Why doesn't one-photon-irreducible function have any pole at q^2=0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kof9595995
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Pole
kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
I'm reading the QFT textbook by Weinberg. In volume one chapter 10 page 451, at the lower part of the page he says,
\Pi^*_{\mu\nu}(q) receives contributions only from one-photon-irreducible graphs, it is expected not to have any pole at q^2=0
\Pi^*_{\mu\nu}(q) is the sum of all one-photon-irreducible graphs, with the two external photon propagators omitted, and q being the external photon momentum.

Weinberg states it within one sentence as if it's self-explanatory, but I cannot understand why it is true. Is there something simple I missed?

Cross-posted: why doesn't one-photon-irreducible function have any pole at q^2=0(stackexchange)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess the idea is the following: Free photon propagators have a pole at q=0 but in irreducible graphs, there are always integrals over the momentum of the photon propagators, so there is no pole left from the photon propagators.
 
I think the same, but this is still a bit speculative. After all, it's a infinite sum of almost arbitrarily complicated diagrams, and it won't be surprising if nasty stuff happens.
Weinberg uses this to argue photon mass is protected during renormalization, i.e. radiative corrections don't give photon a mass, so this is something important that I really wish to understand. Or is there some other way to show this?
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top