Feynman rules for this real scalar field in 2d

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Feynman rules for a real scalar field in two dimensions, specifically for a phi-3 theory. Each propagator contributes a Feynman propagator D_F(x-y), while each vertex contributes a factor of \(\frac{-i g}{3!} \int d^2 z\) due to the three lines connecting at a vertex in 2D. The transition from 4D to 2D does not alter the fundamental structure of the Feynman rules, but it requires adjustments in the combinatorial factors and integration dimensions. The path integral formalism and Wick's theorem are recommended for deriving these rules accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Feynman propagators in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with the phi-3 and phi-4 theories
  • Knowledge of path integral formalism
  • Basic concepts of Gaussian integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Feynman rules for phi-4 theory in 4D
  • Learn about the application of Wick's theorem in quantum field theory
  • Explore the implications of dimensionality changes in quantum field theories
  • Investigate combinatorial factors in perturbation theory
USEFUL FOR

Quantum field theorists, particle physicists, and students studying scalar field theories who are looking to deepen their understanding of Feynman rules and their applications in different dimensions.

gu1t4r5
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider the following real scalar field in two dimensions:

S = \int d^2 x ( \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi - \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2 - g \phi^3)

What are the Feynman rules for calculating < \Omega | T(\phi_1 ... \phi_n ) | \Omega >
2. Homework Equations

For a phi-4 theory in 4d:

Each propagator contributes a Feynman propagator D_F (x-y)
Each vertex z (4 lines to a point) contributes \frac{-i g}{4!} \int d^4 z
3. The Attempt at a Solution

I just wanted to check my understanding is okay. Adapting the rules for a phi-4 theory (this is phi-3 theory, yes?):

Each propagator contributes a Feynman propagator D_F (x-y) (same as before)
Each vertex (now only 3 lines to a point because it is a phi-3 theory) contributes \frac{-i g}{3!} \int d^3 z (because phi-3 not phi-4) or \frac{-i g}{2!} \int d^2 z (because 2d not 4d)

In Fourier space, one would integrate over momentum as \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3}

Is this correct for adapting a phi-4 theory to phi-3?
Does going from 4d to 2d change anything here I'm missing?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi gu1t4r5,
You are correct that each propagator contributes a factor of ##D_F(x-y)##. The remaining rules and combinatorial factors can be derived most easily using the path integral formalism and Gaussian integrals. If you prefer to work directly with particle creation and annihilation operators, you can equivalently use Wick's theorem as presented on page 89 of Peskin and Schroeder, or in the middle of page 261 in Weinberg vol. 1. As for the integrals over vertices, recall that all spatial data comes from the Lagrangian density; if you expand the interaction part of the Lagrangian density, you find that each vertex is an integral over a fixed dimension (2). The combinatorial factors associated with vertices depend on how you define your diagrams. Conventionally, a diagram is a sum of all terms in the perturbative expansion that have the same form when viewed as a product of (infinite dimensional) tensors or equivalently, terms whose graphs are essentially the same. You may want to check the factors multiplying the vertex integrals with how the coupling constant appears in the Lagrangian. For instance, it is conventional in ##\phi^4## theory for the interaction density to be proportional to ##\frac{g}{4!}\phi^4##, because the factor of ##1/4!## cancels some combinatorial factors (namely, factors of 4! [typically] for each vertex) that you get when you crank out the tedious algebra of perturbation theory directly. You either include the ##1/4!## factor in your Feynman rules and do combinatorics later, or you anticipate cancelling the ##1/4!## and instead figure out what the so-called `symmetry factor' for each diagram is. Hope this helps!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K