Light-front gauge propagator

Gauge fields are special in the sense that they are invariant under gauge transformations and they lead to problems when we try quantizing them straightforwardly. To circumvent this problem we need to specify a gauge condition to fix gauge.Comment: 4 pages. Prepared for Meeting on Hadronic Interactions, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, 28-30 may. 200

Antiparticle Contribution in the Cross Ladder Diagram for Bethe-Salpater Equation in the Light-Front

We construct the homogeneous integral equation for the vertex of the bound state in the light front with the kernel approximated to order g^4. We will truncate the hierarchical equations from Green functions to construct dynamical equations for the two boson bound state exchanging interacting intermediate bosons and including pair creation process contributing to the crossed ladder diagram.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figure

Singularity-softening prescription for the Bethe-Salpeter equation

The reduction of the two fermion Bethe-Salpeter equation in the framework of light-front dynamics is studied for one gauge A+=0. The arising effective interaction can be perturbatively expanded in powers of the coupling constant g, allowing a defined number of gauge boson exchanges. The singularity of the kernel of the integral equation at vanishs plus momentum of the gauge is canceled exactly in on approuch. We studied the problem using a singularity-softening prescription for the light-front gauge.Comment: 6 pages, Prepared for 25th Brazilian Meeting of Particles Physics and Fields, Caxambu, Brazil, 24/27 aug. 2004, Caxambu, Minas Gerais, Brazi

The Light Front Gauge Propagator: The Status Quo

At the classical level, the inverse differential operator for the quadratic term in the gauge field Lagrangian density fixed in the light front through the multiplier (nA)^2 yields the standard two term propagator with single unphysical pole of the type (kn)^-1. Upon canonical quantization on the light-front, there emerges a third term of the form (kn^(mu)n^(nu))(kn)^-2. This third term in the propagator has traditionally been dropped on the grounds that is exactly cancelled by the "instantaneous" term in the interaction Hamiltonian in the light-front. Our aim in this work is not to discuss which of the propagators is the correct one, but rather to present at the classical level, the gauge fixing conditions that can lead to the three-term propagator.Comment: 5 pages. Talk given in Light-Cone Workshop: Hadrons and Beyond, LC03, Grey College, University of Durham, Durham, 5-9 August, 200

Light-front gauge propagator reexamined-II

Gauge fields are special in the sense that they are invariant under gauge transformations and \emph{``ipso facto''} they lead to problems when we try quantizing them straightforwardly. To circumvent this problem we need to specify a gauge condition to fix the gauge so that the fields that are connected by gauge invariance are not overcounted in the process of quantization. The usual way we do this in the light-front is through the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier, $(n\cdot A)^{2}$, where $n_{\mu}$ is the external light-like vector, i.e., $n^{2}=0$, and $A_{\mu}$ is the vector potential. This leads to the usual light-front propagator with all the ensuing characteristics such as the prominent $(k\cdot n)^{-1}$ pole which has been the subject of much research. However, it has been for long recognized that this procedure is incomplete in that there remains a residual gauge freedom still to be fixed by some ``ad hoc'' prescription, and this is normally worked out to remedy some unwieldy aspect that emerges along the way. In this work we propose \emph{two} Lagrange multipliers with distinct coefficients for the light-front gauge that leads to the correctly defined propagator with no residual gauge freedom left. This is accomplished via $(n\cdot A)^2+(\partial \cdot A)^2$ terms in the Lagrangian density. These lead to a well-defined and exact though Lorentz non invariant propagator.Comment: 9 page

Gauge transformations are not canonical transformations

In classical mechanics, we can describe the dynamics of a given system using either the Lagrangian formalism or the Hamiltonian formalism, the choice of either one being determined by whether one wants to deal with a second degree differential equation or a pair of first degree ones. For the former approach, we know that the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion remains invariant under additive total derivative with respect to time of any function of coordinates and time in the Lagrangian function, whereas the latter one is invariant under canonical transformations. In this short paper we address the question whether the transformation that leaves the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion invariant is also a canonical transformation and show that it is not.Comment: 4 page

Antiparticle Contribution in the Cross Ladder Diagram for Two Boson Propagation in the Light-front

In the light-front milieu, there is an implicit assumption that the vacuum is trivial. By this " triviality " is meant that the Fock space of solutions for equations of motion is sectorized in two, one of positive energy k- and the other of negative one corresponding respectively to positive and negative momentum k+. It is assumed that only one of the Fock space sector is enough to give a complete description of the solutions, but in this work we consider an example where we demonstrate that both sectors are necessary.Comment: 10 pages, 5 figure

QED4_{4} Ward Identity for fermionic field in the light-front

In a covariant gauge we implicitly assume that the Green's function propagates information from one point of the space-time to another, so that the Green's function is responsible for the dynamics of the relativistic particle. In the light front form, which in principle is a change of coordinates, one would expect that this feature would be preserved. In this manner, the fermion's field propagator can be split into a propagating piece and a non-propagating (``contact'') term. Since the latter (``contact'') one does not propagate information, and therefore, assumedly with no harm to the field dynamics we wanted to know what would be the impact of dropping it off. To do that, we investigated its role in the Ward identity in the light front.Comment: 8 pages, no figure

Is the Bohr's quantization hypothesis necessary ?

We deduce the quantization of Bohr's hydrogen's atomic orbit without using his hypothesis of angular momentum quantization. We show that his hypothesis is nothing more than a consequence of the Planck's energy quantization.Comment: 5 page

Angular momentum quantization from Planck's energy quantization

We present in this work a pedagogical way of quantizing the atomic orbit for the hydrogen's atom model proposed by Bohr without using his hypothesis of angular momentum quantization. In contrast to the usual treatment for the orbital quantization, we show that using energy conservation, correspondence principle and Plank's energy quantization Bohr's hypothesis can be deduced from and is a consequence of the Planck's energy quantization.Comment: 6 page