Computing vacuum expectation values

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on computing vacuum expectation values as outlined in Mark Srednicki's "Quantum Field Theory" (specifically equation 210 on page 69). The second term in equation 210 arises from applying the chain rule and product rule to the expression involving the functional W(J). A correction was noted regarding a typo in the first line of equation 210, where a factor of 1/Z[J=0] should be included. The participants clarified that derivatives should be applied before setting J=0 to arrive at the correct expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory concepts
  • Familiarity with functional derivatives
  • Knowledge of the chain rule and product rule in calculus
  • Ability to interpret equations from Srednicki's "Quantum Field Theory"
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of vacuum expectation values in Quantum Field Theory
  • Study the application of functional derivatives in field theory contexts
  • Examine the implications of the chain rule and product rule in quantum calculations
  • Analyze the corrections and typos in mathematical texts for clarity in understanding
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in Quantum Field Theory, physicists working on vacuum expectation values, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of functional derivatives in theoretical physics.

kexue
Messages
195
Reaction score
2
I have small question computing vacuum expectation values here http://www.cns.gatech.edu/FieldTheory/extras/SrednickiQFT03.pdf" from Mark Srednicki.

My problem is with equation 210 on the pdf page 69. In the second line of 210, where does the second term come from?

Z(J) and W(J) are defined one page 62-63 with equations 196 and 197, and the computation for the vacuum expectation value of a single field is given in 198, which makes sense to me.

But not the second term in the second line of 210!

thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


it's just the chain rule and the product rule. treat \delta_i as an ordinary derivative and work it out.

There is one small typo: in the first line there should be a 1/Z[J=0]. This then cancels when you write it in terms of W.
 


Thanks Blechman!
 


Ok, bit ashamed to come back, but ..

So I want to compute (d/dJ_1)(d/dJ_2)exp(iW(J(1,2))

(d/dJ_1)(d/dJ_2)exp(iW(J(1,2)) = (d/dJ_1)((d/dJ_2)iW(J(1,2)exp(iW(J(1,2)) (chain rule)

since at the end we set J=0 and W(0)=0 defined, exp(iW(J(0))=1, exp(iW(J(1,2)) drops out

so I got (d/dJ_1)((d/dJ_2)iW(J(1,2)

now I should apply the product rule to get to the second line of 210, but sadly I can't see how
 


kexue said:
Ok, bit ashamed to come back, but ..

So I want to compute (d/dJ_1)(d/dJ_2)exp(iW(J(1,2))

(d/dJ_1)(d/dJ_2)exp(iW(J(1,2)) = (d/dJ_1)((d/dJ_2)iW(J(1,2)exp(iW(J(1,2)) (chain rule)

since at the end we set J=0 and W(0)=0 defined, exp(iW(J(0))=1, exp(iW(J(1,2)) drops out
You may only do that at the very end of the calculation (after having applied all derivatives). Apply the derivative wrt J_1 on everything and *then* set J=0. You will get his expression.
 


Now got it!

Thanks nrqed, thanks blechman!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
658
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K