Register to reply

A (apparently?) non-local quantum field theory

by rubbergnome
Tags: apparently, field, nonlocal, quantum, theory
Share this thread:
Dec9-12, 05:05 PM
P: 13
I need to derive the euler-lagrange equations for the following non-local lagrangian density for a complex scalar field ψ

[itex]\mathcal{L} = \partial_{\mu}\psi^* \partial_{\mu}\psi - \lambda \int dy\, f(x,y) \psi^*(y) \psi(y)[/itex]

where λ is the coupling constant, f is a certain real-positive valued function linear in the first argument that satisfies f(x,y)=1/f(y,x) (which also implies f(x,x)=1). The integral is over all spacetime.

Applying the usual euler-lagrange equations shouldn't be correct here. I tried taking the functional derivative of the action S=∫dx L with respect to ψ*and set it equal to zero, and I get

[itex]\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\psi(x) = -\lambda \int dy\, f(y,x) \psi(x)[/itex]

where indeed we have a non-constant mass term. On the other hand, I used the methods in this paper

to derive the feynman rules for the only possible vertex in the theory (this already made me think about a correction to the propagator); I get -iλ∫dxdy f(x,y) which purely depends on f. This result can also be quickly derived with eq. (136) here

The full propagator is therefore one of a free complex scalar field with mass mē= λ∫dxdy f(x,y). At least this is the result I got, and I'd like to confirm it deriving this mass term in the equations of motion.

I also calculated the leading order correction to the transition amplitude between single-particle states in the canonical formalism, and the result agrees with the above procedure.

The final doubt that arises is this: even if the equations of motions lead to the same result, why would the non-locality in the lagrangian be completely gone, turning into a mass term?

I hope at least part of my post makes sense. Thanks in advance for helping. :)
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
Scientists uncover clues to role of magnetism in iron-based superconductors
Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms
X-ray laser probes tiny quantum tornadoes in superfluid droplets
Dec10-12, 08:43 AM
P: 13
For some reason I cannot edit the first post anymore. I just wanted to add that x-linearity in f is not required, also because if compromises the positivity. I needed it for other things, but I realized it's not working that way. Deriving the equations of motion shouldn't depend on that anyway.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Relation between quantum computer and quantum field theory? Quantum Physics 2
Requirements on Quantum Field Theory to be correct physical theory? High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 1
Is Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity Theory mutually exclusive? Beyond the Standard Model 0
Why quantum field theory is not called quantum mechanics of changeable number particl Quantum Physics 10
Is quantum field theory a genuine quantum theory? Quantum Physics 3