Path Integrals in QED: Solve by Substituting Classical Solution?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of path integrals in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), specifically whether one can substitute classical solutions for the electromagnetic field into the path integral to simplify calculations. The scope includes theoretical considerations and implications for the treatment of interactions in QED.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that substituting the classical solution for the electromagnetic potential Aμ in the path integral could simplify calculations, effectively removing the photon terms from the integral.
  • Others argue that this approach does not treat the electromagnetic field quantum mechanically, leading to a linear perturbation and a quadratic system, which may not be desirable.
  • One participant notes that integrating out the photon field by substituting its classical solution results in an effective action that includes interaction terms for fermions, which may be non-local.
  • There is a discussion about whether the effective action referred to is the Wilsonian effective action, which is used for regulating and renormalizing theories.
  • Some participants suggest that substituting classical solutions should yield exact results rather than approximations, although they acknowledge that operators may exceed dimension 4, necessitating the Wilsonian effective action scheme.
  • One participant draws a parallel to integrating out the W boson, suggesting that if the kinetic terms and boson-boson vertices are included, the resulting theory of weak interactions could be exact, without involving virtual W particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of substituting classical solutions in path integrals. There is no consensus on whether this approach is desirable or leads to accurate results, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the treatment of fields as classical versus quantum, the implications for interaction terms, and the potential need for effective action schemes. These aspects remain unresolved and depend on specific assumptions made during the discussion.

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
When calculating a path integral, if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the field, then you can perform the path integral by just substituting in the classical solution for the field.

So if you have free-field Lagrangians for electrons and photons, and add the standard QED interaction term - which is linear in the electromagnetic potential j^\mu A_\mu - then can you in principle solve the path integral by plugging in the classical solution for A_\mu? When you do this, all A_\mu's disappear from your Z[J(x)] functional. You still have to perform the path integral for the fermion terms, but the photon terms are out of the path integral now.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you plug in the classical solutions for the electromagnetic field you are obviously not treating this field quantum mechanically. In that case, you deal with a linear perturbation, and yea, the system is quadratic again. But that's not really something you want.. right?
 
xepma said:
If you plug in the classical solutions for the electromagnetic field you are obviously not treating this field quantum mechanically. In that case, you deal with a linear perturbation, and yea, the system is quadratic again. But that's not really something you want.. right?

The way that QED is taught is to solve the free-field source functional: Z_0[J]. Then any interaction such as the QED interaction can be gotten from: exp(i \int \mathcal L_I(\frac{\partial}{\partial J(x)})d^4x)Z_0[J]. The interactions end up being vertices, while the free-field stuff end up being propagators, and you have your usual Feynman rules.

However, if we integrate the photon field out completely by substituting the classical solution of the Lagrangian for the photon field (and this solution will be expressed in terms of the Dirac fields), then you no longer have vertices that involve photons in your interaction! As long as you agree that no external particles are photons (you can set the source J(x) for the photon field equal to zero), then you should be able to do QED without virtual photons at all.

Substituting the classical solution for the Lagrangian is valid quantum mechanically as long as the fields are quadratic.
 
That's true, though the resulting effective action isn't free, but has an interaction term for the fermions, which I'm pretty sure is non-local.
 
Last edited:
StatusX said:
That's true, though the resulting effective action isn't free, but has an interaction term for the fermions, which I'm pretty sure is non-local.

By effective action do you mean the Wilsonian effective action, which is just another way to regulate and renormalize a theory?

Substituting in the classical solution should produce exact results, and is not just an approximation.

When you do substitute in the classical solution, some of your operators might be greater than dimension 4, so the Wilsonian effective action scheme is required to calculate in the theory. Is this how the effective action comes up?

You can integrate out the W boson in the same way (by substituting the classical solution for the W boson) and get Fermi's 4-point interaction. However, in deriving Fermi's 4-point interaction from the Standard Model, approximations are made such as ignoring the kinetic term of W and boson-boson vertices - this is why I think Fermi's 4-point interaction is an approximation, and not exact. But if we choose to solve classically for the W boson while including the kinetic terms and boson-boson vertices, then the resulting theory of weak interactions between leptons should be exact, and not involve any virtual W particles?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K