interaction throtigh the use of the Higgs mechanism The idea is to put the SUC), group discussed in section 5 together with electromegnetic gauge group into a larger gauge symmetry. The charged gauge mesons become the W* intermediate vec~ tor bosons. There remains a heavy neutral vector meson, the photon, and one Higgs scalar. When no confusion can arise, we will use the name of a particle to stand for its field. In gereral, we fol- Jow Weinberg’s notation. In the simplest version, the only leptons are the electron ¢ and its neutrino v (we omit the sub- seript in v, for the moment). These may be grouped into a left-handed SU(2), doublet o Le ( i) a eu) where e, = 4(1 ~ 73)e,and an SU(2), singlet, R = ey “hypercharge” Y= —1 and to the singlet eg a “hypercharge” ¥ Q holds for all particles. Since all members of each irreducible multiplet of SU(2), have the same hypercharge, IL YI =0. 3 The group generated by T and ¥ is SU(2) ® UC). We make this into the gauge symmetry of the model, introducing three gauge mesons 4¥, associated with SU(2), and a fourth B,, associated with the U(1) subgroup. So far the mode! contains two pieces: $(1 + ys)e. We assign to the doublet a 2, so that the rule mtty 2 2 Lesuge + Legions a4 where, according to the prescription of the first lecture, psuge = FE iPM — 3B BH cs Ins) Fu = 2yAy ~ 2,Ay, teetALAS By = 8,8, — 2,Bye 6 The lepton part of is Laptons= Riv’, + ig'B IR +Tiv(a, +408, —i¢ z ai)t ar Recall that if the symmetry group is @ direct product, the coupling constants may differ for each factor. We take g to be associated with SU(2),, and 4g’ with U(1). Notice that the SU(2), i variance prohibits an electron mass term from appearing in (7.7).) ES Abersand BW. Lee, Gauge theories 4 We want to end up with three of the four vector mesons acqutiring masses, since the final tory should have only one conserved quantity, the electric charge Q, and one massless meson, the photon. To this end we introduce a doublet of (complex) Higgs scalars o-(6) : (78) The doublet § transforms like L of eq. (7.1) under SU(2),, and has ¥ = +1 in order to maintain (7.2). It contributes a term to the Lagrangian Lesun™ (a6 + g Bot + % aig") (m0 3A) ~ Herd. (7.9) ‘TH host general form for = wots + nota) (7.10) ‘There may also be an interaction term Liner * ~GARG'L + LR} An is symmetric under the whole group as well as being Lorentz invariant. Naxt we let u? be negative so that one component, which we choose to be the neutral compo- net. , develops a vacuum-expectation value, wo=(C)iw2 a2) Notice that this breaks both the SU(2), and the hypercharge U(1) symmetry. The surviving sym= metry operator is the combination @ (eq. (7.2)]. We choose v to be real, as in the example in section 3. From (7.10), vale. (7.13) Next, we redefine the scalar fields, associating a new field with each broken generator. Ac- tually, itis not necessary to find the generators orthogonal to Q; any three independent ones satisfying 0 7 # ° tv. will do, Therefore, we define UIE) = exp(—i§ #/2v) and write 1 o UB vs) 14) Fepk.__lg the four real components of by 9 and £!oy ES. bers nd B.W, Loe, Gauge theories Next we make a gauge transformation to the U-gauge, so that the particle content of the modet becomes manifest: o> 6 = UES (0, Jz L=L'=U@L A- A, (7.15) where FA, = U8) i aa a 183,00] ug) (7.16) and B, and R are-unchanged. We will drop the primes on L’ and A‘. The new fields are just as good as the old ones, since the gauge transformation is not singular Now there are new terms quadratic in the new fields in both Liye, and Legacy: Eq. (7.11) be- comes Gv Pinter ~ py (RL + ER] + cubic and higher order terms (17) ‘The electron has acquired a mass: Gould. (7.18) ‘The neutrino remains massless because there still are no right-handed neutrino fields. The part of the Lagrangian describing the field. eq. (7.9), has become m Loca hn +O ye, tall ERE + gc. — (2) ] (19) where x. = (+ The remaining scalar field n has a mass —2y?. The quadratic term in the vector meson fields is HWIG'B, ~ 24 De" ~ 9A") + A"? + (ADP) (720) Define Wz <(Ay #tADIVZ. 20 Evidently the charged fields 1 have mass My = Sev. (7.22) Define two neutral fields sAlte'b, gh, + eA 4, al Ai Vere NarraES. Abers ond BW. Lee, Gauge theories a ., and A, are eigenstates of the mass matrix. with masses MEP FE, My =0. (724) ‘The single massless vector meson is the. photon, corresponding to the surviving U(2) symmetry, exp(—i0Q). It's instructive to rew Leprons ~ €4- (7.7) ~ in torms of the W*, Z, and photon. From (7.21) A=W, + WATE, AQ)= (W; ~ Wifi. avy ‘Therefore the term in (7.7) containing W*is & C Soa, trae =S yey + ayy) — 2 petites, + eur Wel. 7.28) ‘Comparing GAVE = 8/8M3, = 1/20? (7.26) Next we examine the terms in (7.7) containing A3 and B,. Define an angle @y by h eq. (6.12) we obtain 8 tan Dy. (7.27) Then from (7.23) A, = 0080y/B, + sin By A3, sin 8, B, ~cos6,, A? (7.28) Inverting, we get B, = 00s BWA, + Sin By Z, AL=sin yA, ~ cos OyZ, (7.29) The terms in Liep4oq Coupling A} and B,, to the leptons are ~ Seep rHeg tere, thay Ic0s OyA,tsin Oy Z,1 He ate, Pr, IlsindyA, C0502] Zig: 5 2 ft 8 ats "A ygragTle"enatent 2 ate s¥irtH WG rte, Hy) +A A, eerlegtecr). (7.30) Thus the massless vector meson A, does couple to the electric current &y#e, and we can identify the electron’s charge ~e: c= ae ETE. 731) Finally, we verify that 1ocal gauge invariance still holds for the focal UC1) group corresponding (00, with the photon field A, being the gauge meson. Under an infinitesimal transforma generated by Q=}Y +7},ES. Abersond BA. Lee, Gauge theories 0, Irom (7.28) #7, (soy Lewd). OSD w sin Ow ba, [SS ue ge (132 1 — Lg c0s Oyy +g'sin By J3,e68 ke Bibtiography. “The model described ia this section was proposed by 1.8. Weinberg. Phys. Rev. Letters 19 (1967) 1268 [A model based on the same gauge group wos proposed by 2A. Salem. in: Elementary Patile Theory, ed, N. Ssattholm (Atinguist and Forlag, Stockholm, 1968). 8. Phenomenology of the model. Incorporation of hadrons Since both g/{g* + g"?] "? and g'/[g* +g")? are less than 1, we can conclude from (7.31) that gsin@ =e, g' cosO=e, (8.1) so both g andi ¢’ are greater than ¢. From (7.22), the mass of the W is given by Mfjy = 4g*v?. From (7.26), 1 GV. Therefore 4 sin’Oy 4VZG" Cy The W mass must be quite large, _ 38 My =f +8 Gey, v [el Sindy ~ sin By O° Cc) idently, in this model, the minimum value of My is too large to be produced in present-day accelerators; nevertheless, it is not nearly as large as the unitarity bound, which is of the order of. hundreds of GeV. The Z meson is even heavier. From eq. (7.24)ES. Akers and BW, Lee, Gauge theories 4 My _ 38Gev % Iw =5 = 8.4 Ma” Fc08y, cosy ~} sin dy cep Since g" = 9 is not allowed, cos By < 1,and AM, > My, Mz> 16 GeV. (8.5) The value of the dimensionless ¢~e~n coupling constant G, can be obtained from (7.18) and (7.26) G.= Vim Jv=VIm,-YEVE~ 2x 10" 8.6) which is small, indicating that graphs with nee vertices can often be ignored compared to graphs with photon or Z vertices. What is the effect of the W on the spectrum for w+ "+, +,? The (u", v,) doublet is easily ii porated into the model in exact analogy to the (e", »,) doublet, and the yrmass generated by the -v4~6 coupling. The coupling constant G,, must have the value G,=(m,/m JG, which is larger than (8.6) but still very siall. The amplitude for u'-decay is = yy fMy | My FE HOH — outed — yoo, BH wh. k= pw) ~ p(r,) = ple) + p(y). In (8.7), the g,, term reproduces the point interaction spec- {rum up to terms of the order k?/My. The second term is of the order mm, /M2,. So the effect on the spectrum is very small. The most accessible test of the model seems to bed — &° elastic scattering. The W contribution comes from fig. 8.1(a). At low energies, the contribution of fig, 8.1(a) is indistinguishable from the Fermi theory: (8.7) iG 22x here we have applied a Fierz transformation to the (V — A)(V — A) coupling, The sign in (8.8) ¥s the product of a minus sign from Fermi statistics and a minus sign from the Fierz transforma. tion. The Z-exchange contribution can be obtained from (7.30). At low energies it is ro UF SACL — ys)vC)tile)y,(1 — ys)ule) (8.8) Fig. 8.1, Graphs for ve" elastic seatering in the WeinbergSalam modeh ARERRES, Abers and B.W Lee, Gauge theories iG ssn tee peelidivedygl2 sin’Oy — 4 + Lyslue. 9) In general, we may write the amplitude for pte v +e as iG Sagi MMT — ys dtonate™ Png — 16C he) (8.10) Then W exchange alone (or Fermi coupling) predicts CyaGyal My while the present model predicts Cy = 2sin%By +4, Cn (8.12) From (8.10), the spin-averaged differential cross section can be calculated, The cross section in- to solicl angle d82 (in the center of mass frame) is do @ oo Pc, CRG: gt Cy +g)? = MICE —CAXp- pl ’ a ants HEV ~ EnP Oa # Cy + CAPD g'Y ~ MACY — CAMP P'N (8.13) where p and p' are the initial and final neutrino momenta, q and q’ the initial and final electron momenta, and = (» + @)*. In terms of the lab-frame electron recoil energy, 7, we obtain from (8.13) do _G@? mT. af n° » fcr Cee, te? [i 2] = -G)"S] (14) where w is the neutrino energy in the initial electron’s rest frame (the lab frame). The last term is small for «> m,. In the V ~ A model (Cy = C, = 1), do/aT decreases, for fixed 7, like 1/03. Otherwise, there isa constant term. If Cy = ~C,, (not possible in the W.-S. model), do/é7 would be entirely independent of w. Gurr, Reines and Sobel have looked for ve events from anti-neutrinos produced by a Savannah River Plant reactor. What they measure is the rate given by (8.14) integrated from a minimum to a maximum value of 7, folded into the neutrino spectrum. Ta, is just the neutrino energy 0, towed _ Feynman ond Geli-Momn (AN Theory Fig. 8.2, Region of valus of Cy and Cin agreement with the experiment of GunAbers and BLM. Lee, Gauge theories a Fig. 6.3. Zexchange graph For ye" scaterng. and Tin is determined by the experimental conditions. They have established that the cross sec- tion is Tess than twice that predicted by Cy = C, = 1. Fig. 8.2 is from their paper. It isa map of the Cy ~ Cy space, the shaded region being the value allowed by their experiment. The V — A theory is not excluded, and the W.-S. model is acceptable for sin? Oy < 0.35, corresponding to a W mass greater than 60 GeV. je amplitude for», + e-» v, +e can be parametrized in a similar way. It is a particularly in- teresting process because jt is forbidden if only charged currents exist, since v, — e does not couple to W. If there is a neutral Z, elastic v,e scattering will be mediated by Z exchange, as in fig. 8.3. The effective interaction is Fount ~ 1,2 yCy ~ Cred 17 In’ WS. model, Cth Cy=t —2sin* Oy. (8.18) In pure V — A theory, Cy = Cy = 0. Recent experiments at CERN have put bounds on both the »,e and de clastic cross sections. Like », + ¢, both grow linearly with the (anti) neutrino energy e2 for co w+ e° +e" or KS pY + uit is desirable to eliminate thei. A model which does this has been suagested by Gla” w, Hiopoulos and Maiani. They add a fourth quark, q*, and group the quarks into two SUC), doublets: (7) ana (f) . (8.28) L eb If the mass of the q’ is very high, no unwanted effects will appear. Instead of (8.26), the neutral current is now SEB Ute ~ Hevtytia, tH — Xa al- (8.29) Because (,, h,) is obtained from (n, 2) by making a unitary transformation (5.22), the combina tion Hey yr + Nex Ney, in (8.29) is just fFy4u + Xy"A. The cross terms proportional to cos® x sin® cancel, and the unwanted currents are eliminated. In this model, the Z-hadron coupling is still given by (8.27), with 2) given by (8.29), and the Zlepton coupli unchanged [see eq. (7.30) or (8.9)}. Specifically, the Z coupling to hadrons and neutrinos takes the form vei +87 Z4U2) — sin? Oyi™ +454, 3 —y5)01. For low energies, the amplitude for » + a+ v! 4b, where a and b are hadron states, is propor tional to ee . S89) eye — sit Oy) 0d0-YH — go (8.30) aM, AIEEE creso ES. Abers ond BW. Li Using (7.24) for Mz, we obtain (e+ eM, = fot = V2G. 31) The rates are therefore independent of the Z mnass at low energies, when the Z-propagator can be approximated by ~g,,/M3.. For example, the amplitude for elastic vp scattering has been measured to be (0.12 + 0.06) times the rate for vt n> /* + p, To make a theoretical prediction, the matrix element from (8.30) can be obtained as follows: The matrix elements of &™ are well known from clectromag- netic form factors. The current /2? is the neutral component of a triplet whose charged member is just what is measured in» +n > u* + p. Thus the amplitude from (8.30) is known experimentally Pais and Treiman predict the branching ratio to be 0.15 < ov + p> v4 pyc +n w+ p)< 0.25 (8.32) provided Oy < 0.35, as required by the ev elastic scattering experiments. Even more stringent bounds can be obtained from experiments looking for weak pion produce tion. We will say only a few words and refer you to the literature for details. Consider the process | + p= p+ p+z°, We need the matrix element (prj) — sin? By $6 Ip) 8.33) ‘The electromagnetic current can be measured in 7° electroproduction. The charged version of | #2), (onelj7,In) can be measured in » + n= p+ 9 + ur experiments. Actually this matrix element | is not simply related to vtp+ne)tovtn=vtnte) 2ov+ n= wtp +e) R <0.14, Theoretical arguments, with inputs from other experiments, predict R > 0.2. Although these num- bers are subject to considersble theoretical and experimental uncertainties, it is beginning to look as if there may not be any neutral hadron currents which couple to neutrinos. However, only more detailed measurements can settle this point ‘The Be scateving experiments at the Ssvannah River reactor are described in 1. Reines and 11S, Gurr, Phys. Rev. Letiers 24 (1970) 1448; S. Gute, F. Reines and FLW. Sobel, Phys. Rev. Letters 28 (1972) 1406. The analysis of these experinentsis by 2.11 Chen and B.V, Lee, Phys. Rev. DS (1972) 187. “Tne hadron mode! without strangene 3.5, Glos; J. Miopowles and 5. inn changing neuteal cutents ede to Phys: Rev. D2 (1970) 1288,) ES. Abersond B.W. Lee, Gauge theories st The inelastic v-p experiments ae ssported by 4:.Cundy,G. Mat, F. Nezrck, 3.8.3, Paton, Dll Perkins, G.A. Ramm, V. Venus and H.W, Wadhsmuth, Phys Letters 318 1970) 478 S.W, Loe, Phys Letters 408 (1972) 423, 6.DIL Perkins, XVI intern. Conf. om High Energy Physics, Batvis, inois, 1972. ‘They have been analyzed by 1.APaisandS.