Given the Lagrangian density of a theory, are the representations on which the various fields transform uniquely determined?
For example, given the Lagrangian for a real scalar field L=12∂μφ∂μφ−12m2φ2
with (+,−,−,−) Minkowski sign convention, is φ somehow constrained to be a scalar, by the sole fact that it appears in this particular form in the Lagrangian?
As another example: consider the Lagrangian L1=−12∂νAμ∂νAμ+12m2AμAμ,
which can also be cast in the form L1=(12∂μAi∂μAi−12m2AiAi)−(12∂μA0∂μA0−12m2A0A0).
I've heard[1] that this is the Lagrangian for four massive scalar fields and not that for a massive spin-1 field. Why is that? I understand that it produces a Klein-Gordon equation for each component of the field: (◻+m2)Aμ=0,
but why does this prevent me from considering Aμ a spin-1 massive field?
[1]: From Matthew D. Schwartz's Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, p.114:
A natural guess for the Lagrangian for a massive spin-1 field is L=−12∂νAμ∂νAμ+12m2A2μ,
where A2μ=AμAμ. Then the equations of motion are (◻+m2)Aμ=0,which has four propagating modes. In fact, this Lagrangian is not the Lagrangian for a amassive spin-1 field, but the Lagrangian for four massive scalar fields, A0,A1,A2 and A3. That is, we have reduced 4=1⊕1⊕1⊕1, which is not what we wanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment