Graduate Effective Action for Scalar and Fermion Fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter The black vegetable
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Effective action
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving an effective action for a Lagrangian that includes both scalar and fermion fields, using techniques from Peskin and Schroeder. It confirms that the same formula can be applied, but emphasizes the need to treat fermionic fields as Grassmann variables, which alters the differentiation and integration processes. The importance of correctly managing signs when working with fermions is highlighted, as well as the relevance of the path-integral formalism for both types of fields. The conversation also references additional literature, such as Bailin and Love's work, for further insights into the path-integral approach. Overall, the techniques for scalar and fermion fields share similarities, with specific considerations for the unique properties of fermions.
The black vegetable
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Using effective action to derive the one loop contribution of aa scalar field and fermion field
I am reading Peskin and Schroeder Section 11.4. They derive a formula for the effective action p.372 Equation 11.63 using a scalar field interaction,
They use this formula to determine the effective potential. If I want to do the same for a Lagrangian with with a scalar field and fermion field, can I use the same Formula reasoning and technique to get a formula for a scalar field and fermion field?

<br /> \Gamma \left ( \phi _{cl} \right )=\int d^{4}L_{1}\left [ \phi _{cl} \right ]+\frac{i}{2}\log\text{Det}\left [ \frac{\partial ^{2}L_{1}}{\partial \phi \partial \phi } \right ] - i\: Connected\: Diagrams+\int d^{4}x\delta L\left [ \phi _{cl} \right ].\tag{11.63}<br />

If so do you treat the Dirac Fermion \bar{\Psi } \Psi as two different fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can use the same formula also for fermionic fields, but you must be aware that these fields must be described as Grassmann-number valued and that the differentiation and integration with respect to Grassmann numbers/fields are modified. This is all necessary to get the anticommutation properties of the corresponding field operators correctly mapped to the functional formalism.
 
Ok Thanks, very helpful I have some notes on Grassmann variables that I will revisit, but can I start as Peskin and Schroeder did with a new Lagrangian but this time containing a scaler field and a fermionic field expanding both
## \phi \rightarrow \phi _{cl}+\eta ##
##\Psi \rightarrow \Psi _{cl}+\xi##

Then comparing the ##\eta^{2}## to get a value for ##\frac{\delta ^{2}L_{1}}{\delta \phi \delta\phi }##

Or maybe I'm not following it very well
 
The general technique is the same for fermions and bosons. You have to be only careful with the signs for the fermionic case using Grassmann variables. Peskin&Schroeder also treats fermions in the path-integral formalism (Sect. 9.5).

Another very good book using the path-integral formalism from the very beginning is

D. Bailin and A. Love, Introduction to Gauge Field Theory,
Adam Hilger, Bristol and Boston (1986).
 
  • Like
Likes The black vegetable
vanhees71 said:
The general technique is the same for fermions and bosons. You have to be only careful with the signs for the fermionic case using Grassmann variables. Peskin&Schroeder also treats fermions in the path-integral formalism (Sect. 9.5).

Another very good book using the path-integral formalism from the very beginning is

D. Bailin and A. Love, Introduction to Gauge Field Theory,
Adam Hilger, Bristol and Boston (1986).
Okay thanks for your help
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
652
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K