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev, D6 (1972) 2700. $C Albright, B.¥. Lee, E:A. Paschos and L Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 2: 9. Models with heavy leptons In this section we shall describe models without neutral vector mesons coupling to neutrinos. Ipthese models, the rates for all neutrino processes described in the last section vanish to order a All these sections involve heavy leptons. The reason is simply that the graph in fig. 9.1 for +5 W" + W" exists in all modeks. The amplitude calculated from this graph grows linearly with s, and therefore violates the uni- tarity bound. This behavior leads to a non-renormalizable theory, because the box graph occur= ring in the fourth order » + elastic amplitude is quadratically divergent. In the Weinberg Salam theory, the leading asymptotic behavior of the graph in fig. 9.1 is cancelled by the graph in fig 9.2. The skeptical reader should calculate the ZWW vertex and verify this cancellation. Ai vertices are to be banned, the linear growth of the graph in fig. 9.1 must be cancelled somehow. The only other alternative is more leptons, as in fig. 9.3. The linear term in fig. 9.3 has the opposite sign to the linear term in fig. 9.1, and therefore they can cancel with appropriate coupling constants, leading to a theory which may be renormal- iuable. The hypothetical E* isa “heavy” lepton, because if it were lighter than the K* meson, it would already have been seen in K* + Et +7. Heavy leptons can be introduced in the context of an SU(2) x U(1) model, where one of their functions is to eliminate the Z7» coupling, For example, we may introduce a left-handed triplet ie (9.1) nthe model contains right-handed SU(2), singlets, ez and E>. The triplet ean be as- signed Y = 0. The electron and E* have ¥ = -2 and Y = +2 respectively’ Then the neutral current is ” WEL Le. (9.2) sac ig. 9.4 Betton exchange graph for» «p= WW",3 ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theories "ig. 9.2. annihtation graph for v + »-= W* #W Fig. 9.3. Heavy lepton exchange graph for »+ 9+ W" 4 W, which contains no vy» term. Neither A?) nor B,, couple to the neutrinos, so neither do the linear combinations 4, oF Z,. Another possibility is to add a neutral E® to the scheme just described, and group the leptons into two doublets + Ef 3} BE h (- EYW?, with Y= —1 and Y= +1 respectively. £2 has ¥ = 0. The hypercharge current 30, + Eee, + £2) ~ @, — Em, — £2) contains no term in Py"v and neither does /{). In such a model one would expect » + €" > E° +e" at sulficiently high energy, but no elastic » + e scattering. The former model is known as the LPZ ‘model; the latter as the PZ II model. \ F I. (9.3) cy A rather different idea has been suggested by Georgi and Glashow. Instead of SU(2) x U(1), let wetlel |, te basic gauge group be O(3), Then there will be only one neutral current, and it must be just 76". In this model there is no other neutral current at all, so that there is no parity violation pre- dicted in electromagnetic processes like e+e" + e+e" ore” +p +p. The simplest way to realize this idea is to add a neutral lepton E® and group it together with E*, », and e into a triplet: E [rine os] (9.4) eo IL E® must have e mass, so we can form a right-handed triplet also E* R=|E}. (9.5) ek ‘There remains a left-handed singlet: (E° sin B — v cos), The interaction of the leptons with the gauge fields A, is, according to the general prescription) ESS. Abers and B.W. Lee, Gauge theories 38 BAL P= AD MOA Ha Ape CS) where (9.7) aM Tagheg + Ryev'TipRy 1 LP Teghs + Ry TSR. (98) In the spherical representation [ o -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 oO T=|0 o 1], rT =I Oo oO] T’=|0 0 0 | o 0 0 oi. oO oo - (The hase is chosen so that for a neutral triplet (9°, §°, 6°) we have * = (g-)t.] MW Aentify A; with W$, and A© with the photon, A, ‘The neutral term in eq. (9.6) is BA, Le y,e°— Ere") (9.10) and does not violate parity. Therefore we can identify gre (9.11) ‘The charged term is engl @, sin 8 + EF cos Bye ey — EL ey sin B+ Bp cos 6) + ER yey ~ EXER] +H.C. (9.12) ‘The term in (9.12) which couples electrons to neutrinos is esin B WH, ye" + HC. sin BW" y*(1 —y,)e° + H.C, (9.13) Therefore GIVE = e? sin? 6/4M2,. (9.14) In the W-S. model ~ compare eq. (8.2) — we had G2 = e7 (8M sin? By). (9.15) The Georgi-Glashow model therefore has an upper bound for the W mass My and (8s ¥ ids\IW/7. Then (s*. 6,. °) form a basis for the representation (9.9) of O(3). The Lagrangian term for the Higgs scalars is Lecsars 74,0; — 10 Ay (Tix 02,0; ~ 1€ AY “(Dix 6p) 9.17) which becomes, in terms of s* and 4°, Lecnors =} LO,d° + i CW 5" — Wjs")1 Log? — i eCWHS™ — WHR S*)] +s" ie d,s tie WM Na,s tie Als — ie GW), (9.18) Write 9° = v + y. Then it is evident from (9.18) that the photon remains masstess, while W* acquires a mass 1 Been, (9.19) We sce that there is a ditect s"WyA, coupling term ~e ng” (9.20) in addition to those explicit in (9.18). Of course, it is possible to eliminate the s*-fields by writing {sv} oO \ | 6° | = expliT,£, +7 o} uty tel ° and performing the gauge transformation U = exp(~i)(T,f, + T-£.] on the scalar, vector and fermion fields. This is the U-gauige discussed previously. However in a later section we will need the Feynman rules in other gauges, and for this reason we have written the Lagrangian in terms of the (s*, 4°, 5°) fields, without eliminating the fictitious components. Finally there may be fermion mass terms and fermion-scalar couplings. An invariant fermion ‘mass term has the form =ngfER + RL + cos B EE® + 4sin BO + YE? + BU ~ 460) tee (9.21) =m, There are two possible invariant coupling terms esES. Abers and BM, Lee, Gaute cores ss Leouptng = GL L(T-O)R + ELC.) + G3LE® sin B— 608 BIG-R + H.C, (9.22) where - R means s*en + 5° EX + $°ER. Replacing 9° with v, we see that (9.22) contributes another fermion mass term to the Lagrangian. [t is Gl EFE* — Re") + sin B Gav BE® 008 B GaufH(| + y.)E° + BC — 74)v1 (9.23) From (9.21) and (9.23), we obtain a fermion mass matrix, which we should diagonatize, and then impose the condition that the field we denoted by v is indeed massless. (Since there is one more neutral left-handed fermion than right-handed fermion, there is bound to be a massless left- handed field.) This condition gives, from eqs. (9.21) and (9.33) im, sin f+ Gv cos B= 0. (9.24) 'e heavy leptons which occur in the models we have discussed may actually be reasonably light, and, if they exist, may be discovered long before the heavy vector mesons. All we really know is that they are all heavier than the K meson. They can probably be produced most easily in colliding ee" beam, which can set lower limits on their masses close to the beam energy. Reac- tions like » + p+ E* + hadrons have also been studied, and appear to be feasible experiments at NAL energies. Decay modes like E* + e* + ¥, +v,, E> 0, + ut +v,, E> E? + hadrons, or E*> v, + hadrons, should all be easy to identify because of the apparent violation of momentum conservation. We have listed some recent references in the bibliography. ‘masses of the fermions can be expressed in terms of i,, Gy, Gz and v: me Inigo = C08 Bint, = sin B Gv =m, + Gy. (9.25) From the first and equations in (9.25), we obtain ng = HOMgs + Me) (9.28) 4ai..-srom the remaining relation and (9.24), we obtain Ings + mg =2 COs Mo (9.21) Which is a general constraint on the masses of the leptons in this model. Then from (9.19), (9.25), (9.26) and (9.27), (9.28) cos 6 Myo). (9.29) Thus al the scalar-fermion couplings are fixed in terms cf B and the e” and B® masses. Alternatively, fc. _¢ expressed through (9.27) in terms of the three masses, We shall use these results in Part Ito calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon of this model. i ee6 ES Albers and BM: bee, Gane heres Bibliography “Te models described in this ection were inroduced by 1.1. Georg and 8.L.Glshon Phys, Rev. Letters 28.1972) 1496 2. BAW. Lee. Phys.Rev. DS (1972) 1188 (LP2). 3.5. Pret and B. Zumino, Nel Phys. B47 (1972) 99 (LPZ and P21. These papees ao dies the incorporation of hon in hese mode For a review of the phenomenology of heavy leptons nluding csllatans of production eros sections and branching ratos In various model, oe *MLL, Pel, Searches for Henry Leptons and Anomalous LeptonicBahstor ~ The Past andthe Future, SLAC report SLAC.PUD-1062 (1972, unpubl), 5.4. Bjeken and LM. Llewellyn Smith, Phys Rev. 7 (1973) 1997 10. More on model building copy ofthe waivers is nt wha i eequieed of ots fone o the dared thing samo Rebecca West |i this section we shall try to describe various ramifications of gauge models of weak and elec- troniagnetic interactions based on O(3) or UQ), their defects, and possible other avenues in riodel building, We will not dwell upon any one idea in detail, but rather try to present a Panoramic overview on these developments. Instead of presenting along list of recent articles and preprints exhaustively, we will cite representative works that have been at least partly digested by us. We have seen a few examples of models based on SU(2) oF U(2) gauge symmetries. The basi strategy of mode! building may be stated as follows: A. Choose a gauge grout. B. Choose the representation of the Higgs scalar fields and their charge assignments, . Choose the representations of the spin § chiral fermions. D. Couple the gauge fields invariantly to the Higgs scalars and the fermions. E. Couple the Higgs fields to themselves invariantly and renormalizably, so that the potential of the Higgs Fields attains the minimum when neutral Higgs fields aequire nonvai vacuum-expected values. F. Couple the Higgs fiels invariantly to the fermions When these steps are taken, a. Some gauge bosons acquire masses: 20,9 + BW, 6)? > 2? (OP? WE >, Some fermions uequire masses: AGO t hed Rory. ©. At least one vector boson remains massless, because electric charge conservation is wnbroken 4, Some of the Higgs fickls undergo a transmutation: they turn into the longitudinal compo nents of the massive vector bosons.ES Aborsand BM. Le, Gauge theories 7 sn this strategy, the left-handed lepton (e, or 4) and its neutrino are placed in a multiplet of SUC), the right-handed component to another multiplet, by inventing heavy leptons as they are needed. If the multiplets chosen are such that Q = 73, a neutral massive vector boson is not needed, and the unification can be achieved in an O(3) framework. Otherwise we need an SUC) x UCI) scheme. Bjorken and Llewellyn-Smith have considered many schemes of this type 1. 1.D. Bjorken and C-H. Llewellyn-Smith, Phys, Rev. D7 (1973) 887, Appendix A. So far, we have closed our eyes to the CP-violation in weak interactions. ‘There are a few attempts to incorporate it in a unified gauge model. See 2. RN. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972) 2023, 3. A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Letters 29 (1973) 1712. The latter scheme is based on the OC4) gauge group, which deserves attention on its own right. Quite apart from this line of development, the Higgs mechanism provides us with a means of constructing renormalizable models of strong interactions based on the notion of “field algebra”: -D. Lee, 8, Weinberg and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. Letters 18 (1967) 1029. The field algebra is the field theoretic expression for vector dominance, by equating the hadronic currents with massive gauge bosons. In the past, the mass term for the gauge bosons was put in “by hand” ~ such a procedure breaks the renormalizability of the theory. The Higgs mech- anism allows endowing the gauge bosons with masses. This was first noticed by "t Hooft: 5.G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B35 (1971) 167. ‘and has since been generalized and elaborated on: 6. BW. Lee and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. DS (1972) 3137, Appendix. 7._)Bordakei and M.B. Halpern, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972) 696. ‘These are a number of applications of this idea to hadron physics. For example "t Hooft discussed the a* — 19 mass difference from this point of view. For other applications, see 8. K. Bardakci, to be published. 9. H. Georgi and T. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Letters 30 (1973) 514, 10. D.Z. Freedman and W. Kummer, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1829. 11, A. Duncan and P. Schattner, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1861 There have been many attempts to incorporate three triplets of hadronic building blocks Guch as the HanNambu, or three-color-quark schemes) which seer better suited to correlate vas facets of hadron physics. See 12.H. