2

I am confused with the sign of the QED vertex. It seems that in different books, the signs are different.

  1. In Chapter 7 of Griffiths' book, the vertex is of the form $-iq\gamma^\mu$ (the particle (electron) has a charge $q = -e$, so the vertex is $ie\gamma^\mu$)

enter image description here

enter image description here

And if I search online for the "QED vertex", many of the pages and notes state that the vertex is $-iq\gamma^\mu$.

  1. But in Peskin and Schroeder's book, equation (A.6), the vertex is $iq\gamma^\mu$ ($q = -e$ for particle (electron))

enter image description here

  1. Similarly, in Schwartz's book, equation (13.22), it seems that the vertex is $iq\gamma^\mu$ ($q = -e$ for particle (electron))

enter image description here

I am confused about the sign, which one is correct? $iq\gamma^\mu$ or $-iq\gamma^\mu$?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Mirai
  • 23
  • It seems to me that both conventions are the same if one considers the substitution $q=Qe$, where $e$ is the fundamental unit charge and $Q$ is some integer value, indicating that the total charge will be some multiple value of the fundamental unit charge – schris38 Jun 22 '23 at 06:12

1 Answers1

1

TL;DR: Different authors have different conventions. E.g. the covariant derivative is $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}\pm iqA_{\mu}$. Nevertheless, everybody seems to agree that the Dirac Lagrangian density is ${\cal L}=i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi+\ldots$, so the interaction term becomes ${\cal L}_{\rm int}=\mp q\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}\psi$, and hence the Feynman vertex rule is $\mp iq\gamma^{\mu}$, respectively, i.e. it comes down to a sign ambiguity.

For a correlation function with an odd number of external photon legs, this yields an absolute sign ambiguity (but no relative sign ambiguities), and hence no physical consequences for probabilities if we flip the overall sign of all the charges $q\to -q$.

Concerning the references listed by OP it goes as follows:

  1. D. Griffiths, Introduction to elementary particles, has

    • Minkowski sign convention $(+,-,-,-)$ (p. 85);

    • charge sign convention $e=|e|$ (p.395);

    • covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}+iqA_{\mu}$ (p.349,352,365);

    • interaction term $-q\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}\psi$ (p.348);

    • and Feynman vertex rule $-iq\gamma^{\mu}$ (p.230).

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

    • Minkowski sign convention $(+,-,-,-)$ (p. xix);

    • charge sign convention $e=-|e|$ (p.809);

    • covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}+iqA_{\mu}$ (p.303);

    • interaction term $-q\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}\psi$ (p.303);

    • and Feynman vertex rule $-iq\gamma^{\mu}$ (p.303,802).

  3. M.D. Schwartz, QFT & the standard model, has

    • Minkowski sign convention $(+,-,-,-)$ (p.12,817);

    • charge sign convention $e=|e|$ (p.818);

    • covariant derivative $D_{\mu}=d_{\mu}-iqA_{\mu}$ (p.140,224,818);

    • interaction term $q\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}\psi$ (p.225);

    • and Feynman vertex rule $iq\gamma^{\mu}$ (p.226).

For more on conventions in QED, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.

--

$^1$ We work in units with $c=1=\hbar$.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • Thank you very much! It becomes much clearer to me. I have a follow-up question: 1. since the sign of interaction term is different in different books, will it influence the result like the vertex correction where there are odd numbers of this kind of interaction? 2. For modern research, do we have a convention? If we use different conventions, and we compare the correction, it may cause a sign difference. – Mirai Jun 22 '23 at 22:31
  • I updated the answer. – Qmechanic Jun 23 '23 at 08:19