Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Why can't gauge bosons have mass?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
63 views

Clearly, a mass term for a vector field would render the Lagrangian not gauge-invariant, but what are the consequences of this? Gauge invariance is supposed to be crucial for the renormalisation of a vector field theory, though I have to say I'm not entirely sure why.

As far as removing unphysical degrees of freedom - why isn't the time-like mode $A_0$ a problem for massive vector bosons (and how does gauge invariance of the Lagrangian ensure that this mode is unphysical for gauge bosons)?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user James
asked Jul 13, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by James (125 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/4700/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Also related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30546/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user DJBunk

3 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Let me anwser a closely related quenstion: Consider a U(1) gauge theory with massless gauge bosons, can any small perturbations give the gauge boson an mass.

Amazingly, the anser is NO. The masslessness of the gauge boson is topologically robust. No small perturbations can give the gauge boson an mass. For detail, see my article.

Let me make the statement more precise. Here we consider a compact U(1) gauge theory with a finite UV cutoff (such as a lattice gauge theory), that contains gapless gauge bosons at low energies. Then no small perturbations to this compact U(1) gauge theory with a finite UV cutoff can give the gauge boson an mass, even for the small perturbations that break the gauge invariance.

So the masslessness of gauge boson is a stable universal property of a quantum phase. Only a phase transition can make the gauge boson massive.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen
answered Jul 19, 2012 by Xiao-Gang Wen (3,319 points) [ no revision ]
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Sure gauge bosons can have mass. The Higgs mechanism for one. Or in 2+1D, add a Chern-Simons term. Or in 3+1D, and a two-form gauge field B with the gauge symmetry $B \rightarrow B +d\lambda$ with $\lambda$ being any 1-form, and add a $B \wedge F$ coupling term.

If you mean why they can't have mass in the Coulomb gauge, the answer is topological. Look at the dispersion relation with helicities. A mass gap translates into an energy gap which would split the light cone dispersion into hyperboloids. Not possible topologically.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Liu
answered Jul 19, 2012 by Liu (20 points) [ no revision ]
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

As far as renormalizability of gauge bosons, a nonabelian gauge theory with massive gauge bosons is non-renormalizable as I describe here: What evidence is there for the electroweak higgs mechanism? . A massive abelian gauge boson is renormalizable and to my knowledge suffers no such defects at high energy as the would-be goldstone boson is from a linear sigma model, not a non-linear sigma model.

As far as the unphysical time-like modes, while there is no gauge invariance, what really matters is that its coupled to a conserved current, so there is still the cancelation that happens with massless gauge bosons.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user DJBunk
answered Jul 14, 2012 by DJBunk (80 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...