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. Letters 28 (1972) 63. 13. H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. DI (1973) 561 14. M. Tonin, preprint. 15. Y. Achiman, Weinbera’s Gauge Model for Weak and Electromagnetic ateractions with Han- Nambu Quarks, Heidelberg preprint. 16. M.A.B. Beg and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Letters 30 (1973) 675. The defect of the models discussed in previous sections is their inability to accomodate hadrons in a realistic and “natural” manner. Let us illustrate this remark in terms of the scheme discussed in section 8, in which the quartet of spin } fundamental hadronic building blocks is incorporated in the Weinberg Salam model, The necessity of including four, rather than three, such objects arose from the absence of the AS = #1 neutral current, and this fact should not be considered as a defect. Rather, it must be considered as heralding, possibly, a new dimension in eR eR TRO3 FS Aber ond BA, Lee, Gauge theories hadron spectroscopy, with a new quantum number associated with the “fourth quark”. The de Feet lies in that the approximate hadronic symmetries such as SU(2), SU(3) or chiral SU(2) x SU are purely accicental in this scheme. For example, the hadronic isospin symmetry SU(2) has to be explained in this scheme asa consequence of an approximate equality of my and 214, which is not demanded by the gauge or other symmetries of the Lagrangian. It kas long been the conviction (prejudice?) of particle physicists that the proton-neutron mass difference is due to electromag: netism and possibly also due to weak interaction, so that in an ultimate theory the mass difference should be computable. In the mode! under discussion, this mass differeace is not zero even in fowest order, but is feee parameter. ‘The following papers discuss various conditions and circumstances under which intramultiplet _mass differences are computable, as well as the definition of computability 17. S, Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Letters 29 (1972) 388 18. IL Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972) 2977. 19.T. Hlagivara and B.W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 459. 20. H. Georgi and S.L. Gleshow, Phys, Rev. D8 (1973) 2457. The contral idea underlying these discussions is that any relationship which is true in lowest order in the presence of all gauge invariant, renormalization counterterms is zlso true in high orders ‘with a finite computable correction, Thus, if the mass difference within a hadronic multiplet is to be computable, the underlying hadron symmetry must not be broken by any renormalization countercerms in the Lagrangian, Future developments in model building ought to lie in the construction of models in which hadronic symmetries are accounted for naturally. There have been two important developments in this direction. The first is the works of Bars, Halpern and Yoshimura and of de Wit 21. Bars, M.B. Halpern and M. Yoshimura, Phys, Rev, Letters 29 (1972) 969. 22. B, de Wit, Nucl. Phys, BS1 (1973) 237. ‘The models proposed by these authors treat the hadronic and leptonic worlds as separate up to a point, each having its own set of gauge bosons; the two workls communicate to one another through the intermediary of a new kind of Higgs mesons which carry both leptonic and hadronic ‘quantum numbers and whose vacuum expectation values are responsible for the coupling of the two kinds of gatige bosons, in much the same way as in the field algebra. The following work is very similar to the above two in this respect: 23. J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1240. The second is perhaps more profound in its concept. Weinberg notes that under certain cit- cumstances the potential of the Higgs scalar fields cannot help but having a symmetry G larger than the gauge symmetry of weak and electromagnetic interaction). If the symmetry G is spon taneously broken so that the vacuuim expectation value of the scalar fields, determined by mini- ‘izing the potential, eaves the subgroup S, $C G unbroken, then, in lowest order, there are Goldstone bosons corresponding to the generators of the cosets G/S. Presumably in a realistic theory, the intersection G 9 S is just the U(1) corresponding to the clectrie charge conservation. ‘The Goldstone bosons corresponding to the remaining generators of the gauge group G are the unphysical Higgs scalars which become the longitudinal components of the massive veetor bosons. ‘The remaining Goldstone bosons which do not correspond to any generators of the group G of,Albers and BW Lee. Gane haves Fig. 10-1. Diggammatc representation of Lie algebnsG, zd prod Goldstone bosons. and thee ceespondence to masive and mass gauge bosons the entire Lagrangian then acquire computable masses in higher order due to the fact that the pseudosymmetry G is broken down by weak and electromagnetic interactions, and are called pseudo-Goldstone bosons. See fig. 10.1 24) Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Letters 28 (1972) 1698. 35, 8, Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 2887. The idea here is that G includes some approximate hadronic symmetry, and the pseudo-Goldstone bosons discussed here are the would-be Goldstone bosons (sich as pions) seen in nature. This view has many very profound implications on the nature of hadronic symmetries and their breaking. So far no realistic model has been written down which realizes this view.ES Abersand B.W. Lee, Gauge theories PARTIAL QUANTIZATION AND RENORMALIZATION OF GAUGE THEORIES 11.Path integral quantization One fects as Cavatieri must have felt calculating the ‘volume of a pyramid bafore the invention of the ealculus RP. Feynman in this section we develop the quantization procedure based on the notion of path integration The frst hint of this procedure appeared in a paper by Dirac in 1933; the method was perfected by Feynman in 1948. We shall first consider a quantum mechanical system with one dearee of freedom, und generalize to quantum field theory in the next section. Let Id, Oy be the Heisenberg picture state vector describing a state which at time ¢ is an cigen- state of the coordinate Qj, with eigenvalue g QO. Oy = 414. Oy, 2,40) 9 se, an where Q, is the time-independent position operator in the Schroedinger picture, and H in the ex: ponent is the Hamiltonian. The state Me la 1a Oy is an eigenstate of Q, eigenvalue q Q5!4) = alg) and lq. Oy =etigy. a1 ‘The transformation matrix element Fa tsa. = yha'. fq. 0, (g'lexp {ill — 1) Igy a3) Plays a fundamental role in quantum mechanics. We arc going to express F(Q’ 's4. 1) asa path integral. We shall subdivide the time interval into n+ 1 equal segments, and define alerts, nt ets (a) We make use of the completeness of the state vectors Igy. t) to write Ba 54.0 Sager fase) {fda XG dye dy ty Ndr trode Md Fal, 11.5) Here aad in the following, we shall drop the subscript-H and understand the state Iq, ) to mean ‘hat in the Heisenberg picture. For sufficiently large m, the time interval f, ~ f,-, cam be made as eee = LOISion, ed ene 13) th 1a) ES Abersand BW. Lee Gauge theories o small as one likes, and we may write «q',elg. 0) q"le- 11g = 8(q ~ q’) — ie q' Hig) + OC?) (11.6) where the first equality follows from (11.3). ‘The Hamiltonian H = H(P, Q) is a function of the operators P and Q. Consider the case when His of the form H=yP? + VQ). a1.2y In this case gi dy (He, Oia) = f 5? exp lipta’ - aby? + VQ] = [ Zesotint’ — pute. sara) where #1, q) is the classical Hamiltonian, We can write eq. (11.6) correct up to first order in e, as 4p ty dp no™ [ 5, explitla, ~ a. eH. 34, + GW ais) Substituting (11.9) into (11.5), we obtain for the amplitude to find q' at time ¢’ froma state which ‘was an eigenstate of the coordinate with eigenvalue q at an earlier time f, : nti dy net FQ’. t3q.)= tim TT dq, [7 Zool Daj) HO, 6Gy44,- D4 fu 19) mere mm with go=q and qn." ‘We shall streamline our notation a little bit. We write (11.10) as fea tsa. ff} exw jf oa He, aie] dui ) which is a suggestive shorthand notation for the operation implied by the right-hand side of eq, 14.10). In-eq. (ILL) aad}. (py Saar) J |S = a1.i2y We have restored briefly f = | to indicate that the functional integration is over alt phase space volume {(Aq Ap/h) for ull times between ¢ and ¢', When the Hamiltonian has the form of eq. (11.7), the p-integration on the right-hand-side of 4, (11.10) can be performed explicitly by making use of the formula rd . f Fexp ting — 4p = (2niel “1 expt ieg?). ans) The result isES. Abers and BW Lee, Gauge tieores Peers -sheteh wl fm om) ony where L is the Lagrangian, =ig—- VQ) ans) and gy = G(0) and yy 2 q'Cye,) The quantity S= fq. gar (11.16) is the action which generates the temporal development of the quantum mechanical system de- sseribed by the Lagrangian (11.15). We derived eq. (11.14) from the usual formalism of quantum mechanics. Alternatively, one can start from eq, (11.14) and derive the Schroedinger equation. All this and many otker related matters were discussed in Feynman's original paper. Ina few simple cases, the functioral integra tions in eq. (11.14) can be carried out explicitly When the Hamiltonie is not in the fort of eq. (11.7), we must be careful about specifying the ordering of the operators P and Q. We shall assume that there is a way of ordering the opera- tors in the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian H(P, Q) so that the transformation matrix ~ F(g’. tq. 0) is correctly given by eq, (11.10) for this Hamiltonian, with the understanding that whenever there is an ambiguity, the integrals over p, are to be performed before the q-integrations ‘When the Hamiltonian is not of the form of eq. (11.7), we must use eq. (11.10) to find the “ef- fective action”, Se, i.e. the quantity which, after the py integrations are performed, replaces the action in eq. (11.14). In generat, Sq¢¢ is not given by (11.16), As an illustration of this prescription, we apply it to the non-linear Lagrangian L=34°f@) aay where f(g) is @ non-singular function of q. Eq. (11-17) describes a particular class of systems with velocity-dependent potentials. The momentum p canonically conjugate to q is p= alley = aig) cand the Hamiltonian is HQ. g)= pq L= PQ" Now. trom eq, (11.19), the transformation matrix element is F.4D) =f a, te Pe stq.-<8(45-0 reso fd é Paya)? [Oy yy jh (11.18)14) 15) at ions the in vith 131 ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theores The p-integrations can be performed as before, and we obtain ET ee 5eq.-a)8tay-4° [ane 12 41“) 5ty CYC CET]. ow The last factor can be written as PAE] ale par( 9) uth ‘) «feof BS sow [e Ee toes | exp$ 60) fdr inflg) (11.20) where we have used the limits Deo far, boy > 8G,— 0). ain Finally, therefore, we can write eq, (11.16) as . nda , im f TT ragigy ia 8001-08(44-4") * a a: cool B eC = Sls ‘nal expCiS gee) an ‘shore Sere = SattL(q, 4)-i125(0) n fla) = fat Leng. @) (11.23) This result was first obtained by Lee and Yang, I Sy¢p is used to calculate transformation fu article with this Lagrangia sym tion F(q', 1';q, 0) or the scattering matrix for a in L, an infinite term will appear to cancel the explicit term we have bolically written 8(0). To do the calculation, one may go back to the explicit form in (1 before the limit n > « is taken, do the g, integrations, then take the limit n> « The advantage, or even the rationale, of following the prescription which led fo eg. (11.23) is {hat the result written in the form Foran =f| [ Z al expis(@, )) aie6 ES. Abers ond B.W. Lee. Gauge tories is manifestly invariant under point transformations of the coordinate. In general, writing the trans. Sormation function as a path-antegral enables us to express quanturn-mechanical quantities in terms of the classical Lagrangian, so that we can study the effects on quantum-mechanical quanti ties of various symunetries present in the classical Lagrangian. We develop a few properties of path integrals which will be useful in a generalization of the method to quantum field theory. First of all, the generalization of eq. (111.11) to systems with more than one degrec of freedom is straightforward. If there are NV degrees of freedom, eq. (11.11) becomes (qa Anne Ay My da et Sai)? fe f [2 pate #0. 00] fans with 4) = de Gull) = Oy For the rest of this section we restrict ourselves to N = 1; we shall use eq. (11.24) in the develop- ment of field theory. Next, instead of the simple transformation function (q’, t'lq, t), let us consider the matrix ele ment of the co-ordinate operator @ evaluated at time tg. between (q’, "| and Iq, 1). We restrict ty to lie in the interval P>t>e Now let us write ¢q', (1Q(t9)lq, £9 as in eq. (11.5), selecting fo to be one of the f, say #7, Thus Ca 11 Ut0)G. = [UT daa’, Phe ty Maar ty! dnaee Oxy 1 Giga tage Mag gigs fg OEM ig ag soln fl In eq. (11.24), we have placed the operator Q(‘o) next to one of its eigenstates, so ig: fig! QCl0) Ia» fe 1? BECOMES 4g iy Fig ig 1+ fhg—1)- The argument leading to eq. (11.10 can now proceed; nothing is changed except that an extra factor of q,, will appear under the inte- eral on the right-hand side. Instead of eq. (11.11) we now obtain i rE (a, f1OUIa. = fe aeaesp if Wa - HG. gar}. (11.28) Next, suppose we want to express POU )OG)Ig, D as 4 path integral. We proceed as above, choosing ¢, and f; to be two of the times which bound the small intervals into which the interval ¢° broken. If 4, > #2, we can write C4 OG). 