Extracting a Feynman diagram from a lagrangian?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of extracting Feynman diagrams from a Lagrangian in the context of quantum field theory (QFT). Participants explore the derivation of Feynman rules, the interpretation of diagrams, and the implications of derivative couplings in scattering processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the derivation of Feynman diagrams, particularly when derivative couplings are introduced.
  • Another participant questions whether the diagrams correspond to a specific scattering process and why multiple diagrams arise from the integration by parts.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of ensuring that external lines in diagrams correspond to the correct fields.
  • A participant seeks clarification on how to determine external momenta configurations for a decay process when not specified.
  • Responses indicate that the number of diagrams is influenced by the interaction terms in the Lagrangian and the choices available at each vertex.
  • Concerns are raised about the momentum factors associated with particles entering and exiting vertices, with some participants suggesting that understanding the derivation of diagrams may clarify these issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the extraction of diagrams and the implications of derivative couplings. There is no consensus on how to approach the linking of physical situations to diagrams, and multiple interpretations of the process are present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the interaction terms in the Lagrangian and the specific configurations of external momenta, which remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals learning quantum field theory, particularly those grappling with the concepts of Feynman diagrams and their derivation from Lagrangians.

Afanthomme
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, sorry if this is not the right place to post that question but I'm new to this forum, i'll delete if necessary.

I am currently trying to learn QFT from Matthew Schwartz's "Quantum field theory and the standard model", quite clear during the first chapters, but i have been completely lost by the chapter about the feynman rules (can be found here : http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1097985.files/I-7-Feynman.pdf )

I understand the first examples and the 2 derivations, but once he starts adding the derivative coupling (p.17) I'm completely lost : i don't understand how he gets the diagrams.
Is it that he decides to study 2->2 scattering of the first 2 fields through the third given the interaction?

If this is the case, why are there 4 diagrams instead of 1 after the integration by parts?

And one last question : why is there only the p2 momentum in the first amplitude? Since the two particles enter the first vertice (and exit the second), shouldn't they both give a factor?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a bit unclear exactly what you are having trouble with. Are you having trouble in deriving the Feynman rules or using them to obtain the available Feynman diagrams?
 
it's mostly the second problem, i really don't understand how to link a physical situation to the diagrams.
I also have a problem with the momentum factors due to particles entering/leaving a vertex (but i think this might become more understandable if i understand how to get the diagrams)
 
In order to get the diagrams you simply draw all allowed diagrams with the correct in and out states (to a given order in perturbation theory). Start by deriving the Feynman rules and then use these to draw the diagrams.
 
Well I'm not really sure that helps me...
When you say "allowed diagrams with the correct in and out states", you mean all diagrams with a given number of vertex that link the external points ( for example \phi_{pi})?

Edit : in fact i understood what bothered me with the derivative.
 
Last edited:
Afanthomme said:
When you say "allowed diagrams with the correct in and out states", you mean all diagrams with a given number of vertex that link the external points ( for example ϕpi \phi_{pi} )?


Yes. But you must also make sure that the external lines are for the correct fields ... You cannot make a Feynman diagram with an outgoing ##\phi_1## if your outgoing field should be a ##\phi_2## (unless there is also an outgoing ##\phi_1## of course, but you get my meaning).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Afanthomme
Ok i get that !
One last question: when asked to compute "the amplitude for a \phi->\phi \phi decay" without further precision, how do we fix the external points?
Do we have to integrate over all possible momenta configurations?
 
Afanthomme said:
I understand the first examples and the 2 derivations, but once he starts adding the derivative coupling (p.17) I'm completely lost : i don't understand how he gets the diagrams.
Is it that he decides to study 2->2 scattering of the first 2 fields through the third given the interaction?


Yes, he chose ##1+2\rightarrow 1+2##, but you could work the amplitude for ##2+3 \rightarrow 2+3## for example.

If this is the case, why are there 4 diagrams instead of 1 after the integration by parts?

You have two interaction terms in the Lagrangian. There are 2 choices for which to use at each vertex, hence ##2\cdot 2 = 4## possibilities in all.

And one last question : why is there only the p2 momentum in the first amplitude? Since the two particles enter the first vertice (and exit the second), shouldn't they both give a factor?

I think you mentioned that you worked this out. In case it's not clear, it's because there is no derivative on the ##\phi_1## factor and we've specified that there is a ##1+2## in the initial state.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Afanthomme
Thank you very much, this really made it much clearer !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K