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

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,079 questions , 2,229 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,758 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
819 active unimported users
More ...

  Gauge covariant derivative in different books

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
1690 views

It puzzles me that Zee uses throughout the book this definition of covariant derivative: $$D_{\mu} \phi=\partial_{\mu}\phi-ieA_{\mu}\phi$$ with a minus sign, despite of the use of the $(+---)$ convention.

But then I see that Srednicki, at least in the free preprint, uses too the same definition, with the same minus sign. The weird thing is that Srednicki uses $(-+++)$

I looked too into Peskin & Schröder, who stick to $(+---)$ (the same as Zee) and the covariant derivative there is:

$$D_{\mu} \phi=\partial_{\mu}\phi+ieA_{\mu}\phi$$

Now, can any of you tell Pocoyo what is happening here? Why can they consistently use different signs in that definition?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Eduardo Guerras Valera
asked Feb 23, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Eduardo Guerras (435 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

We will work in units with $c=1=\hbar$. The $4$-potential $A^{\mu}$ with upper index is always defined as

$$A^{\mu}~=~(\Phi,{\bf A}). $$

1) Lowering the index of the $4$-potential depends on the sign convention

$$ (+,-,-,-)\qquad \text{resp.} \qquad(-,+,+,+) $$

for the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. This Minkowski sign convention is used in

$$\text{Ref. 1 (p. xix) and Ref. 2 (p. xv)} \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad \text{Ref. 3 (eq. (1.9))}.$$

The $4$-potential $A_{\mu}$ with lower index is $$A_{\mu}~=~(\Phi,-{\bf A}) \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad A_{\mu}~=~(-\Phi,{\bf A}).$$

Maxwell's equations with sources are

$$ d_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}~=~j^{\nu} \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad d_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}~=~-j^{\nu}. $$

The covariant derivative is

$$D_{\mu} ~=~d_{\mu}+iqA_{\mu}\qquad \text{resp.} \qquad D_{\mu} ~=~d_{\mu}-iqA_{\mu}, $$

where $q=-|e|$ is the charge of the electron.

2) The sign convention for the elementary charge $e$ is

$$e~=~-|e| ~<~0 \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad e~=~|e|~>~0.$$

This charge sign convention is used in

$$\text{Ref. 1 (p. xxi) and Ref. 3 (below eq. (58.1))} \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad \text{Ref. 2.}$$

References:

  1. M.E. Peskin and D.V Schroeder, An Introduction to QFT.

  2. A. Zee, QFT in a nutshell.

  3. M. Srednicki, QFT.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Feb 23, 2013 by Qmechanic (3,120 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
FYI: (i) C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, QFT, has Minkowski sign convention $(+,-,-,-)$ (eq.A-1); has charge sign convention e=-|e|; and covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}+iqA_{\mu}$ (eq.4-77), like e.g. Ref. 1, and e.g. Bjorken and Drell. (ii) S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, has Minkowski sign convention $(-,+,+,+)$ (p.xxv); has charge sign convention e=|e| (p.xxvi); and covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}-iqA_{\mu}$ (eq.8.1.21)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
thanks. If it is of any use, some books in my personal library follow: Schutz 2009(-+++); Chetaev 1989 (---+); Einstein 1921(---+); Wald 1984(-+++); Dirac 1967(+---); Susskind&Lindesay 2005(+---); Choudhuri 2010(-+++); Carroll&Ostlie 2007(+---); Tong 2007 classnotes on QFT (+---); Tong 2009 classnotes on ST (-+++...+), 't Hooft 2009 notes on BHs (-+++); Schneider&Ehlers&Falco 1989 (+---); Zee 2010 (+---). I write the signature below the title, so that I don't need to find it out again and again every time I consult something, I guess I'll have to add the electron charge now in QFT books.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Eduardo Guerras Valera
Why the h*** don't they stick to the original convention in the very first paper for everything? It is really so painful, or do they have some need to appear as original? The Susskind lectures have now the + sign, and the David Tong notes have God knows what convention in the Faraday tensor. Everytime I try to cross some details between books and specially the first time I use a new document or internet page, I have to spend the hell of a time figuring out which is the arbitrary convention of that author. The first ten times it was even funny, now it is a pain in the neck. Damn them all!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Eduardo Guerras Valera
@EduardoGuerrasValera The classic tome on general relativity (Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) has on the inside front cover a massive table of sign conventions as used by different authors in GR (as of the publication date). Someone needs to put a table like that together for this now too.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
I'm surprised that Peskin and Srednicki take $e<0$. I've never seen that before. Is this common in QFT?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
Most recent comments show all comments
FYI: Srednicki mentions explicitly his convention below eq. (58.1). I'll try to pinpoint the others as well, and make an update at some point in the future.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
FYI: W. Siegel, Fields, has Minkowski sign convention $(-,+,+,+)$ (p.55); has charge sign convention e=|e| (p.184,204); and covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}+iqA_{\mu}$ (p.184,204), which is opposite. [Also note that Siegel's definition (p.169ff) of the action $S=\int\! dt ({\rm Pot.terms - Kin.terms})$ is opposite of the standard definition.]

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-14 12:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




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

Your rights
...