9% fd das Cy ty Xp tala vt yeh, ON, - (digs ty,!OCN4}, — Dodgn tlg, 2. 1.26)ES Abert ond BW, Lee, Gauge theories After going through a series of steps analogous to those which led to eq. (11.25), we obtain ag. t1a@racenta. o= f[* Jacroatrexn ly bd — HM, lar a2 Eq. (11.27) holds only if ¢, > fy. If tz > ty, we could not have derived eqs. (11.26) and (11.27) nthe way we did. In fact, it is easy to see that if r2 > r,, the right-hand side of eq. (11.27) is equal 0 4g’, C1Q)OGIIq, 0. Therefore the path integral in eq. (11.27) is the matrix element of the time-ordered product TOE QED) lop 7 The result generalizes immediately to the product of any number of Q’s : eg FTO Qt0)..Oy) 114. 9 = f[ PE] atepatt).aley exp (1 if tea mer} - 11.28) Next we want to demonstrate a crucial theorem, Let L be a Lagrangian which does not depend explicitly on time, and let @,(q) = (ql) be the wave function of the energy eigenstate I). In particular, let go(g) be the ground state. If the system is in the ground state at a time Tin the dis- Ant past, we want to calculate the amplitude for it to be in that state at a time 7” in the distant future, when an arbitrary external source term J(f)q(t) is added to L between 7 and T’. To do this, consider . andqy fF (9.710, TF = f [EE] exp fi f toa tp, a)+ Jaler (1.29) 10 , & where J isan arbitrary function of f, except that we restrict it to be non-vanishing only between stand, where T* > 1! > ¢> 7. We can write eq. (11.29) as ey @, TQ, T= fda’ faq’. Tq’, xq", tg, O%q, 119, TY (11.30) Now (g, 110, 7) and (Q", 7'lq’,¢°) are given by formulae like (11.29) without the J(r)q(r) term Let us insert a complete set of energy eigenstates in ¢q, 110, T): (q. 19, T) = eqlexp{ iH — N}1Q9= D $,(q)6gQexp{-iE (6 - TY}. a13n ‘The T-dependence in (11.31) is known explicitly because we have required J(r) = 0 between T and t. Therefore, we can continue T along the positive imaginary axis. In that limit, all the terms with n> Odrop out, as T= ise, and a lin expl-i£o7%q, 10, T) = doa, D882), bo(4, N= dlqexp(-iE ot). (132)66 ES. Abersend BW. Lee, Gauge thcores We can do the same snalysis for (Q'T"Iy'r’). Therefore, provided Q and Q’ approach some con- stants in the limit, we have TITY i exp(-iF WT” ~ TOS (Qe Jim Soa fea’ esa’. V4". 14, eda, (11.33) r Te which is the theorem we set out to prove. The right-hand side of (11.33) is just the ground state to ground state amplitude of interest, since ¢" and —F can be taken as large as one pleases. Let us denote it, symbolically,as W{J]. Then eq. (11.33) tells us how to calculate WIJ]. Why is [7] of interest? In (11.33), btn ty> th (1134) Comparing with eq. (11.28), we see that this expression is just the matrix element of the time or- dered product T(Q(11)Q't2)..0(¢,)) between the ground state at f and the ground state at” Therefore the expression (11.34) is the ground state expectation value of a time-ordered product of co-ordinates. In field theory, these will become the Green’s functions. We shall indicate how WIJ ean be evaluated from eq. (11.33). To within a multiplicative face tor independent of J WUl~lim «719. TY Tomine or , wu ~ tim Sida oli EL gel. 2) + (Og) (11.35) rie In field theoretic applications, the multiplicative factors independent of J never matters, and we are allowed to be cavalier about it. From eq. (11.34) and the remark following it, we have TQ). QE_Wo ~ liom f day.n.d4,6Q", Ta Tenis DANG C12, 129420 4ylIye fy! Q. TD, where t > f2.. > fq, and (p denotes the ground state expectation value. Let us consider con- ining (7(Q(¢))...QU,) in f, analytically, from real to imaginary values f, = —ir,. Since sof Bet MASE, SMe q. tig’33) 5) )sulculation is posed as a problem, wi EES. Abers and BLM. Lee, Ganse theories a er -ntD, i depends on f — 1" only through e: | | | tte analytic continuation is effected by writing | cq tla’, where es (rt 1 Yat 1). » Thus the analytic continuation of (T(Q(t,)...QCt,))e may be written as OC)-LEeya-iey~ tin fidalatedate atrero| J S tae(a ist) ‘This suggests going over to an imaginary time, or Euclidean, formulation and defining We = flag) oxo| S ar[Lac(a The boundary condition to be imposed on (11,36) is that q approaches some constants as t + t=. Itis convenient, but not necessary, to take these constants to be zero. The connection between ' W{d} and Wy, (1 is that t soa} 5 (11.36) t 1 8"WeL) Well 51Cr)..51E,) aL owt aed (11.37) = o.r ‘where analytic continisation is implied on the right-hand side, Equation (11.37) is manifestly in- Es ‘dependent of the overall normalizations of W{J] and W, {J} which are independent of J. Finally, in order to illustrate the formal discussion, and especially the Euclidean formulation, wwe discuss a simple example. Consider a simple harmonic oscillator in one dimension, whose a Legrangian is, 14, )=3(q? = wg). (11.38) ‘The transformation matrix in the presence of external source J can be computed from eq. ego «im fF (11.29): » dg(t)) g Vine? (i ar{L(q(a), Go) + G7) (11.39) with the boundary condition q(t" ', q(t) = q. The integral can be worked out explicitly. The h enough hints, in Feynman and Hibbs, “Quantum Mechanics SERRE NE ETE TE ewee ES. Abors end BW. Lee, Gauge theories and Path Integrals”, p. 64. The answer is Ag’. 1g. 1Y = [eo/2ni sin wo TF)! expliQ’. #4. 0} 1.40 where Tsf-4 and Og’. t.g.0 2 [(q? + q"?) cos w T — 249") GOOF ino TTT 2a@ q He + q r a San f Jer) sin cae ~ dr + J Jeonin wot’ = nar 1 BoA ~ Senor) & f some) sin ee ~ nsin exo = ar aan We leave the derivation of eq. (11.41) as an exercise. The quantity W[J] defined in the remark following (11.33) is WIA] = 60,110, 07 = fag’ o8(a', €f da ba, 0a’, t'1g, #¥ a ) where “0” in (11.42) means the ground state, not the state with eigenvalue 0 for the coordinate; 0 is the ground stete wave function of the simple harmonic oscillator: bold. 7) = (wo/n)'* exp(—j eq? Jexp(~i jor) (11.43) $0 that the integrals over q and q’ are just Gaussian integrals. The result is oy 0 t Gof i , ~ (0, 110,07 = eo if eo fornor[s, exp (-io(o = nije} : (11.44) We will make the result more general by extending the limits on the integrals from —» to 4, “Thus, if we are interested in the effect on the oscillator of the force term for just the period ¢ to 1’, we may restrict J(7) to vanish outside of this interval. Finally, we shall write eq. (111.44) as [see, R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 80 (1950) 440} iv. 7 wis) so 5 Jf a f do J(r) D,(r ~ (a) (11.45) where XG) (0(De-# + O(- 1oier) (11.46) ies40) An 42) ite; 43) 44) to 45) 46) / the term (5L,/5q)(dy/ar) is FS. Abersond BW. Lee, Gauge theories 6 Notice that yt Swi is? ayes - | =F a yy 47 D-H 51E08H0)| p57 KOBE) "| aia7) In the Euclidean formulation (11.36), we have Wet) = faq) exp {8,1} ae) where SUI= f dr bglr), bg = H(dg/dr)? + 302g? ~ Sn)q(a). 1.49) We expand q(7) around q(r9), writing 4(r) = qo(r) + (7), and then expand 5, in powers of y, SQ =Selq* f [ f(y 2 + art 4(2) +2 >| ar 11,50) we laeutt LLG) Fr] aso We wish to choose go(r) so that the term in (11.50) linear in y vanishes. If the boundary condition is taken to be q(r = #00) = 0, we require qo(r = +) = 0 also. Then the surface terms vanish when integrated by parts, and we require that qa(r) satisfy the classical «quations of motion: d ile bLp dr 8q(7) =o. ast (TY) g =aots) IICq is allowed to approach non-zero constants q, in the limits r+ 49, we may require qa > 0 and y+ q,. Then there will be surface terms equal to de(+=)q, in (11.50). However, from the seneral solution below it is evident that qo(¢) = 0 if qo(#) vanishes. | Now we insert eq. (11.50) into eq. (11.48) and perform the integral over paths, The term Encat in y has disappeared, so we write [Ee ey 2 Well ~ expi—Se(qa)} f TT ane) | - ‘The integration over y(7,) is just a number, independent of J, so we are left with WU] ~ exp{-S,(go)}- 1.52) Let us evaluate qo(J). From eq. (11.51) &e > (Ss ~o'] ain = 109, 1.33)0 ES. Abers.and BL: Lee, Gauge theories Define a Euclidean Green’s function Dy(r) by eo ar o] Dy) = 5(r) (11.54) with the boundary condition lim,.,., Dy(r) = 0. The solution is ay oe gw Ded=— f seh ctnaD: (LSS) and therefore alr) =~ f Delt ~ 0) (0) do. 1.56) [With other boundary conditions, the most gencral solution is (11.56) plus the generat solution to the homogeneous equation, namely, Ae-#* + Be". If qo approaches a constant at both + and ~=», A = B = 0, and it follows from (11.56) that Gol) = 0 alse.) Now in the definition (11.49) of Sy. we substitute coqo(x) from eq. (11.53), integrate by parts, to obtain, using eq. (11.56) Sx€qo)=—+ f Mdqdrdr=+ f dr f do d(r g(r - oso) as7) so that, from (11.52) Weld ~ exp {4 Jf drdo Heer - ono} (11.58) or . -5'W gL) Pe TT BIDET) | go We can get the propagator D.(t) by analytic continuation in r, by rotating counter-clockwise from real r to imaginary 1: Dt) =i Dg (it) (11.59) which yields eq. (J 1.46) immediately. Note that the functional integral in (111.36) is a well behaved Gaussian (or more precisely, Wisner-Hopf) integral. Our notation may be simplified by writing the real time, ground-state to ground-state amplitude (11.49) as mui ~ fraacresol FEC) =H" sing +4006000) | (11.603ES. Abers nd BAM Lee. Gauge thooriet n Then we can repeat the imaginary time analysis using (1.60) directly, to obtain eqs. (11.45) and (11.46) the ie in (111.60) serving to select the correct boundary contlition on the propagator: aa 7 dy expt-ivt) DEO a J Wut tie’ 55) Foc the path integra formulation of quantum theory, the basic papers are 1 PAM. Dirac, Physik. Z, Sowjetunion 3(1933) 64. 2. RP. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 (1948) 267, 3. RP. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 80 (1950) 440, + Theseate reprinted in 4.3, Schwinger (e.), Quantum Electtodynainics (Dover Publications, New York. 1958). iesibook i avilable on this subject: S: RP. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs, Quantura Mechanics and Path Integrals (MeGraw-ti, New York, 1965). a ‘er the path integral formulation of ea. (T1.1 1) see 5.C.Garrod, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 (1966) 483. steako 7. RJ. Finkelstein, 3.8. Kvitsky and J.0. Mouton, Phys. Rev. D4 (1971) 2220 for an excellent review of this subject. arts, The effective action for the velocty-dependent potential wes fist obisined by 8.TD. Lee and C.N. Yang. Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 888, | Bibfography | | | (Canonical transformations are discussed in any good book an classical mechanies. For exumple | 57) >) 8.1. Gotdstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison Wesley, Reading. Mas. 1989) ehapter 8 | ‘The problem of operator ordering ofa velocity dependent potential has been discussed in 1. T. Kawai Progress Theos. Phys 48 (1970) 2082: Kamo and Kawai, to be published; and references cited therein See ako 3) {eS De, Rew Mo, Phys. 29980 377 | 58) 1 kS. Chang dh Pye 13 97D 1, | fr dation of Strings equation ora ls-depenent pos, wih amount te dering sapere | | | assitlontan which corresponds tothe path integzal formulation This sction incorporates several useful rentark ofS. Coleman, D. Grossand S.8.T 12, Path integral formulation of field theory Physics — Where the Action Is, ‘Anonymous 59 | We have remarked that the generalization of the considerations in section 11 to many degrees of freedom is immediate. The transformation function is given by (11.24), which is a shorthand for A Mn Wot dpglty) lim TT TT @aatty TT 5 50) nw as) +44) X exp {i D ( D Paltaalty) — daly = att (pu, say) a2.y tle , 2ES. Aberzand BW, Lee, Gauge theories Eq. (12.1) can be applied to field theory. Consider a neutral scalar field 6(x). Let us subdivide space into cubes of dimension €? and label them by an integer a. We define the ath coordinate dealt) = G_h0) by (=> f Proce, ), ey where the integration is over the ath cell of dimension €®, We can also rewrite the Lagrangian as L= fd'x2> De 266.00, bal). 