I QED replacing photon field with current in 3-point function

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenge of understanding the proof that Z_1 equals Z_2 in quantum electrodynamics (QED) using the Ward-Takahashi identity. The participant is trying to comprehend how the photon field A_v can be replaced by the current j^μ in the three-point function involving fermions. They reference a formula from the Schwinger-Dyson equation that suggests this replacement is valid, but express confusion over an additional factor of -ie_R in the equations. They suspect that a missing e factor in the relevant formula may be causing inconsistencies and confirm that substituting the corrected expression yields the expected result for the vertex function at leading order. The discussion highlights the complexities involved in manipulating field operators and currents in QFT calculations.
handrea2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
QED: replacing photon field with current in the definition of the renormalized 3-point function vertex
I am self-studying QFT in the Schwartz book "Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model", currently I am struggling to understand the all-orders proof that ##Z_1=Z_2## using Ward-Takahashi identity (page 352).

He states that ## -ie_R\Gamma^\mu ##, which is the sum of the 1PI contributions to matrix elements for the 3-point function ##\langle \psi(x_1)A_\nu(x)\bar\psi(x_2)\rangle## with externa legs amputated , can be formally defined as follow:

$$-ie_R\Gamma^\mu(p,q_1,q_2)(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p+q_1-q_2) \\
\equiv -ie_R\int d^4x d^4x_1 d^4x_2 e^{ipx}e^{iq_1x_1}e^{-iq_2x_2}\\(iG)^{-1}(\not q_1) \langle j^\mu(x) \psi(x_1) \bar\psi(x_2)\rangle (iG)^{-1}(\not p+\not q_1) \tag {19.78}
$$

I don't understand how he gets to replace in ##\langle \psi(x_1)A_\nu(x)\bar\psi(x_2)\rangle## the ##A_v## photon field with the current ##j^\mu = \bar\psi\gamma^\mu \psi##.

The only clue I could find is on page 281 where we have the following formula which comes from Schwinger-Dyson equation:

$$
\square_{\alpha\beta}^k \square_{\mu\nu} \langle A_\nu(x)...A_\beta(x_k)...\rangle = \langle j_\mu(x)...j_\alpha(x_k)...\rangle
$$

so basically you can remove ##A_\mu## field and insert current ##j_\mu##.

However, even using that result it seems to me that in the formula (19.78) in the right-hand-side we have a wrong extra ##ie_R## factor, since we already have one which comes from exploding the expectation value ##\langle ... \rangle ## ( see (7.77) ):

$$
\langle j^\mu(x) \psi(x_1) \bar\psi(x_2)\rangle \equiv \langle \Omega|T\{j^\mu(x)\psi(x_1) \bar\psi(x_2)\}|\Omega\rangle = \langle 0|T\{j^\mu_0(x)\psi_0(x_1) \bar\psi_0(x_2)e^{-ie_R\int \bar\psi_0\gamma^\mu\psi_0 A_\mu}\}|0\rangle_{no bubbles}
$$

where ## -ie_R\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\psi A_\mu ## is the interaction term in the QED Lagrangian density
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe in the book the formula on page 281:

$$
\square_{\alpha\beta}^k \square_{\mu\nu} \langle A_\nu(x)...A_\beta(x_k)...\rangle = \langle j_\mu(x)...j_\alpha(x_k)...\rangle \tag{14.152}
$$

is missing an ##e## factor on the RHS, this seems to be confirmed by the Schwinger-Dyson equation ##(14.117)## which is used to get the ##(14.152)##:

$$
\square^x_{\mu\nu}\langle A^\nu(x)A^\alpha(y)\bar\psi(z_1)\psi(z_2)\rangle = \\
e \langle j_\mu(x)A^\alpha(y)\bar\psi(z_1)\psi(z_2)\rangle -i\delta^4(x-y)\delta^\alpha_\mu\langle\bar\psi(z_1)\psi(z_2)\rangle \tag{14.117}
$$

In that way we have:

$$
\square^{\mu\nu}_x \langle A_\nu(x)\psi(x_1)\bar\psi(x_2)\rangle = e_R\langle j^\mu(x)\psi(x_1)\bar\psi(x_2)\rangle
$$

If I substitute that in the ##(19.78)## and as a check I do the calculation at leading order, I correctly get ##\Gamma^\mu = \gamma^\mu##
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...