10

In many situations, I have seen that the the author makes a gauge choice $A_0=0$, e.g. Manton in his paper on the force between the 't Hooft Polyakov monopole.

Please can you provide me a mathematical justification of this? How can I always make a gauge transformation such that $A_0=0$?

Under a gauge transformation $A_i$ transforms as

$$A_i \to g A_i g^{-1} - \partial_i g g^{-1},$$

where $g$ is in the gauge group.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

3 Answers3

8

The "gauge fixing" condition $A_0=0$ called the temporal gauge or the Weyl-gauge please see the following Wikipedia page). This condition is only a partial gauge fixing condition because, the Yang-Mills Lagrangian remains gauge invariant under time independent gauge transformations:

$A_i \to g A_i g^{-1} - \partial_i g g^{-1}, i=1,2,3$

with $g$ time independent.

However, this is not the whole story: The time derivative of $A_0$ doesn't appear in the Yang-Mills Lagrangian.Thus it is not a dynamical variable. It is just Lagrange multiplier. It's equation of motion is just the Gauss law:

$\nabla.E=0$.

One cannot obtain this equation after setting $A_0 = 0$. So it must be added as a constraint and it must be required to vanish in canonical quantization on the physical states. (This is the reason that it is called the Gauss law constraint).

  • I didnt get your last bit on the Gauss law. Isnt the gauss law obtained by setting the free index as zero in the second equation of motion(obtained by varying $A_\mu$? WHy do you say : "One cannot obtain this equation after setting A0=0. So it must be added as a constraint and it must be required to vanish in canonical quantization on the physical states". I thought it is applicable to all $A_0$'s and has nothing to do with it being 0. –  Jul 31 '12 at 09:12
  • 3
    But if one subtitutes $A_0 = 0$ in the Lagrangian before the computation of the equations of motion, then equation of motion of $A_0$, namely, the Gauss law will be lost, because one will not have an $A_0$ in the Lagrangian to take a variation with respect to it. In this case one has to impose the Gauss law "by hand". – David Bar Moshe Jul 31 '12 at 09:49
  • (cont.), please see the following review by: ANTTI SALMELA

    http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/mat/fysik/vk/salmela/gausssla.pdf

    – David Bar Moshe Jul 31 '12 at 09:52
  • It seems the EOM of $_0$ is $\partial_j A^j =\nabla \cdot \vec{A} =0$ --- could you clarify on this? https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/718090/310987 Thank you so much! – Марина Marina S Jul 13 '22 at 01:16
8

I) Let us choose the following convention

$$ \tag{1} A^{\prime}_{\mu}~=~ g^{-1} (A_{\mu}+id_{\mu}) g $$

for a non-abelian gauge transformation. To be concrete let us assume that the gauge group $G$ is either $U(N)$ or $SU(N)$.

II) Then OP's question becomes

Does there exists a globally defined gauge transformation $g\in G$ so that $A^{\prime}_0=0$?

Or equivalently,

Does there exists a globally defined temporal gauge?

Answer: Yes, choose e.g. the following gauge transformation as a time-ordered Wilson-line

$$ g(\vec{r},t) ~=~ \mathcal{T}\exp\left[i\int_0^t \! dt^{\prime}~A_0(\vec{r},t^{\prime})\right], \qquad t\geq 0. $$

(There is similar formula for $t\leq 0$.) This is possible if the right-hand side is well-defined, i.e. if the former temporal gauge potential $A_0$ is integrable in time.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • +1, this was just what I was looking for. Some questions though; Why the ``time-ordered'' part? Can't we run the time integral from $-\infty$ to $t$ ? Thanks. – kηives Dec 26 '12 at 00:18
  • 1
  • The time-order is needed when the gauge group $G$ is non-abelian. The formula is not correct without time-ordering. 2. Yes, one can put the initial condition at $t_0=-\infty$.
  • – Qmechanic Feb 02 '15 at 13:53