64250) where (0) is the average of ap(x, 1)/a¢ over the ath cell and ¢4.2, is the average value of the field in the neighboring cell « + s. The canonical momenta p, conjugate tog, are aL ake Pad) = a5 (8° 36,(0 The Hamiltonian is H= Dpba- b= De Hy, al). Ha = Mabe — Ly = KalFas bas Gas) We may now write the expression (12.1) as lim m0 Ta.) TT £ dnt) carne xexpl[i bebe {re @ = foo [Ss where we defined the momentum density conjugate to o(x, ¢) by a(x, 1) = a.L/agix, 1) Its coll average is just the #,(0) defined above. In field theory, all physical quantities are derivable from the vacuum-to-vacuum transition am- plitude in the presence of external sources. The physical vacuum is the ground state, and plays the same role as the state whose wavefunction is @9(q) in eg. (11.33) ‘This amplitude, which we shall call Iv{/], can be calculated from eq. (12.2) with a term: JePxJ(x, p(x, 0 added to the Lagrangian, in the limit f+ ©, + —e. That is tall Balt bl #OaAtj—1) dart) Canta) (rn. 5 2 ) ar] cvohf arf [res n? ie Doe, | 12.2)as am ‘s ES. Abers ond B.W. Lee. Gauge theorlet B wu) = fldor| Zan] exp] if atetnesrgce) — 900) Fick Jo9e68))] 23) ‘Theextra term fic 9? is simply a symbolic way of indicating how to rotate the time-integration contour to pick out the correct limit as indicated on the left-hand side of eq. (11.33). More on thiskater. Now it follows from eq. (11.34) and the discussion following it that 5rd BMC )BI(%2)-- In) ITP )G(%2) (pO = PE ky) 12.4) J0 where G is the n-point Green’s function, the vacuum expectation value of the time-ordered pro- duct of 1 fields. The fact that the Green’s functions may be defined by (12.4) was first dis- covered by Schwinger, and does not depend on the path-integral formula (12.3) for 1V[/]. How- ‘ever, eq, (12.3) provides not only a simple proof of (12.4), but an explicit formula for com- puting WU}. Fa, (12.4) gives the complete Green’s functions. In general, these inchide some contributions from disconnected vacuum to vacuum diagram, which are simply products of lower order Green's functions. The connected graphs are given by Cor awit Cu) WE Te pbhoD aa or, writing, WU] = exp{iZ[41 }, (12.6) Goon.) = (ir) 2 12.7) BI). BIO,) ‘The proof that the connected parts of the n-point function is given by eq. (12.7) is left as an exercise. When the Hamiltonian density takes the form (x) = PO) + (1G). VEO] (12.8) ‘The s-integrations can be carried out explicitly, and we obtain WUT ~ f db lexp ti [L260 + JO) dtx} 2.9) ‘here 2(x) is the Lagrangian density 20) = 306)? — M190), VO] When we discuss vector meson theories, the form (12.9) will be inadequate and we shail have {0 use the original form (12.3). Asan example, however, let us first consider a cese where (12.9) isapplicable,ES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theories Let us concentrate, for definiteness, the case in which the Lagrangian is of the form £2,420, = 310,07? — 6") (12.10) and Ly = 249). The functional WJ] of eq. (12.9) is in general an ill-defined integral even in the “lattice” approxi- mation. Recent advances in axiomatic field theory indicate that if one can construct a well-be- haved field theory in the Euclidean space (x, ¢), obeying certain appropriate axioms, then there is.a corresponding field theory in the Minkowski space (x,, x) as the analytic continuation of the former as 7 = ix, which obeys the Wightman axioms. Thus any ambiguities should be resolved by appealing to the Euclidicity Postulare, namely that the Green's functions (12.5) are the ana- lytic continuation of those defined by the well-defined functional integral in the Euclidean field theory WU = ftastesn| Sorsar[ GE) + or +wre -24@-s6]} . Note that since -&; is bounded from below the quantity in the square bracket in the exponent above is also bounded from below. As we anticipate, the Euclidicity postulate determines the boundary conditions to be imposed on propagators. For the present problem it means that we may provide a camping factor for the functional integration by adding a term in 2,: L. > T1@yO? — wg? + eg?) as we did in eq, (12.3). First, consider the free field case: WU) = fldolexpti fotxt(00)* ~ $u%9? + Lies? +46) = lim sa 46, exe [Be De tb, Keote* Delete \] (2.11) Here, « labels space-time cells of dimension e*, and the matrix Kya is such that lim Keg = (-0? = 4? + ie) — v) fo where a + x and 6+ y ase + 0. The ¢-integrations in eq. (12.11) can be performed explicitly. We obtain tr WUT = lim — oT = lin rasa V2 where, of course, K~' is the inverse of K: Dh (Kg 6 7 wn [ He De Dev, KS] 8ES. Abers ond BW. Lee, Gage theories 7 10h 02.12) ) Ase 0, we have sroxi + 8x =y), ea so, with the definition the i SOs + Ap =), > ¢q.{12.12) may be written, in the continuum limit ¢ + 0, as (8 = uP ied gC — y) = Gr — yD, (2.13) ‘Therefore, neglecting an inessential multiplicative factor, we can write i WU] = exp(—3i fatx [atv Ae — yO) 12.44) where ) 2.15) is the Feynman propagator. Now we are ready to discuss the interacting case. Returning to eqs. (12.10) and (12.11), we write | WU ~ fldelexptifatxte, +2\¢) +401} rn 15 ) sewr[i farve,(t pr )ftasiowtifarete, +01} 18 i ~ exofifatee,(t juga) |w$0 fats for FOAL = YO. 02.16) Equation (12.16) is the basis for the Feymman-Dyson expansion of the Green's functions of this ‘theory, and when itis substituted in eq. (12.4), we obtain a formula which generates Green's functions. W{J] can be expanded in powers of 2,, for example, by simply expanding the ex- Ponential factor oobivalt fl) -3 Selma What corresponds to Wick’s theorem is simply the rule for functional differentiation’ LE NEES LLG TNT EYES. Abersand BW. Lee, Gauge theories 8 Fr Mr). The student should convince himself the rules outlined here are in fact the Feynman rules dis- cussed in the second volume of Bjorken and Drell. In fact, collateral reading of the first six section of Chapter 17 of this book is urged In order to quantize fermion fields by the method of path integrations, it is necessary to in- troduce the concept of anticommuting c-numbers. We shall forgo this though, because the incor poration of fermion fields presents no special problem in quantizing a gauge theory. Ingeneral, 2, isa function of ¢ as well as 4, and eq. (12.4) is inadequate. Just as in the one- dimensional example discussed in the preceding lecture, we shall see, the action of eq, (12.16) must then be replaced by an “effective action”, which contains a correction to the integral over the Lagrangian. In that case, the correct Feynman rules are modified, and cannot be directly read off the Lagrangian, Bibliography For the Luclidisn Field Theory ad its connection to the Minkowsky field theory, see 1.3.4. Schwinger, Pro. Nat. Acad. Se. 44 (1958) 956, 2. K. Symansi, in Proc. tater, School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course XLV, ed. R. Jost (Academic Pres, N.., 1968). 3.E. Nelson, Construction of Quantum Fields from Markov Files (to be published); The Free Maskor Fields (a be pablished. 4. Ostersatder and R Schrader, Phys, Rev, Letters 29 (1972) 1423. ‘The view of taking (12.1) asthe basis of quantization rather than (12.8) was frst expounded by’ $.L.D, Fedde'ev, Theoret. Math. Phys (1969) 3 Engl. rash. by Consultant Breau 1 (1968) 1}. ‘The idea tha the Green's function canbe obtained from vatition ofthe vseuumto-racum am amexterna source term i due to Sehwingee, Seo, for example 16.4, Sehwinge, Proe. Nat, Aead, Sei 37 (1951) 452. 7.D. Lurie, Particles and Fics (Interscience, New York, 1968) Chapter 10, and roferences cited therein, 13. The Yang+ field in the Coulomb gauge We wish to apply these path-integral methods to theories with gauge vector mesons. Indeed, it is in this case that the method becomes a powerful tool both to discover the correct Feynman rules and to study renormalizat the canonical Wick theorem methods become awkward. We shall study the three-component Yang-Mills field, although the generalization to other com ' Pact non-Abelian groups is immediate. In this section, we work out the canonical formalism in the Coulomb gauge, and construct the IV[J} function, starting from the basic equation (12.3). In later sections we shall study gauge-invariance and work out the Feynman niles in a more mani- festly covariant gauge. It is convenient to write out the Yang-Mills Lagrangia the first-order formulation, in which A, and F,, are treated as independent co-ordinates: Fyy° FY — 3B, “(QAP — YAH + gAH x AP). a3) Gold-face symbols, dots and crosses all refer to isovectors and operations among them; we write out the space-time vector indices explicitly.)dis. « seetio, ished) ed, an ward. com in 3). In ni vhich 13.) write ES. Abersend BLM. Let, Gate theories ” ‘The Lagrangian (13.1) is invariant under infinitesimal gauge transformations gl) > Ayla) # WC) XAG) = Fy Fy FX Eye 03.2) “The Euler-Lagrange equations, Fu = Quy ~ AA, HRA, x A, 13.3) and OF, +gA" X F,, = 0. 13.4) Equations (13.3) and (13.4) fogether are equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations of the sxcond-order formulation, in which 2, is written in terms of A¥ and a*A* only. Im classical field theory, one is given an initial configuration of fields in a space-tike hyperplane and then one tries to determine the fields at later times. Equations (13.3) and (13 4) can he sparated into two classes: those which specify the temporal evolutions of the fields are called equations of motion; the others are constraint equations. From (13.3) and (13.4), the equati of motion for A, and F.,, are Ay = For # (Vj + BA, X)AQ (13.5) 8,F oj =; +8A; X)Fy — 8A, X Fay (13.6) a, Next, let us determine the independent variables. Since 5.2/6(8,A,) = -F™ 3.7) F,, = -F°" are the momenta canonically conjugate to A,. Since Lis independent of 0,A°, A° does not have a conjugate momentum, and must be treated as a dependent variable. The constraint equations are Fy =2,A, — A, +8, X Ay (13.8) which defines F,, in terms of A, at equal times, and a HBA XIE eg =O 3.9) which tells us that not all the conjugate momenta F,, are independent (eq, (13.9) is analogous to V-E=0 in ordinary electrodynamics). It follows that net all the Ay can be treated as inde- pendent, and we are forced to impose a gauge condition, We choose the Coulomb gauge: Vp Ay = 0. 3.10) This is always possible because of the ge invariance of the second kind of the Lazr igs8 ES Abers ond BLM. Lee, Gauge theories Eq. (13.10) means that A must be transverse. Therefore, the longitudinal component Ft, of the canonical momentum F,, is not independent, but depends on the other degrees of freedom through the constraint equation (13.9). F4, and the transverse component FT, can be defined FucPh Fh, UR SVR. MOF =0. «3a Our task is now to express A, and Fl; in terms of the independent variables and construct the Hamiltonian, Let us write FL=-Vif, FA, ot E, ViFoi= -V7E (13.12) where E, is purely transverse. Therefore E, and the transverse components of A, are the indepen- dent variables conjugate to one-another. From the constraint eq. (13.9), we find that (W? +A, X VA = ZA, x E, 13.13) Equation (13.13) can be formally solved by introducing a Green’s function ®,, defined as the solution to (8759 +g cOPALV, DM (x, yA) = 545g (x ~ y). 13.14) Then f isa solution of (13.13) if Sy, D= a fPy DLC. y; Me tAg(. DELL, 1. (13.15) Considering D, to be an integral operator, we may write (13.15) as, f=gO.-A, x Ey ‘The function ®, has no closed form, but can be expanded in a power series in g. The first ap- proximation is just the Green’s function for the Lagrangian, and 500 te fe nix)! afte in analogy to the method for finding the Green’s function for H, +H’ where i is small and the Green's function for H,, is known. We obtain an equation for A, by taking the divergence of eq. (13.5) and using (13.10) and 3.1). 1 De, PAE 1 ecrgcy, —1 13.16 wai PARMA Bip oai Ch) (WP +E, xX VDA, = VE 3.17) which can be solved using ., since the operator in brackets is the same as in eg. (13.13): Able, 12 fly DEO, AVEO, O or A = 0.0%. (13.178) Now we construct the Hamiltonian density 9%sin the hid ea 131 the 14) fo) he 1m Ia) ) ES. Abers ond BW. Lee, Geuse tories 19 aA, =E-—-2 (3.18) H=E; a From (13.5), (13.11), (13.12) and (13.17a) we find that = =E,—V,ft(¥, +g, x) D, Vf =E, —[V,-(0, +24, x) ®VE, (13.18a) Because of (13.14), the operator in brackets operating on f'is explicitly transverse. From (13.18a) and (13.13) of (13.15), forse, forte; + aE, xX A): D,-V7f] " efoete = £-04) = f Px TEP + 09,081 and UF gy PHY — $F, (YAY ~ YAH + 2A" X AY = FFoy)? 3 (B,)? = FCB, — 94? — (By)? (13.19) where B,=3e*F,. So the Hamiltonian is A=} fatee +87 +09") 13.20) ‘The last term is like the familiar instantaneous Coulomb interaction which occurs in electro- dynamics when quantized in this gauge. Now we can write the Coulomb gauge generating functional W¢ {J} in terms of the indepen- dent co-ordinates and momenta, A, and E,, where T stands for “Transverse”, according to ea, (12.3): Wel] = fdEF) (dA Texp WO -HIR-AL Ay a32p where fis a function of Ef and AT as expressed in (13.15). [We write the source term with @ negative sign, so that the covariant version below will have +A¥J,.] The transverse field EY js difficult to compute with. Therefore we introduce a dummy variable EL by SloEF) = ftdEF }(4E*) TT 5(e4) a3. at tE, Ay — SER 4B and define three independent components E, by 1 (,-vd9,) et Fev het (3.23) aah80 ES. Aborsend BM. Lee, Gauge theories in an obvious notation. From (13.23). EL=VE, and therefore Slade? = fae 1977 40,5) where 9 is the Jacobian of the transformation from the three E, to ET, EL, and tdE,) = TT fl 1] de). To give 9a meaning, we should go back to the definition of (dE,] as a limit of an approxima- tioa with a finite number of lattice points. In the limit, 9+ ©, but in a way independent of the fields, so it is just a multiplicative factor in We [J] which doesn’t matter. The same construction works for A?. Therefore, Well = Sd, (AA,) TT 6¢¥,E, 507.4, expt fate LEA, -$ER1B2—L(V,*-Ay gh . (13.24) AL this point, we could examine (13.24) and obtain the Feynman rules in the Coulomb gauge. But they wouldn’t be covariant, and the Lorentz covariance of the S-matrix will not be obvious throughout the calculation. It isn’t useful to do calculations in the Coulomb gauge; the Coulomb gauge is the one in which the form IV{J] is most easily obtained from first principle. The S-matrix, of course, is covariant and gauge invariant, so it must be possible to find a more covariant-looking form of W,[/] than (13.24), In (13.24), f is a function of E and A given by eg. (13.15), We introduce f as a dummy variable by multiplying eq. (3.24) by the constant flansir— 20, -A,x ED (13.25) where by @ + we mean the operation in (13.15). Since (13.15) is equivalent to (13.13), we write (13.25) as flatldet m,509? +A, x VE 8 A,X E,) (13.26) where det Af, is the Jacobian of the transformation from f to (V? +8 A, X V)f.M, isa matrix in X=¥ space as well as isospin space: MEX, 3) = (V? 820 +g eEAFIV, EN — y) = V2[5S Cx — y) +g EMBL. ALOT, 66% — YQ) (13.27) where V°G(x, ») = 53(x — »). Now, eq. (13.24) becomes Wel = fIdA,1AE,1 (attaet a1, 11 819, TT 8(0,E,)8 19? +8 A, x Vp BAX El expli (Ep: Ay 4G + BE + (0,08 J,-A,}eel. (03.28)ES. Abers nd B.W. Lee, Gauge theories a Next we change variables from E, to F,), defined by For Bs Wh (13.29) Then, in (13.28), we write > (Eat) TT 6¢V, EDS CV? +g A, x VF ~8A,x E,] = (dFor] (a) TT 8(V,F,, + V°N8( Vf —g A, x F, ol (OF 5/1 (461 1] 8¢°V, Fy, +2 A, x F,,)8(0%F ~ g A, x Fy). (13.30) | ‘oxima Now we consider the {df} integration, using the last 5-function in (13.30). The Jacobian is re of th just det A*, an infinite constant which we drop (or absorb into the definition of Mo). Thus {I | {i ers Wel = fldA,]tdF det Me [1 8(V,A)5(VF,, +8 A, x F,)) i ! I). x expti fate Fay 0,4, — }F2, — H(V,A, ~ VA teAX A) -5,-A}}. 