S-matrix expansion and Wick's theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gaussian97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Doubt S-matrix
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the expansion of the S-matrix using Wick's theorem, highlighting the distinction between time-ordered products and normal-ordered products in quantum field theory. Specifically, it contrasts the expressions $$T\{\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1)\}$$ and $$T\{:\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1):\}$$, noting that the former includes additional terms that correspond to tadpole diagrams, which vanish in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) but are significant in other theories. The discussion emphasizes the importance of including these terms for maintaining gauge invariance in renormalization schemes, particularly in scalar QED.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Wick's theorem in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with time-ordered and normal-ordered products
  • Knowledge of gauge theories and renormalization techniques
  • Basic concepts of Feynman diagrams and self-energy insertions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of tadpole diagrams in various quantum field theories
  • Learn about gauge-invariant renormalization schemes, particularly dimensional regularization
  • Explore the Ward-Takahashi identities and their role in quantum field theory
  • Investigate the differences in renormalization procedures between QED and scalar QED
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, quantum field theorists, and researchers working on gauge theories and renormalization methods in particle physics.

Gaussian97
Homework Helper
Messages
683
Reaction score
412
TL;DR
What is the correct way to write the S-matrix?
$$S = T\left\{e^{-i\int \mathscr{H}_I d^4 x}\right\}$$
or
$$S = T\left\{e^{-i\int :\mathscr{H}_I: d^4 x}\right\}$$
?
Where :: refers to the Normal-ordering.
My question arises when we expand the S-matrix using Wick's theorem, there we need to compute time-ordered products, but is not the same to compute
$$T\{\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1)\}$$ or
$$T\{:\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1):\}$$
While the second one is simply
$$:\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1):$$
the first one is
$$T\{\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1)\} = :\bar{\psi}(x_1)\gamma^\mu \psi(x_1) A_\mu(x_1): + i \text{Tr}\{{S_F(0)\gamma^\mu\}}A_\mu(x_1)$$
So there's a difference between both, and similar diferences appear in higher order calculations, now I know that this extra terms give tadpole diagrams and that this vanish in QED. But in other theories we need to introduce this terms?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tadpole diagrams are constant self-energy insertions, which are renormlized away anyway. In gauge theories it's convenient to keep them in, because then in gauge-invariant renormalization schemes like dimensional regularization the Ward Takahashi identities are fulfilled at any order for the regularized Feynman diagrams. E.g., in scalar QED at the one-loop level the photon self-energy is only transverse when you take the tadpole diagram into account. Normal ordering cancels the tadpole diagram but this is obviously not a gauge-invariant procedure. Of course this doesn't really matter, you only have to keep in mind to choose your counter terms at any order PT such that the WTIs stay fulfilled for the renormalized proper vertex functions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K