h0dgey84bc
- 159
- 0
Hi,
If I have a Lagrangian that looks like L=-\frac{1}{2} \partial^a{\phi}\partial_a{\phi}-\frac{1}{2} \mu \phi^2 -\frac{1}{24}\lambda \phi^4.
Where \lambda>0
Then how do I figure out the mass for small fluctuations about \phi=0 ?
I don't think I really understand what it means for some parameter to represent the mass. I mean without the phi^4 term, it would just lead to KG equation and obviously there \mu represents the mass when you find the dispersion relation.
Should I just therefore find the equations of motion, then plug in some superposition type solution to find out the dispersion relation, and thus find a term that I would normally call the mass in a relation of the form E^2=P^2+m^2? or is there something else to this?
I'm not really sure how to incorporate the phi=0 expansion into this, I was originally thinking just Taylor expand but then I would have expanded about \phi(0,\vec(0)), as oppose to the trivial \phi=0 solution.
Thanks for any help
If I have a Lagrangian that looks like L=-\frac{1}{2} \partial^a{\phi}\partial_a{\phi}-\frac{1}{2} \mu \phi^2 -\frac{1}{24}\lambda \phi^4.
Where \lambda>0
Then how do I figure out the mass for small fluctuations about \phi=0 ?
I don't think I really understand what it means for some parameter to represent the mass. I mean without the phi^4 term, it would just lead to KG equation and obviously there \mu represents the mass when you find the dispersion relation.
Should I just therefore find the equations of motion, then plug in some superposition type solution to find out the dispersion relation, and thus find a term that I would normally call the mass in a relation of the form E^2=P^2+m^2? or is there something else to this?
I'm not really sure how to incorporate the phi=0 expansion into this, I was originally thinking just Taylor expand but then I would have expanded about \phi(0,\vec(0)), as oppose to the trivial \phi=0 solution.
Thanks for any help