Four Point Correlation function from Generating Functional

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding a specific term's absence in equation 9.41 from Peskin and Schroeder's text on functional quantization of scalar fields. The user initially struggles with deriving the equation correctly and identifies an extra term that should appear when applying functional derivatives. After further reflection, they realize that terms of order O(J^2) survive the differentiation process but vanish when J is set to zero, while O(J) terms lose their J dependence. This leads to the conclusion that the authors may have omitted intermediate steps in their explanation. Ultimately, the user clarifies their misunderstanding regarding the functional derivatives and their implications.
maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi everyone,

I'm working through Section 9.2 (Functional Quantization of Scalar Fields) from Peskin and Schroeder. I have trouble understanding the absence of a term in equation 9.41 which I get but the authors do not.

Define \phi_i \equiv \phi(x_i), J_{x} \equiv J(x), D_{xi} \equiv D_{F}(x-x_i) (the Feynman propagator). Repeated subscripts are integrated over implicitly.

Equation 9.41 in the book reads

\langle 0|T\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3\phi_4|0\rangle = \frac{\delta}{\delta J_1}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_2}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_3}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_4}e^{-\frac{1}{2}J_x D_{xy} J_{y}}

= \frac{\delta}{\delta J_1}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_2}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_3}\left[-J_x D_{x4}\right]e^{-\frac{1}{2}J_x D_{xy} J_{y}}
= \frac{\delta}{\delta J_1}\frac{\delta}{\delta J_2}\left[-D_{34}+J_{x}D_{x4}J_{y}D_{y3}\right]e^{-\frac{1}{2}J_x D_{xy} J_{y}}
= \frac{\delta}{\delta J_1}\left[D_{34}J_{x}D_{x2}+D_{24}J_{y}D_{y3} +J_{x}D_{x4}D_{23}\right]e^{-\frac{1}{2}J_x D_{xy} J_{y}}
= D_{34}D_{12} + D_{24}D_{13} + D_{14}D_{23}

where J is set equal to zero after all the 4 functional derivatives have been evaluated.

When I do this by hand, I get (in the second last step), an extra term:

= \frac{\delta}{\delta J_1}\left[D_{34}J_{x}D_{x2}+D_{24}J_{y}D_{y3} +J_{x}D_{x4}D_{23}-J_x D_{x4} J_{y}D_{y3} J_z D_{z2}\right]e^{-\frac{1}{2}J_x D_{xy} J_{y}}

which isn't given in the book. I just follow the prescription of differentiating with proper order and bringing down a -J*D type of term every time the exponent is differentiated. What happened to this term? Please help..

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait...I think I got it...the terms that are O(J^2) survive the derivatives but go to zero when J is set equal to zero, whereas the O(J) terms are robbed of their J dependence by the last functional derivative. The authors just don't show the steps.

I should've read what I was writing :rolleyes:
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K