Operator Product Expansion as shown in Schwartz

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) as presented in Schwartz, specifically focusing on the construction and implications of a non-local Lagrangian in the context of electroweak theory. Participants explore the integration of interaction Lagrangian densities, the role of the W boson, and the distinction between local and non-local interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the non-local Lagrangian in Eqtn(32.68) is constructed, particularly regarding the integration over different sets of points and the absence of certain terms like P_L.
  • Others argue that what is referred to as a "non-local Lagrangian" is actually the scattering operator for second order processes, suggesting a misunderstanding of terminology.
  • A participant explains that integrating out the W field involves applying Wick's theorem and identifies the resulting propagator as a key component in the scattering process.
  • There is a discussion about the origin of the DeAlembertian in the modified propagator expression, with one participant providing a mathematical identity to clarify this point.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of using the full electroweak Lagrangian versus the lower energy 4 Fermi theory, noting that interactions in relativistic QFT are generally local.
  • One participant highlights a distinction made by Schwartz between local and non-local interactions based on the spatial separation of fields.
  • A further question is raised regarding the long and short distance effects in OPE, with a participant noting a lack of clarity in Schwartz's derivation on this aspect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of non-local Lagrangians, the interpretation of local versus non-local interactions, and the implications of using different theoretical frameworks. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the clarity of Schwartz's derivation and the definitions of local and non-local interactions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of terminology related to non-local Lagrangians, the dependence on specific definitions of locality, and the unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation of the OPE.

Elmo
Messages
37
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
Need help in understanding the operator product expansion as shown in Schwartz
I have included here the screen shot of the page I am referring to.I am unsure of how this non-local Lagrangian of Eqtn(32.68) has been constructed. Have they just integrated the interaction Lagrangian densities over two different sets of points (x & y) ?
If so, then why is there no P_L in there, why just a gamma matrix ?
And in this Eqtn(32.68) have they used the full electroweak theory ?
The paragraph above claims that they have integrated out the W boson ,then got this expression but then why have the written the W propagator in there as well ?
In the next step Eqtn(32.69) I don't get how the expression for the propagator is modified ie where does the DeAlembertian come from ?
From this it seems to me that the thing responsible for converting a non-local Lagrangian to a local one,is simply the position space delta function resulting from the momentum integral of the exponential.

From what I understand, the interaction due to the full electroweak Lagrangian should be non-local while for the lower energy 4 Fermi theory, it should be local. So would the answer have been the same had they used the 4 Fermi theory instead ?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (47).png
    Screenshot (47).png
    62.4 KB · Views: 277
Physics news on Phys.org
Elmo said:
I am unsure of how this non-local Lagrangian of Eqtn(32.68) has been constructed. Have they just integrated the interaction Lagrangian densities over two different sets of points (x & y) ?
If so, then why is there no P_L in there, why just a gamma matrix ?
And in this Eqtn(32.68) have they used the full electroweak theory ?
The paragraph above claims that they have integrated out the W boson ,then got this expression but then why have the written the W propagator in there as well ?
He seems to invent names for himself. There are no non-local Lagrangians in QFT.
1) What he calls “non-local Lagrangian” is the scattering operator for second order processes: S^{(2)} = - \frac{1}{2} \int d^{4}x d^{4}y \ T \Big\{\mathcal{L}_{I}(x) \mathcal{L}_{I}(y) \Big\} , where \mathcal{L}_{I}(x) = g \ N \left[ J^{\mu}(x) W_{\mu}(x) \right] , is the (normal-ordered) local interaction Lagrangian.
2) By “integrating out” the W field he means applying the Wick theorem to the product of fields in S^{(2)} and picking the term which contains the contraction of the two W fields: \overline{W_{\mu}(x)W_{\nu}}(y) \equiv \langle 0 |T \{ W_{\mu}(x)W_{\nu}(y)\}|0 \rangle = iD_{\mu\nu}(x - y) , where D_{\mu\nu}(x) is the propagator of the (very) massive vector field W_{\mu}(x) D_{\mu\nu}(x - y) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{4}} \int d^{4}p \ \frac{- \eta_{\mu\nu}}{p^{2} - M^{2}} \ e^{ip(x - y)} . So, basically you obtain a process similar to the Moller scattering in QED: current emits a W boson at x which propagates to y and get absorbed by the second current: S^{2}(2 \to 2) = - g^{2} \int d^{4}xd^{4}y \ N\left[ J^{\mu}(x)J^{\nu}(y)\right] \ D_{\mu\nu}(x - y).
where does the DeAlembertian come from ?
This follows from the following (easy to show) identity \left( \partial^{2} + M^{2}\right) \int d^{4}p \ \frac{e^{ipx}}{p^{2} - M^{2}} = - \int d^{4}p \ e^{ipx}, by applying (\partial^{2} + M^{2})^{-1} to both sides: \int d^{4}p \ \frac{-1}{p^{2} - M^{2}} \ e^{ip(x - y)} = \frac{1}{\partial^{2}_{x} + M^{2}} \int d^{4}p \ e^{ip(x - y)} .
From what I understand, the interaction due to the full electroweak Lagrangian should be non-local while for the lower energy 4 Fermi theory, it should be local.
All interactions in the relativistic QFT are local.
So would the answer have been the same had they used the 4 Fermi theory instead ?
No, because there is no boson in the Fermi phenomenological model. Fermi (4 fermions) interaction is a contact interaction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, etotheipi and JD_PM
Thanks a lot,that was quite helpful.
So if I follow you,Schwartzs` first equation is just about writing the amplitude for a scattering process at second order ? And these Psis are meant to be left Weyl spinors ,I take it ?
Additionally I am a bit doubtful if I understood his distinction between local and non local. Seems like if the fields are at the same point (x) he is calling it local.
 
Elmo said:
So if I follow you,Schwartzs` first equation is just about writing the amplitude for a scattering process at second order ?
Yes.
And these Psis are meant to be left Weyl spinors ,I take it ?
I don’t know what he did before or after those calculations. I believe he treated the W boson as massive photon just to demonstrate the idea. One can get away with such simplification because, had one used the full charged current interaction Lagrangian \mathcal{L}_{cc}(x) = \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left(J^{+ \mu}(x)W^{+}_{\mu}(x) + J^{- \mu}(x)W^{-}_{\mu}(x)\right), with J^{+ \mu} = \bar{\nu}_{L}\gamma^{\mu}e_{L} + \cdots, and applied the Wick theorem, one then simply gets two contractions, one for the W^{+} and the other for W^{-}.
Seems like if the fields are at the same point (x) he is calling it local.
That is okay in the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian but not in the perturbative expansion of the scattering operator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Elmo
A further question regarding OPE.
I have seen it quoted from multiple sources that in OPE the effective operators express the long distance effects and the Wilson coefficients the short distance effect.
Yet I can't seem to see how the derivation by Schwartz shows this long and short distance dependence anywhere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
862
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K