Can I Use the EOM to Simplify an Interaction Term in Feynman Diagrams?

  • Thread starter jfy4
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Eom Field
In summary: No,even if the vertex is part of a larger diagram it holds.It is because you are not considering the whole of diagram,if you will do this then you will find that those vertex which are sandwiched b/w off-shell propagators, also sandwiched between free particle states.Since K's does not involve any operators,they can be transferred to extreme left or right to operate on free particle state.If free particle states are spinors then also it can be manipulated with γ matrix algebra so as to get something like -iγ.p which can be set up to m.I think you understand it...
  • #1
jfy4
649
3
Hi,

I am given an interaction lagrangian piece as
[tex]
\mathcal{L}_1 = \frac{1}{2} g \phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi
[/tex]
Now normally when I have an interaction lagrangian piece I turn the field's into variations with respect to the source [itex]\delta_J[/itex], and take variations of the free partition function to get feynman diagrams, however in this case the partials confuse me. Am I allowed to use the EOM at this stage to simplify the interaction term? Or can I preform the following operations
[tex]
\frac{1}{2}g \phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}g \Box (\delta_J)^3
[/tex]
since typically the variation and the partial `commute'?

EDIT: I realized I can integrate by parts, that maybe helps a little, but I am still almost in the same boat as before. After integration I get
[tex]
\mathcal{L}_1 = -\frac{1}{4}g \phi^2 \Box \phi
[/tex]
since the total derivative vanishes.

Thanks, any help is appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No transformation necessary, each φ is represented by a line coming to the vertex, and for each ∂μ include as a factor the corresponding k-vector.
Am I allowed to use the EOM at this stage to simplify the interaction term?
Not in general, the equation of motion holds only for particles on the mass shell.
 
  • #3
Thanks a lot Bill.

So I would write something like
[tex]
\rightarrow \frac{i}{2}g(i k^\mu )(i k_{\mu}) = \frac{-i}{2}g k^\mu k_\mu
[/tex]
for the vertex factor in a diagram. Then for a field redefinition to the scalar lagrangian
[tex]
\mathcal{L}_0 = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2 \phi^2
[/tex]
of the form
[tex]
\phi \rightarrow \phi' = \phi +\lambda \phi^2
[/tex]
I end up with something of the form
[tex]
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_0 -2\lambda \phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - 2 \lambda^2 \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi -\lambda m^2 \phi^3 - \frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 m^2 \phi^4
[/tex]
Then I have associated vertex factors of the form
[tex]
2i\lambda k^2 \quad 2i \lambda^2 k^2 \quad -i \lambda m^2 \quad -\frac{i}{2}\lambda^2 m^2
[/tex]
 
  • #4
Well if the interaction has three φ's, there's three k's also, with k1 + k2 + k3 = 0. So the factor in front of φ ∂μφ ∂μφ, instead of k2 wouldn't it have to look more like k1·k2?
 
  • #5
So the phi without a partial derivative is acting like a mediator; it takes away [itex]-(k_1 + k_2)[/itex] from the interaction vertex? However, the assignment of momentum labels is arbitrary, how can I let my convention decided which momenta are the ones I have as factors...?
 
  • #6
You'd have to include all three possibilities. And for the φ2μφ ∂μφ term there would be six!
 
  • #7
jfy4 said:
Thanks a lot Bill.

So I would write something like
[tex]
\rightarrow \frac{i}{2}g(i k^\mu )(i k_{\mu}) = \frac{-i}{2}g k^\mu k_\mu
[/tex]
for the vertex factor in a diagram. Then for a field redefinition to the scalar lagrangian
[tex]
\mathcal{L}_0 = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - \frac{1}{2}m^2 \phi^2
[/tex]
of the form
[tex]
\phi \rightarrow \phi' = \phi +\lambda \phi^2
[/tex]
I end up with something of the form
[tex]
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_0 -2\lambda \phi \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi - 2 \lambda^2 \phi^2 \partial^\mu \phi \partial_\mu \phi -\lambda m^2 \phi^3 - \frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 m^2 \phi^4
[/tex]
Then I have associated vertex factors of the form
[tex]
2i\lambda k^2 \quad 2i \lambda^2 k^2 \quad -i \lambda m^2 \quad -\frac{i}{2}\lambda^2 m^2
[/tex]

vertex factor can be calculated directly from interaction term by taking iLint substiuting the plane wave form for different ∅ like exp(ikx) and exp(-ikx) and then throwing out the term already taken care by normalization,exponential factor etc.it is recommended to use lagrangian not hamiltonian in case partials getting involved.
 
  • #8
So then using my expression for [itex]\mathcal{L}[/itex], I would have
[tex]
(i \lambda) (2(k_1 k+k_2 k+k_1 k_2)-m^2) \quad \text{and}\quad (i \lambda^2)(2(k_1 k_2 + k_1 k_3 + k_1 k_4 + k_2 k_3 + k_2 k_4 + k_3 k_4)-\frac{1}{2}m^2).
[/tex]
as my vertex factors? Thanks for your guys help.
 
  • #9
I am not getting why are you redefining the field by a transformation,Vertex factors are always sandwiched between free particle states.There you can use eqn of motion to elliminate some k's by on-shell condition(it will be an approximation)
 
  • #10
I am not getting why are you redefining the field by a transformation,Vertex factors are always sandwiched between free particle states.There you can use eqn of motion to elliminate some k's by on-shell condition(it will be an approximation)
No they aren't! :confused: What if the vertex is just one part of a larger diagram. Then the lines coming to the vertex will be off-shell propagators.
 
  • #11
Bill_K said:
No they aren't! :confused: What if the vertex is just one part of a larger diagram. Then the lines coming to the vertex will be off-shell propagators.

No,even if the vertex is part of a larger diagram it holds.It is because you are not considering the whole of diagram,if you will do this then you will find that those vertex which are sandwiched b/w off-shell propagators, also sandwiched between free particle states.Since K's does not involve any operators,they can be transferred to extreme left or right to operate on free particle state.If free particle states are spinors then also it can be manipulated with γ matrix algebra so as to get something like -iγ.p which can be set up to m.I think you understand it now.
 

What is field redefinition and EOM?

Field redefinition and EOM (Equations of Motion) are mathematical techniques used in physics and engineering to simplify and solve complex systems of equations. Field redefinition involves changing the variables or parameters in the equations, while EOM involves deriving equations that describe the motion or behavior of a physical system.

Why is field redefinition and EOM important in scientific research?

Field redefinition and EOM are important because they allow scientists to simplify and solve complex problems, making it easier to understand and predict the behavior of physical systems. This is especially useful in fields such as quantum mechanics and general relativity, where the equations describing the behavior of particles or objects can be extremely complex.

What are some common applications of field redefinition and EOM?

Field redefinition and EOM have many applications in physics and engineering, including in the study of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and general relativity. They are also used in the design and analysis of complex systems, such as electrical circuits and control systems.

How do scientists use field redefinition and EOM in their research?

Scientists use field redefinition and EOM in their research by applying these techniques to the equations that describe the behavior of a physical system. This allows them to simplify the equations and solve for specific variables or parameters, making it easier to understand and predict the behavior of the system.

Are there any limitations or challenges associated with field redefinition and EOM?

Yes, there are some limitations and challenges associated with field redefinition and EOM. These techniques may not always be applicable or effective in solving certain problems, and they may require advanced mathematical skills and knowledge to use effectively. Additionally, the simplifications made through field redefinition and EOM may lead to some loss of accuracy in the results.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
292
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
751
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
585
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
712
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
936
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top