Quantum Field Theory: Understanding Path Integrals and Limit Trick

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
42 replies · 6K views
fzero said:
You have a formula for [tex]Z[J][/tex] so you can work out [tex]Z[0][/tex]...
Thanks. I've got it now. However, I also have to show that

[itex]Z[J] = \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \int d^dx_1 \dots d^dx_n \left( J(x_1) \dots J(x_n) \frac{ \delta^n Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1) \dots \delta J(x_n)} \right)_{J=0}[/itex]

This seems to be a Taylor expansion of some sort but I can't seem to derive it from the previous expression for [itex]Z[J][/itex] - any advice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fzero said:
What do you find for [tex]\delta Z[J]/\delta J(x_1)[/tex]?

Not completely convinced by what I have here but, [itex]\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x_1)}[/itex] is a differential operator so it will act by chain rule so we get

[itex]\frac{ \delta Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)} = \int [ d \phi(x) ] e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)} \frac{\delta J(x)}{\delta J(x_1)}[/itex]
[itex]\frac{ \delta Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)} = \int [ d \phi(x) ] e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)} \delta^{(d)}(x-x_1)[/itex]

Is that right?
 
latentcorpse said:
Not completely convinced by what I have here but, [itex]\frac{\delta}{\delta J(x_1)}[/itex] is a differential operator so it will act by chain rule so we get

[itex]\frac{ \delta Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)} = \int [ d \phi(x) ] e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)} \frac{\delta J(x)}{\delta J(x_1)}[/itex]
[itex]\frac{ \delta Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)} = \int [ d \phi(x) ] e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)} \delta^{(d)}(x-x_1)[/itex]

Is that right?

You haven't quite used the chain rule, since you didn't include the term coming from the derivative of

[tex]e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)},[/tex]

That's actually the most important part.
 
fzero said:
You haven't quite used the chain rule, since you didn't include the term coming from the derivative of

[tex]e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)},[/tex]

That's actually the most important part.

Ah! Missed the integral out. So it should have read

[itex]\frac{ \delta Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)} = \int [ d \phi(x) ] e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)} \times i \int d^dx \phi(x) \delta^{(d)}(x-x_1)=i \int [ d \phi(x) ] \phi(x_1) e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)}[/itex]

So extrapolating,

[itex]\frac{\delta^n Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1) \dots \delta J(x_n)} = i^n \int [d \phi(x) ] \phi(x_1) \dots \phi(x_n) e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)}[/itex]
 
fzero said:
You haven't quite used the chain rule, since you didn't include the term coming from the derivative of

[tex]e^{i S[\phi] + i \int d^d x J(x) \phi(x)},[/tex]

That's actually the most important part.


So, despite having worked all this out for the more copmlicated cases where we have path integrals, I am stumped for the finite dimensional question below

if [itex]Z[V] = \int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} - V( \vec{x} )}[/itex]
where [itex]V(0)=0[/itex] and if [itex]V_{i_1 \dots i_n} = \partial_i_1 \dots \partial_i_n V( \vec{x} )_{ \vec{x}=0}[/itex] with [itex]V_i=V_{ij}=0[/itex], use the result
[itex]G( \frac{\partial}{\partial b}) F(b)= F( \frac{\partial}{\partial u}) G(u) e^{ub}|_{u=0}[/itex]
to show that
[itex]\frac{Z[V]}{Z[0]}= e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{x}} \cdot A^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{x}}} e^{-V( \vec{x})}|_{\vec{x}=0}[/itex]

I can't figure out what to take as F and what to take as G or why?
 
latentcorpse said:
So, despite having worked all this out for the more copmlicated cases where we have path integrals, I am stumped for the finite dimensional question below

if [itex]Z[V] = \int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} - V( \vec{x} )}[/itex]
where [itex]V(0)=0[/itex] and if [itex]V_{i_1 \dots i_n} = \partial_i_1 \dots \partial_i_n V( \vec{x} )_{ \vec{x}=0}[/itex] with [itex]V_i=V_{ij}=0[/itex], use the result
[itex]G( \frac{\partial}{\partial b}) F(b)= F( \frac{\partial}{\partial u}) G(u) e^{ub}|_{u=0}[/itex]
to show that
[itex]\frac{Z[V]}{Z[0]}= e^{\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{x}} \cdot A^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{x}}} e^{-V( \vec{x})}|_{\vec{x}=0}[/itex]

I can't figure out what to take as F and what to take as G or why?

