Four Point Correlation function from Generating Functional

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:
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top