Feynman rule involving derivative of a field.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of Feynman rules for a specific interaction term in quantum field theory, particularly focusing on the term involving a derivative of a field: ieA^{\mu}\phi^{\ast}\partial_{\mu}\phi. Participants explore the implications of the derivative in this context and its significance in relation to interaction vertices and propagators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to derive the Feynman rule for the term involving a derivative of a field.
  • Another participant explains that taking the Fourier transform of the fields leads to a factor of -i k_\mu when the derivative acts on the phi field, suggesting a graphical representation with a double line for the field affected by the derivative.
  • A participant questions the significance of the derivative term, noting that typically products of fields represent interaction vertices and that the first derivative might have special implications.
  • In response, it is suggested that the derivative introduces a momentum dependence in the coupling, indicating that it alters the interaction based on the field's momentum, and relates to kinetic terms in the non-interaction case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the derivative term, with some focusing on its mathematical implications while others question its physical meaning. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of the derivative in the context of Feynman rules.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for Fourier transforms and the graphical representation of interactions, but there is no consensus on the broader significance of the derivative term beyond its mathematical consequences.

arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Can anybody help me by explaining how to write down the Feynman rule corresponding to a term like
[tex] ieA^{\mu}\phi^{\ast}\partial_{\mu}\phi[/tex]
I am confused about the presence of the derivative term. Terms have usual meaning.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually, when you have a term like
[tex]A^\mu \phi^* \phi[/tex]
you would take the Fourier transform
[tex]A^\mu(x) = \int dk A^\mu(k) e^{-i k \cdot x}, \qquad<br /> \phi(x) = \int dk \phi(k) e^{-i k \cdot x}, \qquad<br /> \phi^*(x) \int dk \phi^*(k) e^{i k \cdot x}[/tex]
Then you plug this in and you get the Feynman rule for the interaction. I assume you have seen this calculation and you know how to do it (if not, I suggest you review it - it's much more handy to know how to do the calculation than to remember what all the Feynman rules look like).

In this case, you can do exactly the same. You will end up having the derivative act on the phi field, which will produce an extra factor [itex]-i k_\mu[/itex]. Usually, this is indicated in the graphical rule by drawing a double line for the field which the derivative acts on (in this case, the phi field).
 
Thanks for the reply. However I wondered is there any significance of the derivative itself? Normally I have seen product of fields to represent interaction vertex and inverse of quadratic part of field related to propagator; that way is the first derivative of any special significance?
 
As I said, it introduces a term with [itex]k_\mu[/itex]. So in a sense, its special significance is that it makes the coupling dependent on the momentum of the field. Or, in the non-interaction term [itex]\partial^\mu \phi^* \partial_\mu \phi[/itex] you get a [itex]k_\mu k^\mu = k^2[/itex] dependence, which indicates that it's a kinetic term.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K