I am reading Zee's QFT book and he is developing the field theory of photons without introducing gauge invariance. He's putting a small photon mass into the Lagrangian which he will later let go to zero. He is assuming I just finished my courses on EM and QM, and that I should know what he's talking about in some brief comments, but I am confused. Zee writes:
A massive spin-1 particle has three degrees of polarization for the obvious reason that in its rest frame the spin vector can point in three different directions. The three polarization vectors $\varepsilon^{(a)}_\lambda$ are simply the three unit vectors pointing along the $x$, $y$, and $z$ axes.
Here I am embarrassingly confused already. Can't any spin vector, spin-1/2 for example, point in three different spatial directions? When I think of three possibilities for spin-1, I think $\{+1,0,-1\}$. When I think of a spin-1 "vector state," I think the the three positions in the vector represent $\{+1,0,-1\}$ and not $\{x,y,z\}$. What am I missing here? Why would the spin be able to point in three spatial directions for spin-1 exclusively?
I tried to just read past it but I quickly became even more lost. Zee writes:
The amplitude for a particle with momentum $k$ and polarization $a$ to be created at a source is proportional to $\varepsilon^{(a)}_\lambda(k)$, and the amplitude for it to be absorbed at the sink is proportional to $\varepsilon^{(a)}_\nu(k)$.
Here I understand that due to special relativity, $\varepsilon$ is a function of $k$, but since I don't see the connection to the polarization states, I am missing the relationship to the amplitude. I believe Zee when he cites this dependence of the amplitude, but where does it come from?
A little further down on the page (p34 in Zee's QFT book, 2nd Ed), Zee writes
Now we understand the residue of the pole in the spin -1 propagator $$D_{\nu\lambda}=\dfrac{g_{\nu\lambda}-\frac{k_\nu k_\lambda}{m^2}}{k^2-m^2}.$$ It represents $\sum\varepsilon^{(a)}_\nu(k)\varepsilon^{(a)}_\lambda(k)$. To calculate this quantity, note that by Lorentz invariance it can only ber a linear combination of $g_{\nu\lambda}$ and $k_\nu k_\lambda$. The condition $h^\mu \varepsilon^{(a)}_\mu=0$ fixes it to be proportional to $g_{\nu\lambda}-\frac{k_\nu k_\lambda}{m^2}$. [sic] Thus $$\sum \varepsilon^{(a)}_\nu(k)\varepsilon^{(a)}_\lambda(k)=-\left(g_{\nu\lambda}-\frac{k_\nu k_\lambda}{m^2}\right)$$
Here I am confused again. How Zee is able to conclude immediately that it is "fixed proportional to $g_{\nu\lambda}-\frac{k_\nu k_\lambda}{m^2}$? Also, the residue of $D$, I believe, should have a denominator like $$\text{Res}_D(k_0^-)=\dfrac{g_{\nu\lambda}-\frac{k_\nu k_\lambda}{m^2}}{k-k_0^+}$$ due to the Laurent series representation of $D$. I forgot as much from my complex analysis course as I did from my EM and QM courses. Am I wrong about the residue? Thanks for looking at my long question!!!