13.31) ie) {jd (13.24) ‘To obtain the exponent in (13.31), we have written in the exponent in (13.28) } i reaupe, (ER + (VAI? = (Ey — Vf = FR, | j vious | rulor) _ omitting the cross-term which vanishes upon integration over x. + Next we write the 6-function as an integral, using A, as the dummy variable: . amore aa, 1 1 by eq. TT 8,F, +A, x F,,) = (fs Sexptia, (VF — 8A, x F,)} I (13.25) | ~ flaa,lexptifarxF,, WA, x A, V/A.) (13.32) | ve 1 Finally, we write the term 4(,A, — V/A, +4 A,X A,)? In the exponent in (13.31) as | Slur exp tite, -F, — 18, (WA, VA, +A, X ADI) 3.33) | (13.26) | “hich isa standard Gaussian integral. Putting (13.33) and (13.32) into (13.31), and restricting J,, trix in | tbe zero, we obtain Well] = faa, i{4F,,14et a, TT 8¢9,A,) % expt fae (SP oy Feith Fy Fy Fy (VA/-V Ate AX A)HF, (2,A,~V,A, 4A, X A] Por Forte Ry By FF y (V,A,—VjAptg AXA) HE (2,A,~V,A,, 13.27) : = faa, } (dF, 1det afy [T A(T Aexp {i fale + J*-A,]} 13.34) _ Mere it not for the factor det Mc, (13.34) implies that one could get the Feynman rules directly ftom 2. The extra factor is analogous to the correction obtained in section 11 for a velocity-de- 13.28) Pendent potential FETE ae RE mee een: Pot iceme een eke ee SERED EIEN8 ES. Abersand B.W. Lee, Gauge theories How do we interpret det Me? From (13.27), det Mfg = det V? = dot (7421 3.35; where Log G(x, PAGO) VAC os = 55% — y) 13.36) Now det V? is an infinite constant, and det(/ + L) = exp Tr log(/ +L) exp fey dt Te L (vy a9) On Sadak Oye 80. 33) n ‘The trace inside the integral is over isospin indices only. We shall encounter Jacobiens like det Mg in the next few sections. Eq. (13.37) is a general formula for evaluating them. In our case det(4L) = ens [-2 Jorr..dy, far ofp A 01. OV),GGs1. xYT-A, 63, OV,0U0 23) LTAy, ge OV), Gye vl] : (13.38) where (7*),, = e®¢ and Tr means trace over isospin indices. Since (13.38) is a power series in the exponent, it is an effective correction in each order to the Feynman rules obtained from 2 alone. Bibliography The presentation inthis letute i 1. V.N. Popov and L.D. Fadde'v, Pert See ako 2. LD. Fadds'ey aed V.N. Popov, Phys, Leters 25B (1967) 29 to and inspzed by jon Theory for Gauge Invariant Fields, Kiev ITP report (unpublished). 14, Intuitive approach to the quan ization of gauge fields Equation (13.34) can be further simplified. We can perform the functional integration over Fi, and obtain WL = fldd,ldet Me F] aCVAWDexp Ci fa*L (x) + 3,60) AMAID a4 where 2(x) is the second-order Lagrangian: L0)= 4Q,A,— A, 2A, X AY)? Except for the factor det Mg Tl, 6(¥,A,(x)), eq. (14.1) is in the standard form for simple field theories(13.35) 13.36) 13.37) al 2X3). 13.38) to er 4.) ld BS Abersand 2: ee, Gauge Heories 8 wii ~ ftdolexp (i fats (26) +100)6(0)1 } 42) ‘The following intuitive argument due to Faddeev and Popov shows very clearly the raison d'etre for this extra factor. ‘The reason eq. (14.2) is not applicable to the gauge theory is that the quadratic part of the Losrangian SQA, ~ 3,A,)d'x = fdtxdty (B%gh — BI) — y) is singular, in the sense that the operator K#” which defines the quadratic form is singular and cannot be inverted. In fact, the operator K*” is essentially a projection operator for the transverse components of A,,. This means, in particular, that the Euclidean version of the functional integral of cq. (12.2) [see the discussion following eq. (12.10)] has no Gaussian damping factor with re- spect to the variation of the longitudinal component of A,,, and eq. (14.2) is meaningless at this elementary level even in the Euclidean formulation. More generally, the action is invariant under the gauge transformation A, ~ Ag where Af is the result of applying the element g of the gauge group G to the field A, : Ay (3) K(x, AO), Ke, y) AGL ve[a,-L+2 vex, ve)]u@). 143) To put it differently, the action is constant on the orbits of the gauge group, which are formed by all Af for fixed A,, and g ranging all over G. Thus, the path integral for the vacuum-to-vacuum anplitude W(J) diverges even in the Euclidean formulation, since for those variations of A, which are along the orbits, the action does not provide necessary damping, Faddeev and Popov pointed out that the amplitude W{J = 0] is therefore proportional to the “volume” of orbits T,dg(x), and this factor should be extracted before defining W{J].. In other words, for the gauge fields, the path integral is to be performed not over all variations of the gauge fields, but rather over distinct orbits of A, under the action of the gauge group. To implement the above idea, we shall choose a “hypersurface” in the manifold of all fields Which intersects each orbit only once. This means that if SA) = , a=1,2,..N 44) is the equation of the hypersurface, N being the dimension of the group, the equation SoA) = Must have a unique solution g for given A,,. We are going to integrate over this hypersurface, in- siead of integrating over the manifold of all fields. The conditions f,(A,) = 0 define a gauge; the Coulomb gauge f,(A,,) = V,A? is an example. Before proceeding further, let us patise here to review briefly a few simple facts about group Nepresentations. Let g, g€G. Then ge’eG, and O@)UG') = Ugg"). ‘The invariant Hurwitz, measure over the group G is an integration measure on the group space “hich is invariant in the sense thata4 . ES. Abersand B.W. Lee, Geuge theories If we parametrize Uig) in the neighborhood of the identity as U(g)=1 + iu-L + Ow), then in the neighborhood of the identity we may. always choose dg= [du,, gel Let us define the quantity 4,[A,] by Ayla) FLT dete) 11 SUALO) 47) The “naive” expression for the vacuum-to-vacuum amplitude is JSleA,) expt fa'x.209} (143) ‘We may insert the leftchand side of eq. (14.7) into the integrand of eq. (14.8) without changing anything: SElaeootaa,a,(ayt FL sicageorterrtifarxeta,eo). 149) Now, in the integrand of eq. (14.9) we can perform a gauge transformation on Ay(x) A,(x) > [A,()]*, Under the gauge transformation (14.3) the action and the metric are in= Variant, and one can verify easily from eqs. (14.5) and (14.7) that 4,fA,.] is gauge invariant: astag) = fT de) IT BUCA OD)! = f Tages cago) = fT ae" M1 ouzcag'oon = 4714, 1, or AAAg] = Oy, 1. (14.10 So, eq. (14.9) is equal to : TI gee) faa laytAy) TT SUA exp li fatx2 1A, 001} and we find that the integrand of the group integration is independent of g(x). This is the obser- vation of Fadeev and Popov, who saw that /TI, dg(.x) is simply an infinite fector independent of fields. Therefore, it can be divided out, and WIJ] may be defined as We) = fl2A,14A,1 TT BUA lexpti fatst2e + 34x) -A,001). a4atp Itis to the credit of Faddeey and Popov that they also gave the canonical derivation of eq. (13.#4) as discussed in the preceeding section, as well as this clegant argument. Before demonstrating the connection between eqs. (14.1) and (14.11) above, we shall compute A,LA,] SorryES. Abersond BW. Lee, Gauge theories 8s since the factor 4,fA,] is multipled by IT, 5{/(A,,(x))1 in eq, (14.11). it suffices to compute tne former only for A, which satisfies eq. (14.4), Now define Ml, by JAARON = FLAC + J oy DUAL Lx, y gptg) + O02). (04.12) (14.6) + -pyen from eq. (14.7) we find that © ap tad =f TTT taucosu,cagconn) = STH TMtau,cosem,u)) (471 ee A, satistying f,(A,) = 0,50 that AplA,] = det My = exp (Trin M,}. 14.13) ‘The hypersurface equation f, ~ 0 is just the gauge condition, and for the Coulomb gauge adopted in the preceeding section, we have TAA,)=V,Ap=0 (49) ad L(A EVAR + (995 — ge AE V,)uglx) + OlU) © 1 2 {gab ve 4 , Ce, May ~ 0? (B5Y ~ 2° AF) 8G — 9) ~ [A Phys aay which shows that eq. (14.1) is indeed a special case of eq. (14.11) above for f, = V,Ag The form of eq. (14.11) suggests using a wide range of gauges order than the Coulomb gauge. For the moment, we shall not ask what relations the Green's functions generated in such a gauge bear to those defined in the Coulomb gauge, but merely note the explicit form of 4, when the manifestly covariant Laudau gauge condition 4.10) FACS 0 is chosen. Equation (14.12) takes the form #AG(3) = 08A,0) + Pu + g0"(A, X u)] + Olu’) & SP sO that Mf, is given by 1 ULC, han = 2 Bap — Be apeAGO*)E — ¥) (14.15) 41) d when A, is restricted to aA, = 0. Therefore removing the trivial factor (1/g)0*, we have 3.34) i AL = det M, ~ exp{Tr Int] +L)) 4.16) Fe atiraua ancammine tear iee eeepersis kta Ne ARENAS 86 ES Abersond B.M. Lee, Gauge theores where a (% alLly, B= geyyeJ Dg — 2AG(2) —B%r — ya More explicitly we can write A, tex [2 tfers. dt THa™D pry — xa)t- AO )04D pls — x5) 1 Dy bv ~sot-axeroi} Here we have used the conventional notation (2 + iDp6x =») = 54 - y), The ie, € > 0, is chosen according to the Euclidicity postulate. The necessity of having the extra factor AyIl, 5 /(A,(x)} was first noted by Feynman. We can write eq. (14.11) as - 4 WAS = JlA,) FT BLAA,CODI exp lilSgee + fax3#0x) “A, C1) (14.18); where Bee= [etx —i Te In M,. In the case of the Landau gauge, it has been observed that the additional term in the effective ac tion -i Tr In Mf, can be viewed as arising from loops generated by a fictitious isotriplet of complex scalar fields ¢ obeying Fermi statistics, whose presence anc eractions can be described by the action S.5-- fatulaet(n) -,c6x) + g0%ct(x) A,X) x e(2)] ~ fatxaty D cf CUM LO, Yeote. That is, eq. (14.18) may be written as MUL = SOaA,1 [1 SLA,CODIf det Kael exp fits +s, + fax 20-A,co]], 4.19) In fact it is not difficult to show that the c- and ct-integrations could be carried out trivially if they were commuting c-numbers, yielding Sidct) Lac] expliS,) ~ (det My" = exp(—Tr in, }, and exp{—Tr In My} ~ exp[—Tr In +L} mexp{-TrL +4 Trl? Ltep1 an 18) 19) nee ities ereeer rman enerrerr renee oe gE ST TORRE TERA STM NN L ES. Aberond BW. Lee, Gauge theories 87 etre the terms ia the exponent may be viewed as arising from loops of the complex boson fields wif the ¢ are fermion fields, then the terms TrL" have to be multiplied byan extra ~ sign, so that wwe hove IF Tr ‘fiact det expGs,) ~ exp 7 Tr L-} Trt... + = exp(Tr In( + L)} ~ det My, ‘The Feynman rules for I, (J] of eq. (14.19) can be worked out in much the same way as we tid for a scalar field theory in section 12. The gauge boson propagator is determined from wal = ftaa,) [1 800"A,corexn[i fors| 2,4, 2A)? + JO asco) (14.20) A convenient way of computing eq. (14.20) is to write [1o[a"a,oo1 ~ Jim, exo [S: forsora,cor'} : [We have discarded ai ite constant 1, 77a.) Then we have 1 EUL = im, ftaA, exofif- fers A,e) [ ag + 980? (1 Jamo + fare P00-A,00]] im ex) fatrary JG) DEG = ys0)1,0) «a4ziy eno where the vector boson propagator Df” in this gauge is @ Qn \ pe —re= SE ete em pte f atk Dex — y= -S&e exp tik: (x — y)} and is four-dimensionally transverse. The rest of the Feynman rules can be derived as in the scalar case. They are recorded in the following fig. 14.1. In addition, the following rules must kept in mind: the ghost-ghost-vector vertex is “dotted”, the dot indicating which ghost line is differentiated; a ghost line cannot be dotted at both ends, a ghost loop carries an extra minus sign. 14.22) Beri (1422) Bibliography We have given the references to the work of Fuddeev snd Popov inthe preceeding setion; in adition, we cite |.NB. Konopleva and V.N. Popov, Kabbrovchaye Polya (Atomizdat, Moscow, 1972), in Russian ‘Qvansiaation of the gauge folds has been dlscussed sso in 2. RP. Feynman, Acta Phys. Polonies 26 (1963) 697. 3.B. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1195, 1238. 5. Mandeltam, Phys. Rev. 175 (1968) 1580. IS-ES. Fradkin and IV. Taytin, Phys. Letters 308 (1969) 562; Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 2641 6.8.7. Vetuman, Nock Phys. B21 (1970) 288. 