I Callan-Symanzik equation for Effective Potential

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the transition from the Callan-Symanzik equation for the Effective Action to the Effective Potential as outlined in Peskin & Schroeder's QFT book. The user expresses confusion about how to derive equation (13.25) from (13.24) using the relationship between the Effective Action and the Effective Potential, specifically referencing equation (11.50). The explanation provided involves discretizing space and relating the derivatives of the Effective Action to the Effective Potential through a series of mathematical transformations. Ultimately, the continuous limit leads to a clearer understanding of how to arrive at equation (13.25). This clarification helps bridge the gap between the two equations in the context of quantum field theory.
thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
Hey all,
I am looking equations (13.24),(13.25) in Peskin & Schroeder's QFT book and I am confused about how they change from the Callan-Symanzik equation for the Effective Action to the Effective Potential. I thought the relation for constant ##\phi_{cl}## was ##\Gamma[\phi_{cl}] = -(VT)\cdot V_{eff}(\phi_{cl})##, equation (11.50) in the book. But making such a substitution into (13.24), I do not understand how to get to (13.25).
Any advice would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First imagine that the space is discretized, so that you can write
$$\int dx\, \phi(x)\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(x)}\Gamma[\phi]=
\sum_{x=1,2,\cdots} \phi_x \frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_x} \Gamma(\phi_1,\phi_2,\ldots)$$
Then define the quantity
$$V(\phi)=\Gamma(\phi,\phi,\ldots)$$
Clearly
$$\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}=\sum_{x}\left(\frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial\phi_x} \right)_{\phi_1=\phi_2=\cdots=\phi}$$
so
$$\phi\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}=
\sum_{x}\phi\left(\frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial\phi_x} \right)_{\phi_1=\phi_2=\cdots=\phi} =
\left( \sum_{x} \phi_x\frac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial\phi_x} \right)_{\phi_1=\phi_2=\cdots=\phi}$$
Finally turn back to the continuous ##x##, so that the last formula can be written as
$$\left( \int dx\, \phi(x)\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(x)}\Gamma[\phi]\right)_{\phi(x) =\phi, \; \forall x}
=\phi\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}$$
Now getting (13.25) should be obvious.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and malawi_glenn
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K