Lagrangian is invariant under the transformation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around demonstrating the invariance of a specific Lagrangian under given transformations involving scalar fields and fermionic fields. The user initially struggles with the transformation of the two fermionic terms, particularly how to handle the commutation of the transformation operator with the gamma matrices. Clarifications are provided regarding the transformation of the adjoint fermionic field, which resolves the user's confusion about the first term. Additionally, the user is guided to recognize that the combination of terms involving cosine and sine can be expressed as a complex exponential, facilitating the cancellation needed for the second term. Ultimately, the user acknowledges the oversight regarding the adjoint field transformation, leading to a clearer understanding of the problem.
Chopin
Messages
367
Reaction score
13
I should mention that I'm self-studying this material, not taking it as part of a course, but since this is still a homework-style problem I figured it'd be best to post here.

Homework Statement


In Peskin and Schroeder problem #11.2, they ask us to consider the Lagrangian:
$$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \phi^i)^2 + \frac{1}{2}\mu^2(\phi^i)^2 - \frac{\lambda}{4}((\phi^i)^2)^2 + \bar{\psi}(i\not{\partial})\psi - g\bar{\psi}(\phi^1 + i\gamma^5\phi^2)\psi$$
where ##i=1,2##

They then ask us to show that this Lagrangian is invariant under the transformation:

$$\phi^1 \rightarrow \cos \alpha \phi^1 - \sin \alpha \phi^2\\
\phi^2 \rightarrow \sin \alpha \phi^1 + \cos \alpha \phi^2\\
\psi \rightarrow e^{-i\alpha \gamma^5/2}\psi$$

The Attempt at a Solution


It's easy to show that ##(\partial_\mu \phi^i)^2 \rightarrow (\partial_\mu \phi^i)^2## and ##(\phi^i)^2 \rightarrow (\phi^i)^2##, so that handles all of the ##\phi## terms. I'm confused about the two ##\psi## terms, though.

1. For the ##\bar{\psi}(i\not{\partial})\psi## term, I have to commute the ##e^{-i\alpha\gamma^5/2}## past the ##\gamma^\mu## hidden in the ##\not{\partial}##, so that I can cancel it against the ##e^{i\alpha\gamma^5/2}##. My assumption is that this creates a non-trivial answer, though. Since ##\{\gamma^5, \gamma^\mu\} = 0##, if we imagine Taylor-expanding the exponential, the terms with even powers of ##\gamma^5## will be unchanged, but the terms with odd powers will pick up an extra minus sign. I'm not sure how it's possible to make everything cancel out. Am I missing something stupid here?

2. For the ##g\bar{\psi}(\phi^1 + i\gamma^5\phi^2)\psi##, I plugged in the transformations and got the following:

$$g\bar{\psi}(\phi^1 + i\gamma^5\phi^2)\psi \rightarrow g\bar{\psi}e^{i\alpha \gamma^5/2}((\cos \alpha \phi^1 - \sin \alpha \phi^2) + i\gamma^5(\sin \alpha \phi^1 + \cos \alpha \phi^2))e^{-i\alpha \gamma^5/2}\psi\\
= g\bar{\psi}e^{i\alpha \gamma^5/2}(\cos \alpha + i\gamma^5 \sin \alpha)(\phi^1 + i\gamma^5\phi^2)e^{-i\alpha \gamma^5/2}\psi$$

That gets me close, since at least the form of the ##\phi## terms is right. I'm pretty sure I can now commute the ##e^{-i\alpha\gamma^5/2}## term on the right hand end all the way over to the left to cancel the ##e^{i\alpha\gamma^5/2}## term, since the only thing in the middle is more ##\gamma^5## matrices. But that still leaves me with the ##(\cos \alpha + i\gamma^5 \sin \alpha)## term, and I don't see any way to get rid of that. Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that you actually have \bar{\psi} = \psi^{\dagger} \gamma^0, so the transformation is

<br /> \bar{\psi} \rightarrow \psi^{\dagger}e^{i\alpha \gamma^5/2}\gamma^0 = \bar{\psi}e^{-i\alpha \gamma^5/2}.<br />

This should take care of your first problem (and it's essential for the second part too of course). For your second problem, notice that the term \cos\alpha + i\gamma^5 \sin\alpha resembles a complex exponential. See if you can write it as one to combine it with the other unwanted factors.
 
Doh, I always forget about the ##\gamma^0##. Now I see how it all works out. Thanks very much!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top