7.6." Hooft, Nuel Phys. B33 (1971) 173.ES Abers end BW. Lee, Gauge theories vomets pase venners iS yrto) |-8°*[(que-Duvr/o? up rapysi" eS toa] eli aro,, peaweed | 16-7 guet(-p).on] 555 08,,) Sesto ie, dye-G5e 5p prowess [atthe 6 -2icipl fave? yaaa | py oa Fig. 14.1. Feynman rules inthe YangMils theory. Solid lines are vector mesons. Dashed fines ae scalar ghosts, 15. Equivalence of the Landaa and Coulomb gauges Formally, the S-matrix computed in the Landau gauge is the same as that computed in the Coulomb gauge, An element of the unrenormalized S-matrix is obtained from the corresponding Green's functions by removing single particle propagators corresponding to external lines, taking the Fourier transform of the resulting “amputated” Green’s function and placing external mo- menta on the mass shell. The demonstration we shall present is rigorous except that the S-matrix of a gauge theory is plagued by infrared divergences and may not even be defined. In fact this may be the reason why massless Yang-Mills particles are not seen in Nature. The point of pre- senting this demonstration is purely pedagogical: the spirit and the technique we espouse here will become useful when we discuss spontaneously broken versions of gauge theories. We shall first establish the connection between We[J} and W, [J]. Recall that [¢q, (14.1)] Wel = flddy1delAyl TT B19 Ays)exp[iSTA,I +ifers-a,} as.) where Ag = det Mc and that AAI TT agen TH sanagexy) = 1. (15.2) Inserting the left-hand side of eq. (15.2) in the integrand of the functional integration in eq. (154 we writeES. Abrsand BW. Lee, Gouge theories weld =f [det fda, 1ac(4,14, (4,1 TT 87,409) x [1 5@MALCNexPliSTA,] +i fateI-A,} We now make a gauge transformation of the integration variables A,(x): Ay(x) + L4,G)]#-? Recalling the gauge invariance of the action S, A, and the metric (da, oon we find that Weld) = {4A}, 14,1 [7 6@4A, @exPGSTA,]) x cla f TT ao SAP evi farssr ag} where Aj? is the gauge transform of A,, which satisfies a"A,, = 0, such that L-v,afe = v,fuea[t-a, + EUG Ue] UG) =0. «5.4) , In deriving eq. (15.3), we have used the fact that actA TI ase (1 sear = actAgif {IT Taxco} 0 a(viafe pMclAL Iu) oA] Ae! EAE? Now, we must find out Af? by solving eq. (15.4). It is possible to construct Af? in a power series in A, We leave it as an exercise to construct fist few terms in this expansion. For our pur- pose it suffices to note that f= (6,-1.5 ¥,)A,+0cap. The source J,, in the Coulomb gauge shall be restricted to ‘Therefore, we may write fate Akos fateh F(x; AQ) where FO AQ We can finally write down an equation for Mg in terms of W,. It is Yel = [ovofifarcste F,(« Hap) 15.6) Peace orm Stata sora conero[istay ifarco-as} 5.3) Wi), =0. (13.26) Ayo) + O(AR). ass)0 ES Abersond B.W. Lee, Gauge theories tions say that Green's functions in the Coulomb gauge are the same as those in the Landau gauge, when the source is suitably restricted [eq. (13.26)] except that one must take into account extra vertices between a source and fields, represented by the term Jerk, -A,) cs.) when one tries to construct Coulomb gauge Green’s functions by the Feynman rules of the Landay gauge. This connection becomes much simpler, if we go to the mass shell. In this case, we ought to compare only the terms having a pole in each of the external momenta, p,, when p} + 0. Of all the diagrams generated by the extra couplings of (15.7), only those in which the whole effect of the extra vertices can be reduced to a type of self energy insertion to the corresponding external line survive in this limit. The other corrections introduced by (15.7) will not contribute to poles of the Green’s functions at p? = 0, and therefore not to the S-matrix. Therefore in the limit Pj 0, the Coulomb gauge and the Landatt gauge (unrenormalized) S-matrix elements will differ by a factor o” where u is the number of external lines and a is a factor independent of n. Com- Paring the two-point Green’s functions in the two gauges C and L: Iris helpful to visualize eq. (15.3) or eq. (15.6) in terms of Feynman diagrams. These equa- | lim Dj, a0 we find Zl, o In general, unremormalized S-matrix elements in the two gauges C and L are related to each order by Se = o"S, = (ZolZ, "7S, so that the renormalized S-matrix element BES. = ZS is independent of the gauge chosen to compute it. In sum, what we have shown here is that W [J] is equal to the expression (15.3) which would be Iv, [/] except that the coefficient of J* is Af? instead of A,. For the S-matrix, the only con- sequence of this difference is that the renormalization constants attached to each external line depend on the gauge. Thus we have shown that the S-matrix can be calculated from V, [J], not just by the intuitive argument of section 14, but more formally, by obtaining W/,[J] from first principles, and then demonstrating the equivalence of Sp and Sy, As pointed out earlier, the only flaw in the above argument is that the singularity at p? = 0 is not in general a simple role. Bibliography ‘his sction i an explication ofthe ditcusson on the same subject in 1. VIN. Popov and L.D. Faddcev, Perturbation Theory for Gauge Invariant Flelds, Kiew ITP report (unpublished). A similar discus 2B. Zumino, J J as even for ath. Phys. | (1960) 1 ntwmy electrodynamics inthe operator fet theory language byES. Abers and BW. Lee, Gauge theories a 16, Generating functionals for Green's functions and proper vertices In this section we develop the formalism of generating functionals of connected Green's fune- tions and of proper vertices. This topic is slightly out of the main line of development of this re- sinw. However, many recent papers on spontaneously broken symmetry make use of this elegant tormalism for a very good reason: this formalism allows the discussion of the conditions for spon- taneous breakdown of symmetry which goes beyond the one based on the classical Lagrangian snd which is valid to all orders in perturbation theory. Let us go back to the discussion of section 12 on scalar fields. We-define the generating func- tional ZU] of connected Green’s functions by WU] = exp ZUI1} = flo] eke i fa*xt2tecol + 5-601} (6.1) cre @ and J are multicomponent fields and sources, respectively. ‘The first derivative of Z[J] with respect toJ, is 6zU1 30) ar —~ f(a o(xexp Gi fax 268) + x)-90)]}« (16.2) We give it a special name, (x): ZIT [BS (x) = (x). (16.3) 47 is the vacuum expectation value of @,(x) in the presence of J(x); ie., it is the classical field. ‘The value of eq. (16.2) when the external source is turned off (I(x) = 0) is the vacuum expec = tation value of the field @: BZUIIBIAX)| 20 16.4) Note that v is independent of space-time, since in the limit J = 0, the left-hand side of (16.4) is iranslationally invariant. - It turns out that higher derivatives of Z[5] at J = 0 are Green's functions of the field 6= 6 ~v jose vacuum expectation value vanishes, For example 5210) “ e081) ral (011009 —, 160) - v1explifatx2) : ral MOB O05 (dexpti fatx26x)} (165) as can be verified by differentiating eq. (16.2) with respect to J, and letting J + 0. More generally we have ZU) 8Y;, Cr) BU, q) = "UTE, C2) lino B,D" (16.6) (where the superscript ¢ denotes the connected part of the Green’s function) as can be shown by *uction, ES SS ete:92 ESS. Aborsond BW. Lee, Gauge theories We shall now define the Legendre transform P[®] of Z{J]. It is defined as PLO) = ZU) ~ fatxtx)- (x), 823) /4J, =o, (6 The meaning of eq. (16.7) is this: P is a functional of (x) as clefined by the right-hand side of the first equality. In it, Jis to be expressed in terms of @ by inverting eq. (16.3), which define ‘© asa function of J. The Legendre transform (16.7) is @ functional version of the well-known transformation fam liar in classical mechanics and thermodynamics. By differentiating eq. (16.7) with respect to ®,, we find that SP 401/60) = Z fary (6Z191/0,091 61,0918 09} ~ LOD Jay 0181 076960), or SL [D] /5@(x) = -J,(x). (16.8) Equation (16.8) is dual to eq. (16.3): by this we mean that the relation (16.3) which expzesses ® in terms of J is the inverse of eq. (16.8) which expresses J in terms of ®. This, in particular, means that eq. (16.4) can be written as SPO] /80,0x);,., = 0, (169) e., when J = 0, © takes the value ¥, and vice versa. Equation (16.9) is very important. It express: the vacuum expectation value v of the field @ as the solution to a variational problem: y is the value of © which exiremizes P{@]. What is the physical significance of ? To streamline our discussion, let us agree on the follow- ing convention: We will denote by subscripts i,j... any labels J or carry, including the space- time variable x. We will adopt the convention that summations and integrations are always to be carried out over repeated indices. Differentiating eq. (16.3) with respect to @, we obtain ary ee = by 6.10, From eq. (16.8) we .carn that 81,/5%, = -5°T [0] /5,5%,. 6.1) Define (XU = ~8°Z151/ 61,8, 6.13) and {X10} }, = 68°F 101 /5,50,, (16.13) Equations (16.10) and (16.11) mean that (XD a = Bre 16.14) SinceES Abersand B.W. Lee, Gauge theories NE = ON Fy = ~P°ZUN 8,845] 509 = AGL J gthe full propagator for the barred field, and J = 0 implies © = v, it follows that (XID = ¥] }y = 5101/50/59, |, is the inverse of the full propagator. ) Next differentiate eq. (16.10) with respect to J,. We obtain bel) or ayy, On Sab ba, Om = or 1 P28) iy Gary, Gary, fj SElel F agayan, OX WOK Viney {i sae te, (16.15) Now take the limit J = 0, @ =v. In this limit X-'[J = 0] is the full propagator, so that HT(01/50,50,50,|, = FG) (16.16) is the three-point proper vertex. A proper vertex (or one-particle irreducible vertex) is a Green’s ‘s+ function which cannot be made disconnected by cutting @ single internal propagator, and from which (by convention) full propagators corresponding to external lines are removed. The three- 4 ht funetion has no such disconnected graphs except corrections to the propagators, which are explicitly removed in (16.15). In general, the nth derivative of [at © = v is the n-point proper vertex: 51 /50,58, .. = TY... The proof of this statement proceeds inductively. Assume that 5”Z(J] /5J;8J)... can be expressed 454 sum of tree diagrams, each diagram consisting of proper vertices corresponding to b"P[] /5,54,..., internal lines corresponding to Ay connecting pairs of proper vertices, and external lines, In particular, 1 5"ZUy) fi arto} "LSE 58,.. dX + one-particle reducible terms. 6.17) \n Now, differentiate eq. (16.17) with respect to J,. Recall that 5s, 8, 5, 81,51, 5, (8/52, (16.18) The differential operator 8/5%,, when applied to the right-hand side of eq. (16.17) can act either on some X“!, or on some 5”1/5+,54.... In the former case, we have 16 Fa, OX Mer EM KM Pr TRIE4 ES. Abersand B.W. Lee, Gauge theories which amounts to adding a new external line to a newly created three point vertex, and in the sion. ce cei hatter s 16 or amen 18 Pay —_ 18), 50,60,.. OX Wi 50,5,5%,... which amounts to adding a new external line to what used to be an m-point proper vertex. In any |i: cease, when the differential operator of eq. (16.15) is applied to the right-hand side of eq. (16.14), |v we generate all tree diagrams for the (n + 1)-point Green’s function, and Lemay To) Tisih 5; UMA mo 15 aoe 2 4 one-particle reducible terms. 6.19) . Therefore, in the limit J= 0, ®= v, i SPIO] 89,88, |, = reer : i is the (n+ 1)-point proper vertex. Now our proof is complete, since the induction hypothesisis | jg true for n = 3, as shown in eq. (16.15). ° ‘The generating functional of proper vertice P[®] has the representation: a | Tlel= 5 a DE tspentg(® De (@ = v);, AO —v),, (16.20), with dot Pps (45), (16.21) Let us revert to the standard notation: a a aot eat Alp Because of the translational invariance T°) depends only on n—1 differences x,—x,,so thatits || fe Fourier transform P is defined as ° Feo iy (Pts Py QAO + ou +p,=(Tt fetvexotiog)) re in Bis 9 X qe 16.22. |g ro This means that four-momentum must be conserved at vertices. In discussing the implications of the condition (16.9), it is convenient to consider the case in which ® is a constant $ independent of space-time. Define the super-potential Y by PL = 9] = -2m)*6() VC), Vo) = FO O05 ON — ¥),, (8 — ¥),, 1G —¥),,,5 (16.23) serey 9, % 0) ES, Abertand BW. Lee, Gauge theoriet so that an (@) —— HBO) 1,04 0 5¢,,54,,-d0, “inf , iat is the negative of the N-point proper vertex evaluated at the point where all external momenta vanish. The condition (16.9) translates into avo) ed, (16.24) Furthermore, ev@)_ 5646, is positive semi-definite, since Az! behaves like (p? — m?) near p? = m? and it cannot have any other zero for p?< m?. Thus the vacuum expection value ¢ = v is the value of @ which minimizes (y (9). The discussion in section 2 suggests that ¢ = v must be the absolute minimum of Y, but we do not prove it here. When 2 is invariant under 657 6, ~ i0*LE8, it follows from the structure of eq. (16.1) that Z[J] is invariant under 7 d,- iL, AO), (16.25) and so on, and finally the superpotential ‘ (9) is an invariant function of ¢ under the above trans- formation. The analysis of section 2 on the potential V can now be applied verbatim to the super- potential Y, with —[4/,(0)I, of eg. (16.28) taking the place of Mj, of eq. (2.19). We find there- fore that the occurrence and the number of the Goldstone bosons discussed there are true to all orders of perturbation theory. We can construct Z(J], ![®] and{¢} in perturbation theory. For simplicity we shall con- sider the case of a single-component field. An effective way of expanding these quantities in a series is to write eq. (16.1) with a fictitious parameter a: p6i2i81} = fraptere[ifare{!200 + 309-400]] tifa tee (ta4 LL fares _ A ~exp[ifa iol? Ss) oo atyalApr— yO}, (16.26) and expand Z{J} in powers of @ and let a = 1 afterwards. Since each propagator is multiplied by @ and each vertex by a” when we use eq. (16.26) as the definition of Z, it follows that a Feynman diagram with £ external lines, / internal lines and V vertices is multiplied by the factor, a®*/-¥. ‘There is a topological relation that holds for any Feynman diagram. It is fer ee% ES Abers and BW. Le, Gauge theories Lel-Vvel where L is the number of loops (ie. the number of independent fourmmomentum integrations) in the diagram. Therefore the expansion in this fictitious parameter @ corresponds to expanding, 4 Green's function in the number of loops in the Feynman diagrams. The reason this expansion is preferable ever the expansion in powers of some coupling constant is that in the former uny syinmetry of the Lagrangian is preserved in cach order of perturbation theory since, effectively, 4 multiplies the whole Lagrangian, In contrast, if we were to split up the Yang-Mills Lagrangian