• 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.


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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

204 submissions , 162 unreviewed
5,024 questions , 2,178 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,678 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
815 active unimported users
More ...

  path integral quantization of EM field derived from canonical quantization?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

In Peskin's QFT book page 294, he formally addressed the quantization of EM field,

$$propagotor_{EM}=\frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{k^2+i\epsilon}$$ Now that we have the functional integral quantization method at our command, let us apply it to the derivation of this expression.
Consider the functional integral
$$\int DAe^{iS[A]},$$

Actually I expected to see how he would derive the generating functional $\int DAe^{i(S[A]+J^\mu A_\mu)}$ from the canonical quantization before proceeding on to introduce the Faddeev-Popov trick.

So is there a way to do this derivation, i.e., from the operator formalism using Hamiltonian, or we must presume the validity of this path integral as a starting point, which is probably what Peskin did(I guess)?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:29 (UCT), posted by SE-user LYg
asked Apr 28, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by LYg (15 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:
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