Interaction term in path integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of two forms of the generating functional in quantum field theory (QFT), specifically addressing the treatment of the interaction term and the potential in path integrals. Participants explore the implications of taking the potential out of the path integral and the interpretation of functional derivatives in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the equivalence of the two forms of the generating functional, expressing concern over the omission of the integration over paths in the second form.
  • Another participant asserts that the potential can only be factored out if it is constant with respect to the field variable, challenging the validity of the original statement.
  • A reference to a specific QFT text is provided to support the claims made, indicating that the formulas in the text differ from those presented in the discussion.
  • One participant suggests that expanding both sides of the equation in powers of the potential would demonstrate their equivalence, framing it as a formal derivation of perturbation theory.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of integrals involving functional derivatives of the interaction term, questioning how these integrals act on the generating functional.
  • A suggestion is made to consult another QFT text for a clearer explanation, emphasizing the need for understanding functional derivatives in the context of the integral.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the potential as a function of the functional derivative, clarifying that it should be interpreted as a potential evaluated at the functional derivative.
  • Another participant confirms the clarification regarding the interpretation of the potential and functional derivative, providing an example to illustrate the concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of the potential in the generating functional, with some asserting that the potential can be factored out while others contest this. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations and approaches presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the nature of the potential and its dependence on the field variable. The interpretation of functional derivatives and their application in the context of the generating functional also remains a point of contention.

QuantumDevil
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
In some QFT books it is written that the generating functional
[tex]Z[J]=\int \mathcal{D}\phi e^{i\int d^{4}x(\mathcal{L}_{o} +V(\phi) +J\phi) }[/tex]
can be expressed in equivalent form:

[tex]Z[J]=e^{i\int d^{4}xV(\phi)} \int \mathcal{D}\phi e^{i\int d^{4}x(\mathcal{L}_{o} +J\phi )}[/tex].
The only argument supporting this statement I found is that [tex]V(\phi)[/tex] does not depend on J. But I'm still suspicious about it because we have still to integrate over all possible paths [tex]\mathcal{D}\phi[/tex], which is ommited in the second definition of the generating functional.

So...can anybody explain me why these two froms of [tex]Z[J][/tex] are equivalent?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
something's very wrong with this! You should not be able to take out the potential from the path integral unless it's constant (in phi). What textbooks are you referring to? Are you sure it's not a typo?
 
These formulae are very different than what you wrote!

As they are in the text, they are correct. The easiest way to see it is to go ahead and expand both the LHS and the RHS in powers of V, and they match.

This is (roughly) nothing more than a formal derivation of perturbation theory.
 
Can't see it's really a proof because one still have to integrate powers of [tex]V[/tex] over measure [tex]\mathcal{D}\phi[/tex] ...and [tex]V[/tex] depends still on [tex]\phi[/tex].
There is also question: how to interpret integrals over [tex]d^4x[/tex] of interaction term parametrized by functional derivative over current J:
[tex]V (\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)})[/tex]?
How [tex]e^{i\int d^4 x V (\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)})}[/tex] actually acts on [tex]Z_{0}(J)[/tex]?
For me the description given by Srednicki is ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
check out Zee's "QFT in a Nutshell" - it has a very nice explanation of how this all works.

You need the d^4x integral because these are functional derivatives. To get an intuitive idea of what's happening, replace

[tex]\int d^4x\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)} \rightarrow \frac{d}{dJ}[/tex]

To see how the exponential operator acts, Taylor Expand.
 
Thanks for reference. It was very helpful.
The reason of my problems was that I assumed [tex]V (\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)})[/tex] to be potential parametrized by functional derivative not just product of potential and the "derivative".
 
Last edited:
QuantumDevil said:
Thanks for reference. It was very helpful.
The reason of my problems was that I assumed [tex]V (\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)})[/tex] to be potential parametrized by functional derivative not just product of potential and the "derivative".

[itex]V (\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)})[/itex] is referring to the potential, where you plug the functional derivative into the argument. So for example, if V(x)=x^2, then this would be the SECOND FUNCTIONAL DERIVATIVE operator. Not the product.
 
You're right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K