into a free and perturbing parts to develop a perturbation expansion, for example, each part would not be separately gauge invariant and the consequences of gauige invariance of the Lagrangian might not manifest themselves in each order of perturbation series. (Recall that non: Abelian gauge transformations depend on the coupling constant.) In the Following we shall discuss explicit constructions of Z, P and in the first two orders of loop expansion for a simple mode! HOP ~ $ube — Prod" 6.2713 The method can be generalized easily to other models, Our discussion will not show that our con- | struction is in fact the expansion in the number of loops, but the interested student can convince himself of this fact by first referring to Nambu’s paper which shows that the loop expansion is also an expansion in the Planck constant and then noting that our method is an asymptotic eviluation of these quantities in hi Imagine thai eq. (16.1) is written in the Euclidean space as explained in section 12. Since the exponent in the right-hand side is bounded from above in this case, we are tempted to evaluate the functional integral by the method of steepest descent. We shall keep the Minkowsky notation for simplicity, but the ultimate justification of this method lies in the Euclidicity postulate, We shall expand the exponent on the righthand side of eq. (16.1): SOI + fats Jaen) = fate (260) +1696}, about a point ¢(x) = go(x): S161 + farses) = Stdol + f ote seeoce) + fate { ae +100] L(x) — bo(8)1 © fatwa y —2*Sto0)_ +5 Set Y1B)-001 [609-000] Faataigg (1828) and choose #9 so that the term linear in § ~ @y is missing from the expansion of eq. (16.28). This will be achieved provided 5S{b01/6b0(x) = —JOx) (16.29) which means that 69 is the solution of the classical (non-quantized) field equation in the presence of the external source J(x). For the Lagrangian (16.27), eq. (16.29) is (2? + HDGoLN) +d GROW) =O). (16.30) In any case, $9 8 obtained from eq. (16.29) as 2 functional of the external source J.ES: Abersand BM. Lee, Gage theories 7 Wheneg. (16.28) is substituted in eq. (16.1), we obtain exp(i ZVI) = exp€i Sldal +i fax JOoG0)} 1 _ 85601 2! 5o(5)660) ‘The lowest order approximation (which is one order lower than the steepest descent approxima tion) is obtained if we ignore the functional integral over g(x) altogether and set ZUI ¥ Slo) + faxJepo(x) = ZT (16.32) x Sesser ateas (91x) ~ ls COL) ~ dol Joan which isa functional of J only, because $6 is a functional of J. We can evaluate Z° explicitly by Fiegt solving for $o in eq. (16.30) and then substituting that ¢y in eq. (16.32). Equation (16.30) Abe solved in powers of A: dal) = — fay Aplx ~ ys? VO) — AL fey Aple — y; AO)? +. (16.33) where the use of Ae is dictated by the Euclidicity postulate. When eq. (16.33) is slbstituted in eq. (16.32), one finds that Z°[/] is the generating functional of Green’s functions in the tree- {i.€., no loop) approximation: 1 X A PUL = fated a ee undone; ftw PT fate toepaple, - wat) +. 16.34) We can see more readily that Z° is the tree approximation to Z if we compute P{] in this ap- j proximation, Since 8Z_ 82 _ ry, { 85160] BH 4 5) Hg, HO Sra5~ B70) S*” 5900) B10) 52), we have, to this order, Px) = dol. (16.35) Therefore, P[) can be computed to this order: Pb] = ZU] = faxsx) Oo) SLO] + fatxJGVO(x)} - fated) = S14]. (16.36) So, to this order, proper vertices are generated by the Lagrangian itself and Green's functions are | built up of these unmodified vertices by the rules of tree graphs. The superpotential Y (eq. (16.36)] is, to this order V(9) = -S(9) = V6) where @ is independent of space-time and V is the negative of the part of the Lagrangian which is independent of derivative of fields. That is, (9) is the potential of the field 9. This justifies the }e “super-potential” for8 ES. Abersand BW. Les, Gauge theories We can proceed further by applying the steepest descent method to the functional integral in eq. (16.31). This consists of neglecting terms higher than quadratic in (# — o) in the exponent of the integrand and performing the functional Gaussian integration, In this way we obtain fisetro| for ey S161 2 Bel5G00) 196) ~ $000) 160) — do00)1 pe oe ty ten Od __ Viet FSTGo1/G6(x)6640) P21 SEBO) * so that ZU] Z°LJ] + Fi Tr M{5*SlGo]/5G0(x)5G0(y)} = ZL]. (16.37) For the Lagrangian (16.27), for example, BAS/EG(x)B SLY) = (—3°—"?-3AG*XHCX ~ V), so that i 8s. i Ten Sago) 3 rn(1 —3h ei Gin --75 ) =e Ae Pd, MeO — POOR — 25) Ape, — 8H). (16.38) ME] = Z1V) — farsa, (16.39) where d(x) = ZIV BI) = balx) + eC) (16.40) and e(x) is given by 8 ia, ay 2°Slt0) Bx) 2 on" BbalEBGACN) Fortunately, it is not necessary to know the form of e(x) to construct P[1 to first order in eC), as we shall demonstrate presently. First, note that eG) = ZI) = Sto) + fatxICepalx) ste) Gov) = S14] + fadteJG9b(x) + OC) 6.40) = SI] + fatxsonwcn — faty suenroe Let us now construct P'[] to this order: |din ont 6.39) 6.40) ao. 6.4) ES. Abers ond B.W. Lee, Gauge theories » by virtue of eq. (16.29). Therefore to order e, we have from eqs. (16.37), (16.39) and (16.41) i & Mm(e] =S[@) +>Tr no. 16.42) 4 Dein 5HCE)EH) ‘ ‘The second term is the one-loop correction to the generating functional of proper vertices. ‘The super-potential Y can be evaluated explicitly from eqs. (16.38) and (16. 42). Recalling the definition of Y of eq. (16.23), we find By Qa it mL LOGO rs ey er 2, wl y" e—) 16.43 1? = pt tie eee ‘The terms for N = | and 2are divergent. However these terms are proportional to $* and ¢* and the divergences in these terms can be amalgamated with u3 and Ao. We may write (9) = 404? + PAO" +197) where (16.44) and u? and ) are defined as the value of the two- and four-point vertices at the point where all ex- ternal momenta vanish. Bibliography “Te idea of using generating furctionas for Green's funetions and proper vertices was originated by 1.3, Schwinger, Proe. Nat. Acad. Si. 37 (1951) 452,455, “The folowing paper contains the fst explicit construction of the generating functional for proper vertices by the Legendre 2G. Jona-Lasinio, Nuovo Cimente 34 (1964) 1790. “his pape also contains the derivation of the Goldstone theorem by this technique. Recent reviews of ths method may be found 3. LL, Leo, Chiral Dynamics (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1972). ‘HLM. Fried, Functional Methodsand Models in Quantum Field Theory (MT Press, Cambie, 1972). 5. Zumino, in Lectaes on Clementary Particles and Quentum Field Thoory, eds. S. Deser, M. Grist, 1, Pendleton (MIT Press, ‘Cambridge, 1970) Vol. 2, p. 438 et sa “Ihe observation that the expansion in the number of loops is equivalent tothe expansion in is due to 6.¥. Namba, Phys, Latiers 268 (1966) 626. TLS. Brown and D. Boulvare, ys. Rev. 172 (1968) 1628 “The evaluation of the one-loop corrections bythe steepest descent approximation is discussed in &.UN, Lee and. Zinn-lustin, Ph. Rev. DS (1972) 3121, Appendix B Foran extensive use ofthis meta in a recent literature, se, for example, 5.5. Coleman and E. Weinberg Phy. Rev, to be published.100 ES. Abers and B.W. Lee, Gauge theories 17. Renormalization in the a-model The formalism developed in the preceeding section is useful in discussing renormalization of sportaneously broken symmetry models and, in particular, the o-model. In the generic sense. the o-model is a model in which a symmetry is broken by a term of dimension one, i., by a term. prorortional to a boson field. s Asimple example of this kind of models is 4 £= F1Qy7)? + @,0)"] — $ud(o? +24) ~1Ag(o? +9)? + co= Laym +00 a7 Which is a two-dimensional generalization of the model discussed in the preceeding section. Exceg for the last term co, the Lagrangian (17.1) is the one studied in section 2, and it was noted there that this Lagrangian is invariant under a U(1) transformation of the fields o and 7. The salient features of this model are that the “almost” conserved current 4 A, = 10,0 ~ 08,7 «73 has a divergence proportional to the m-field 3) 24, = or 735 and that the o-field acquires a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value thanks to the last term in €4. (17.1). Equation (17.3) is a version of the PCAC condition, and for this reason the model is._| of some physical interest. q It pays to study first the classical solution of the Lagrangian (17.1). The potential is given by V(9, m) = 3A(0? +m)? + $u%(0? + 7) — co 744] (we drop the subscript 0 ond and for the moment). The minimum of the potential occurs at m= Oand o= wu where u(u? + uA) = 6, u being the vacuum expectation value of the o-field in this approximation. If we displace the fiel @ by the amount u and define s by s = 6 ~ w eq. (17.1) takes the form 2= 71,8) + Qn) — puis? — tude? — Ns? + 22)? — duds? + ws so that in this approximation the s-field represents a particle of mass #3: a= py? +3? and the m-field a particle of mass p2: wR we In this approximation, when ¢ = 0, i.¢., when the Lagrangian is invariant under the UCI) trans formation, either w = 0 or uz = u? + Mu? = 0 according to eq, (17.5). If 12 = 0, then u? > O in order: that u} = uf = u? > 0. This is the “usual” way the symmetry of the Lagrangian manifests itself: the particles corresponding to the fields o and w are degenerate. On the other hand, if u2 = 0, wenof se, the ™m aw min lis iby 17.4) sat 17.5) fie! 17.6) ES. Abers and B.W. Lee, Gauge theories 10 must have x? < 0 since Nu? > 0. The second case is the Goldstone mode of the symmetry with the field 1 playing the role of the Goldstone boson. In that case, u? = Mw, and p2 = —2y? > 0. For more thorough discussion of the o-model, see the monograph “Chiral Dynamics” by one of us We return to the discussion of the full solution, including radiative corrections. An important fact about the o-model is that the Green’s function of this model are generated by the generating fanetional of Green’s functions of the symmetric theory. The latter is given by expt Z(}} = fldo) fdr lexpti fate 2, q(x) +Jy(soCe) + JgCx mC] by Ug. J). Now, expand Z(J) in J about J, fo 79) 0. We have and J, 1 promos FE BT). BT (Xp OF g(V1)--- BF, 0p) _ 1 Wie. (17.10) ore.dy=O an Sido Lartsex)..5(x,)101)...10%,) exp i | fa*x.2(x)} — disconnected pieces, where s = ¢ ~ u, w being the vacuum expectation value of o so that Sidoi tan lscoexpti faty20)} = 0, and s(x) = a(x) 0, since in that case there is a comparison symmetric theory that makes sense. However, once P{®] is constructed in terms of A, n? and c there is nothing that stops us from expressing T{@) in terms of A, w and m3, where the last is defined as 2 = -A51(0) = 26(6)/56" |. ‘and taking the limit m2? ~ 0. Then eq, (17.23) reads 17.24) Equation (17.24) is the renormalized Goldstone theorem: if ¢ = 0 either w= 0, or m= 0. The { latter corresponds to the Goldstone mode. In this case the basic parameters of the theory can be 7.19) taken to be Aand w= », instead of A and —p2. ‘The moral of the above discussion is that the renormalizability of the o-model in the Goldstone jis | Made depends only on the renormalizability of the symmetric theory. The process of renormaliza- tion does not induce additional symmetry breaking, in the sense that the symmetric counter- terms exhibited in (17,20) suffice to remove infinities from the theory whether or not the sym- | metry is broken external'y (c # 0) or internally (uv # 0). © Later we will discuss a way of renormalizing the o-model without making explicit reference to the symmetric theory. This method makes use of the Ward-Takahashi identities. Let us derive them. The generating functional Z{3) in eq. (17.9) is invariant under the U(1) transformation of wn thet e 104 ES. Abersond BW. Lec, Gauge theories the external sources: Luwt (2): (22 sn )(te) arg} tks J.) \sind cos a/\y,, “gy iese as can be seen by making the change of integration variables epi oy _fcosé sin 8 y/o) 4 (2)*(ne cools) C728F sor Which leaves the scalar product J,o +J,a invariant. Therefore, Intl —_ recent dZ/d9 = 0, but we or Firs fra 8z0| ay "7 4 5 sing Joe (2 tae soy tt] 0. a2 .. ‘Substituting eqs. (17.23) and (17.24) into eq. (17.27), we find that oro} arto} at ‘ 5 = & (x) Son Ja {2.09 58,02) 7 ** 5664) which shows that I’ is an invariant functional of © under the UCL) transformation: yA o,\' 0 =sin 8\/&, 3 ( ey = (en? sin ( 2). (17.291 #,) “\sind cosa lo, Fea Note that the invariance of P under the transformation (17.29) is true whether p? > 0 or p? < 0. The renormalized P constructed according to the prescription above, this satisfies eq. (17.28) as The ‘we continue m2 to zero. AD by cou Equation (17.28) is the Ward-Takahashi identity for the generating functional of proper: vertices lis An infinite number of Ward-Takahashi identities is obtained if we differentiate eq. (17.28) with ql Dr respect to ®, and ®, repeatedly, and set , = 0, b, = 1. If we diffecentiate eq, (17.28) with re x! spect to @, and set , = 0, &, = u, we obtain the “eigenvalue” equation for u, eq. (17.23). If well the has differentiate it with respect to &, and &, and take the limit, we obtain aP tion AQMP?) — A?) = uP, g(0; 0, —P)- (17.3034 one de 4 ), ‘An important Jesson to be learned here is that the Ward-Takahashi identity for the generating {anctional for proper vertices is the same, whether of not the symmeiry is spontaneously broken: Itis satisfied by the generating functional constructed first in the symmetric theory and then co inued to the Goldstone mode by varying an appropriate parameter of the theory, on, [ope Bibliography The integra This sections bated on 1. BAW, Lee, Nuel Phys, B9 (1969) 649. ys