1
$\begingroup$

While reading a field theory book, there's a (rather simple) equation derivation part that I can't quite understand.

Apparently from $({\partial}^2 + m^{2})A_{\mu} = 0$ (for the vector field carrying mass $m$) and $\partial _{\mu} A^{\mu} = 0$ (to impose the Lorenz covariant case), the following equation: $$(g^{\mu\nu} \partial^2 - \partial^\mu \partial^\nu )A_\nu + m^2 A^\mu = 0$$ can be derived. Could anybody possibly break down the steps on how to combine the first two equations to get the third?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Contract both sides of the equation with $\partial_{\mu}$ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 0:18

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

You have the order in which the equations are derived backwards. The equations of motion derived from the Lagrangian for massive (Proca) electrodynamics is the last one in the question, $$\partial^{\mu}F_{\mu\nu}+m^{2}A_{\nu}\equiv\partial^{\mu}(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu})+m^{2}A_{\nu}=0,$$ and the other two equations may be derived from it. (If, however, you really want to reverse the order of the derivation, the final step below can just be inverted.)

To get the Lorenz condition $\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0$, you take the four divergence $\partial^{\nu}$ of the above equation, which gives $$\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}(\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu})+m^{2}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0.$$ The left-hand term is identically zero, since upon reordering the derivatives, it becomes $\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}$. This leaves just $m^{2}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0$, which is the Lorenz condition times the constant $m^{2}>0$. (Note that in conventional Maxwell electrodynamics, where $m^{2}=0$, we would not be able to conclude that $m^{2}\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0$ implied $\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0$. Instead, we would have the freedom to choose the gauge to make $\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}$ anything; however, the gauge symmetry is lost in the massive theory, and the Lorenz condition $\partial^{\nu}A_{\nu}=0$ is no longer a choice, but a requirement.)

Once the Lorenz condition has been established, note that the equation of motion may be written $$\left(\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\right)A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}\left(\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}\right)+m^{2}A_{\nu}=0.$$ By virtual of the Lorenz condition, the middle term vanishes, and the remaining terms are $$(\partial^{2}+m^{2})A_{\nu}=0.$$

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Lorenz gauge condition. Ludvig Lorenz not Hendrik Lorentz. $\endgroup$
    – Frobenius
    Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 6:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Frobenius, It seems you are right; it's Lorenz not Lorentz! But, many authors (including Mandl & Shaw, Peskin & Schroeder, Maggiore, Greiner etc) use the Lorentz gauge frequently! The QFT book by Zee and also the QFT book by Lancester & Blundell are exceptions, they use "Lorenz gauge". $\endgroup$
    – SG8
    Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Frobenius Ugh, I knew that too. $\endgroup$
    – Buzz
    Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 7:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SG8 : Welcome to PSE. My intuition says that your participation herein will be amazing and you'll gain high reputation in a very short time like recently Farcher, BioPhysicist, G.Smith, ChiralAnomaly, Bob D and others. I'll very glad to see this in the future. $\endgroup$
    – Frobenius
    Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 9:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Frobenius, Thank you very much. I also hope to be active on this site since, in this way, I can learn more and maybe can help the other users (now, my time is very limited but I will participate more in the future). Thanks again. $\endgroup$
    – SG8
    Commented Apr 29, 2021 at 10:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.