What Are the Conditions for On-Shell Renormalization in QFT?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conditions for on-shell renormalization in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically addressing the bare scalar propagator and its residue. The bare propagator is expressed as $$D_F(p)=\frac{i}{p^2-m^2-\Sigma(p^2)}$$, where the residue at the pole is given by $$\mathrm{Res}(D_F(p),\tilde{p})=i\bigg(1-\frac{d\Sigma(p^2)}{dp^2}\bigg)^{-1}\bigg|_{p=\tilde{p}}$$. The requirement for on-shell renormalization includes conditions $$\Sigma(m^2)=0$$ and $$\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial p^2}=0$$ to ensure a residue of 1 at the physical mass. However, a discrepancy arises as the residue calculated yields i instead of 1, prompting a discussion on the conventions used in defining the propagator.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with propagators and their role in particle physics
  • Knowledge of renormalization techniques in QFT
  • Experience with complex analysis in the context of physical theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of different conventions in QFT propagators
  • Learn about the geometric series expansion in the context of QFT
  • Explore the relationship between residue conditions and counterterms in renormalization
  • Investigate the role of Euclidean space in simplifying QFT calculations
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in particle physics, and researchers focusing on renormalization techniques in Quantum Field Theory.

Arcturus7
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that, after considering all 1 particle irreducible diagrams, the bare scalar propagator becomes:

$$D_F (p)=\frac{i}{p^2-m^2-\Sigma (p^2)}$$

And that the residue of the pole is shifted to a new value, and beomes:

$$i\bigg(1-\frac{d\Sigma(p^2)}{dp^2}\bigg)^{-1}\bigg|_{p=\tilde{p}}$$

2. The attempt at a solution
Part a is no problem, I simply express the corrections as a geometric series in the standard way and find:

$$D_F(p)=D_0 (p) + D_0 (p) (-i\Sigma(p^2)D_0 (p)\ \dots\ = D_0 (p) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \big(-i\Sigma(p^2)D_0(p)\big)^n$$
$$=\frac{D_0 (p)}{1+i\Sigma(p^2)D_0 (p)}=\frac{i}{p^2-m^2-\Sigma(p^2)}$$

Where I have labelled the bare propagator as D0

Part b is also okay in terms of calculation. I find:

$$\tilde{p}^2=\Sigma(\tilde{p}^2)+m^2$$

As the location of the new pole. If I expand the denominator of the propagator around this new pole I find:

$$p^2-m^2-\Sigma(p^2)\approx 0+\frac{d}{dp^2}\bigg(p^2-m^2-\Sigma(p^2)\bigg)\bigg|_{p^2=\tilde{p}^2}\times (p^2-\tilde{p}^2) + \mathcal{O}\big((p^2-\tilde{p}^2)^2\big)$$
$$\implies D_F(p)\approx i\Bigg((p^2-\tilde{p}^2)\bigg(1-\frac{d\Sigma}{dp^2}\bigg|_{p^2=\tilde{p}^2}\bigg)\Bigg)^{-1}$$

The residue is therefore given by:

$$\mathrm{Res}(D_F(p),\tilde{p})=\lim_{p\rightarrow\tilde{p}}\bigg(D_F(p)\times(p^2-\tilde{p}^2\bigg)=i\bigg(1-\frac{d\Sigma(p^2)}{dp^2}\bigg)^{-1}\bigg|_{p=\tilde{p}}$$

As required.

Now my question is this: I have read that in the on-shell renormalization scheme we require:

$$\Sigma(p^2=m^2)=0,\ \ \ \ \ \ \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial p^2}=0$$

In order to ensure that the exact all-order two point function has a residue of 1 at the physical mass of the particle, m. However, quite simply, if I use this condition in my expression for the residue, I find a residue of i and not 1. This seems like a small, almost trivial issue, however it would lead to different counterterms if I were to try and demand that the residue by 1, as I would need to impose

$$\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial p^2}=1-i$$.

I can clearly see that if the propagator were defined without the factor of i in the numerator then this problem would disappear, is this "allowed"? Can we be so cavalier with the complex phase factor of the propagator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would guess that either you or your textbook mixed up two different very common notations. Some sources define the Green's function you've specified as ##i G## rather than ##G## itself, while some specify the Green's function as you say, but the renormalization condition is that the residue is fixed at ##i##. Finally, some sources like to work with Euclidean theories, which gets rid of the ##i##.

As a rule of thumb, the on-shell scheme simply tells you to keep the pole at the physical mass and to fix the residue at the tree-level value, whatever conventions you're using. There are way too many similar-yet-different conventions for QFT.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K