tirrel
Jul17-09, 02:54 PM
Hi... really quick
peskin at page 185 defines \Gamma^\mu considering only amputated diagrams... how can this be correct if the definition of \Gamma wants only 1p1 diagrams?
are the same amputated and 1P1?... I think no...
but then when he finds ward takahashy identity he says again that \Gamma^\mu is related to amputated diagrams and no 1p1.... what's going on? I read in other books that ward identity deals with the real \Gamma functional...
peskin at page 185 defines \Gamma^\mu considering only amputated diagrams... how can this be correct if the definition of \Gamma wants only 1p1 diagrams?
are the same amputated and 1P1?... I think no...
but then when he finds ward takahashy identity he says again that \Gamma^\mu is related to amputated diagrams and no 1p1.... what's going on? I read in other books that ward identity deals with the real \Gamma functional...