As a preliminary result, you'll want to show that

[tex]\int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} } \left(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \right) \propto \left. \left( \frac{\partial^{n_1}}{\partial j_1^{n_1}} \cdots \frac{\partial^{n_N}}{\partial j_N^{n_N}} \right) e^{\frac{1}{2} \vec{j} \cdot A^{-1} \vec{j} } \right|_{\vec{j}=0}.[/tex]

You do this by coupling sources [tex]\vec{j}[/tex] to [tex]\vec{x}[/tex] as in the scalar field theory a few posts back. As a result, we can write

[tex]\frac{Z[V]}{Z[0]} =\left. e^{V(\partial/\partial \vec{j})} e^{\frac{1}{2} \vec{j} \cdot A^{-1} \vec{j} }\right|_{\vec{j}=0}.[/tex]

You're meant to use that change of variables result to simplify this expression, but I haven't worked out the details and probably missed something subtle above to make sure things work cleanly.
 
Last edited:
fzero said:
As a preliminary result, you'll want to show that

[tex]\int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} } \left(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \right) \propto \left( \frac{\partial^{n_1}}{\partial j_1^{n_1}} \cdots \frac{\partial^{n_N}}{\partial j_N^{n_N}} \right) e^{\frac{1}{2} \vec{j} \cdot A^{-1} \vec{j} }.[/tex]

You do this by coupling sources [tex]\vec{j}[/tex] to [tex]\vec{x}[/tex] as in the scalar field theory a few posts back. As a result, we can write

[tex]\frac{Z[V]}{Z[0]} = e^{V(\partial/\partial \vec{j})} e^{\frac{1}{2} \vec{j} \cdot A^{-1} \vec{j} }.[/tex]

You're meant to use that change of variables result to simplify this expression, but I haven't worked out the details and probably missed something subtle above to make sure things work cleanly.

This is annoying me because I can see what you want me to do, I just don't know how to do it!

So when I couple a source won't I get

[itex]Z[J]= \int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} - V(x) + \vec{j} \cdot \vec{x}}[/itex]
but now I have this [itex]Z[J][/itex] floating about and I only want to be working with [itex]Z[V][/itex] and [itex]Z[0][/itex]
 
There's no need to couple a source inside [tex]Z[V][/tex]. The connection between the formulas I wrote is entirely made by expanding [tex]e^{-V(\vec{x})}[/tex] as a power series and recognizing the terms inside that power series as things that can be computed from [tex]Z[V=0,j][/tex].
 
fzero said:
There's no need to couple a source inside [tex]Z[V][/tex]. The connection between the formulas I wrote is entirely made by expanding [tex]e^{-V(\vec{x})}[/tex] as a power series and recognizing the terms inside that power series as things that can be computed from [tex]Z[V=0,j][/tex].

So you mean

[itex]Z[V, \vec{j} = e^{\vec{j} \cdot \vec{x}} \int d^N x e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} - V( \vec{x} )}[/itex]
That's coupled the source outside of [itex]Z[V][/itex] right?
 
latentcorpse said:
So you mean

[itex]Z[V, \vec{j} = e^{\vec{j} \cdot \vec{x}} \int d^N x e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} - V( \vec{x} )}[/itex]
That's coupled the source outside of [itex]Z[V][/itex] right?

No that doesn't make any sense because the LHS is independent of [tex]\vec{x}[/tex]. What I means is that

[tex]\frac{1}{Z[0]} \int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} } \left(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \right) = \langle x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \rangle[/tex]

and that [tex]Z[V][/tex] can be expressed as a linear combination of these correlators.
 
fzero said:
No that doesn't make any sense because the LHS is independent of [tex]\vec{x}[/tex]. What I means is that

[tex]\frac{1}{Z[0]} \int d^Nx e^{-\frac{1}{2} \vec{x} \cdot A \vec{x} } \left(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \right) = \langle x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_N^{n_N} \rangle[/tex]

and that [tex]Z[V][/tex] can be expressed as a linear combination of these correlators.

but that doesn't have any j's in it?

I might leave this for a few hours and hopefully when I come back to it I won't be going round in circles!
 
latentcorpse said:
but that doesn't have any j's in it?

I might leave this for a few hours and hopefully when I come back to it I won't be going round in circles!

You should spend some time trying to make sense of the formulas in post #37. I corrected them to show that we're meant to set [tex]\vec{j}=0[/tex] after taking derivatives. Hopefully that clears up some confusion.

I've left out a few steps on purpose for you to fill in, since you've seen the necessary manipulations already. It's not really going to improve your understanding if I tell you how to do every single calculation.