Timeline for About Itzykson and Zuber's proof of Goldstone's theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2021 at 2:25 | comment | added | Chiral Anomaly | @ersbygre1 Yes, that's correct. | |
| Jun 18, 2021 at 2:05 | vote | accept | ersbygre1 | ||
| Jun 18, 2021 at 2:05 | comment | added | ersbygre1 | Thank you very much for your detailed replies, this helps a lot! Concerning your 3rd comment, so this is why I&Z (and others) use a limit of volume -> infinity when talking about the Goldstone theorem. And just to be sure, the fact that they can't be normalized is due to the $\delta^{(3)}(0)$, right? | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 23:42 | comment | added | ersbygre1 | 2nd question: The zero-divided-by-zero issue you mentioned, is this the energy coming from the time derivative and the energy in the denominator of your eq. (1)? | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 23:41 | comment | added | ersbygre1 | Thank you very much, this makes sense. Most QFT textbooks I can think of use the normalization (2), since it's nicely Lorentz invariant. Do we use the normalization (4) only to prove the Goldstone theorem and then go back to the covariant normalization (2)? In other words: when working with NG modes later on, do we use (2) or (4)? | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 15:29 | history | answered | Chiral Anomaly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |