Dimensions and the Generating Functional

Click For Summary
The dimensions of the generating functional Z[j] in real scalar field theory are discussed, emphasizing that both Z[j] and the connected Green's functions generating functional W[j] are dimensionless. Z[j] is defined as the vacuum-to-vacuum transition amplitude, which equals one when there is no source, necessitating a normalization factor in the measure over the fields. The normalization ensures that Z[0] equals one, confirming that the integration measure, \mathcal{D}\phi, must be unitless. This concept is applicable beyond field theory, extending to path integrals in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The discussion clarifies the importance of dimensional consistency in these mathematical formulations.
TriTertButoxy
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Something seems a little weird to me: What are the dimensions of a generating functional, Z[j] -- say for real scalar field theory?

Z[j]=\int\mathcal{D}\phi\,\exp\, i\!\int d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+j\phi\right)​

Also, what about mass dimensions of the generating functional for connected Green's functions, W[j]? This is defined in terms of the log of the generating functional, Z[j].

Z[j]=e^{iW[j]}​

This seems a little pathological...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both Z and W are dimensionless. This is obvious for W, since you couldn't put it into the exponential if it wasn't. As for Z, it's usually defined as the vacuum-to-vacuum transition amplitude in the presence of the source j, and this equals one if there is no source, so Z[0]=1. Thus Z[j] must be dimensionless. To get Z[0]=1, a normalization factor must be implicitly included in the measure over the fields.

None of this is specific to field theory. Similar statements apply to path integrals in NRQMOP (non-relavitistic quantum mechanics of one particle :smile:).
 
Ah, so you mean in order for Z[0]=1, the integration measure, \mathcal{D}\phi, must be normalized such that it is unitless.

I understand now. thanks, Avodyne!
 
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 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K