Vector field vs. four scalar fields ("QFT and the SM", Schwartz)

In summary, the discussion contrasts vector fields with four scalar fields within the context of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the Standard Model (SM). Vector fields, representing particles with spin-1, are integral in mediating forces, while scalar fields, with no intrinsic spin, describe fundamental particles like the Higgs boson. The properties and implications of each type of field play a crucial role in understanding particle interactions and the structure of the universe as described by the SM.
  • #1
Hill
708
564
TL;DR Summary
Four components of the massive spin 1 field
This is the statement in question:
1709641434449.png


But if they were scalar fields, they would not transform at all. How could they contribute differently if they didn't change?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In this interpretation you change them by hand, not as a result of vector transformation.
 
  • #3
Demystifier said:
In this interpretation you change them by hand, not as a result of vector transformation.
Then, as I understand, they are not "scalar fields", but rather just numbers.
 
  • #4
Hill said:
Then, as I understand, they are not "scalar fields", but rather just numbers.
If you have a global coordinate system/frame then you can think of them as scalar fields. But in a different frame there will be a different set of four fields. It is a bit sloppy. Which book is this?
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #5
martinbn said:
If you have a global coordinate system/frame then you can think of them as scalar fields. But in a different frame there will be a different set of four fields. It is a bit sloppy. Which book is this?
"QFT and the SM" by Schwartz.
 
  • #6
Hill said:
Then, as I understand, they are not "scalar fields", but rather just numbers.
Yes, you can say it so.
 
  • #7
Hill said:
Then, as I understand, they are not "scalar fields", but rather just numbers.
More precisely, a scalar field is a mapping of numbers to points in spacetime. The number assigned to a given point doesn't change when you change coordinates.

The statement you quote in the OP is saying that once you pick a coordinate chart, you can find four scalar fields on spacetime that give the same numbers at each point as the four components of ##A_\mu##. But if you change coordinates, as @martinbn said, you now have to find a different set of four scalar fields on spacetime that give the same numbers at each point as the four components of ##A_\mu##. The usual vector transformation law, on this view, is just a constraint on how the different sets of four scalar fields that you get in different coordinate charts are related.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
More precisely, a scalar field is a mapping of numbers to points in spacetime. The number assigned to a given point doesn't change when you change coordinates.

The statement you quote in the OP is saying that once you pick a coordinate chart, you can find four scalar fields on spacetime that give the same numbers at each point as the four components of ##A_\mu##. But if you change coordinates, as @martinbn said, you now have to find a different set of four scalar fields on spacetime that give the same numbers at each point as the four components of ##A_\mu##. The usual vector transformation law, on this view, is just a constraint on how the different sets of four scalar fields that you get in different coordinate charts are related.
Thank you. I get this. My point is, that such arrangement contradicts the earlier definition,
1709651022233.png
 
  • #9
Hill said:
such arrangement contradicts the earlier definition
No, it doesn't. Read this again, carefully:

PeterDonis said:
if you change coordinates, as @martinbn said, you now have to find a different set of four scalar fields on spacetime
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
No, it doesn't. Read this again, carefully:
Lorentz transformation changes coordinates and, by the definition, should not affect the scalar fields.
I understand that your emphasis is: the fields in this case do not change but are rather forgotten and replaced. OK, but why to call them "scalar fields" then, and not just "functions of space-time"? I understood that the rest of the definition, i.e. "... that are Lorentz invariant etc.", distinguishes such functions as being "scalar fields".
 
  • #11
Hill said:
Lorentz transformation changes coordinates and, by the definition, should not affect the scalar fields.
And it doesn't.

Hill said:
I understand that your emphasis is: the fields in this case do not change but are rather forgotten and replaced.
Yes. Which means the coordinate transformation has not affected any scalar fields, as it shouldn't.

Hill said:
why to call them "scalar fields" then, and not just "functions of space-time"?
Because "scalar fields" is the term that physicists have used for a long time in this context. Yes, it means basically the same thing as "scalar function on spacetime".

Hill said:
I understood that the rest of the definition, i.e. "... that are Lorentz invariant etc.", distinguishes such functions as being "scalar fields".
No. Any scalar function on spacetime, i.e., any mapping of numbers to points in spacetime, has to be Lorentz invariant, by construction: there is simply nothing for a coordinate transformation to change.
 

FAQ: Vector field vs. four scalar fields ("QFT and the SM", Schwartz)

What is the difference between a vector field and a scalar field in quantum field theory?

A vector field assigns a vector to every point in space and time, whereas a scalar field assigns a single value (a scalar) to every point in space and time. In the context of quantum field theory (QFT), vector fields are often associated with gauge bosons, like the photon, while scalar fields are often associated with particles like the Higgs boson.

How do vector fields and scalar fields interact in the Standard Model?

In the Standard Model of particle physics, scalar fields and vector fields interact in various ways. For instance, the Higgs field (a scalar field) interacts with gauge bosons (vector fields) to give them mass through the Higgs mechanism. These interactions are described by the Lagrangian of the Standard Model, which includes terms representing these interactions.

Why are vector fields necessary in the Standard Model?

Vector fields are necessary in the Standard Model because they represent the force carriers for the fundamental interactions. For example, the photon is the vector field for the electromagnetic force, the W and Z bosons are the vector fields for the weak force, and the gluons are the vector fields for the strong force. Without these vector fields, the Standard Model would not be able to describe these fundamental forces.

Can scalar fields exist independently without vector fields in the Standard Model?

In the Standard Model, scalar fields do not exist independently of vector fields because the interactions between them are essential for the theory's consistency and for explaining observed phenomena. For example, the Higgs field (a scalar field) interacts with the W and Z bosons (vector fields) to give them mass. Without these interactions, the Standard Model would fail to accurately describe particle masses and interactions.

How are vector fields and scalar fields quantized in quantum field theory?

In quantum field theory, both vector fields and scalar fields are quantized by promoting the classical fields to operators that create and annihilate particles. For scalar fields, this involves creating scalar particles, while for vector fields, it involves creating vector bosons. The quantization process ensures that the fields obey the principles of quantum mechanics, and the resulting particles interact according to the rules defined by the theory's Lagrangian.

Back
Top