Scalar Propagator form with width

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inclusion of width in the scalar particle's propagator within quantum field theory (QFT). Participants explore when and why one might add a width term to the propagator, particularly in the context of stable versus unstable particles, and the implications for theoretical models and calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of including width in the scalar propagator, presenting the standard form without width as sufficient for certain theoretical frameworks.
  • Another participant argues that every propagator should include width, noting that stable particles have zero width while short-lived particles, like resonances, require it.
  • A participant discusses a specific theoretical model involving a scalar field theory and questions whether the absence of width in their propagator is problematic.
  • One response suggests that the propagator is a bare one and that corrections from loop diagrams can introduce a width if they affect the imaginary part of the propagator.
  • Participants clarify the concept of shifts in the propagator due to corrections, linking the imaginary part of the self-energy to the width of the particle.
  • References to external sources, such as De Wit and Srednicki, are provided for further reading on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of including width in the propagator. While some argue for its inclusion in certain cases, others maintain that it is not universally required, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves theoretical constructs and assumptions about particle behavior, particularly regarding stable versus unstable particles and the role of loop corrections in propagators.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I would like to ask when can someone add the width in a scalar particle's propagator. In general the scalar propagator can be:
[itex]\frac{1}{k^{2}-m^{2}+i \epsilon} (\epsilon \rightarrow 0)[/itex]
However I read somewhere that if necessary one can include a width for the propagator:

[itex]\frac{1}{k^{2}-m^{2}+i 0} \rightarrow \frac{1}{k^{2}-m^{2}+i m \Gamma}[/itex]

my question is when is it necessary and why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In principle every propagator should contain the width. However, for stable particles [itex]\Gamma=0[/itex], while for "long-living" particles [itex]\Gamma[/itex] is very small and hence one usually includes the width just for short living particles (like resonances).

The quantum mechanical reason for why the width should be there is that, in principle, the Hamiltonian (energy) of the system could always have an absorbitive part causing the decay of your particle.

A pretty good treatment of decays and widths can be found in - De Wit "Field theory in particle physics".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
My problem is that in QFT I didn't see any reason to include the width anywhere.
For example take a theoretical [itex]\Phi \phi^{2}[/itex] theory ([itex]L_{tri}= \lambda_{3}\Phi \phi^{2}[/itex]) which can give you an s-channel with the decay of [itex]\phi,\phi[/itex] into [itex]\Phi[/itex] and the last into [itex]\phi,\phi[/itex] again... the scheme is:
>---< [itex]\phi (p_{1}) \phi(p_2) \rightarrow \Phi(k) \rightarrow \phi(p_3) \phi(p_4)[/itex]
In this case, the propagator comes out from the Feynman rules and is as I gave it in the first expression in my OP.
[itex]\frac{1}{k^{2}-M_{\Phi}^{2} +i \epsilon}[/itex]
with [itex]k[/itex] the momentum of [itex]\Phi[/itex] intermediate state which you integrate.
Is there something wrong or missing in the above?

The same can also work for t or u channel
 
Last edited:
You propagator is the bare one. When you consider the full theory, i.e. including all the possible loop diagrams the propagator gets a correction of the kind:
$$
\Delta =\frac{1}{p^2-m^2+i\Sigma(p)}.
$$
If [itex]\Sigma(p)[/itex] only causes a shift on the real [itex]p^0[/itex]-axis then the behavior of your propagator doesn't change qualitatively. However, if this correction induces also a shift in the imaginary axis then you have your width.
 
Thank you :smile: .
I hope the source you mentioned explains everything nicely, I'll look for it, because your last paragraph confused me a little.
 
Yes, it does. I'm sorry it wasn't clear, you can find the same line of thought on the book I mentioned :D
 
No it wasn't unclear, I just didn't understand the "shift"-thing for the p0 Real or I am axis...
 
Well, that's easy. Suppose that [itex]\Sigma=Re\Sigma+iIm\Sigma[/itex]. Then your propagator becomes:
$$
\frac{1}{p^2-m^2+iRe\Sigma-Im\Sigma}.
$$
As you can see, the imaginary part of [itex]\Sigma[/itex] causes a shift on the real axis of your pole. However, now you can define [itex]Re\Sigma = m\Gamma[/itex] and you have your width.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Another source you could look at is Srednicki Chapter 25, which works this out in an explicit calculation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K