A Effective Action for Scalar and Fermion Fields

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter The black vegetable
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Effective action
The black vegetable
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Using effective action to derive the one loop contribution of aa scalar field and fermion field
I am reading Peskin and Schroeder Section 11.4. They derive a formula for the effective action p.372 Equation 11.63 using a scalar field interaction,
They use this formula to determine the effective potential. If I want to do the same for a Lagrangian with with a scalar field and fermion field, can I use the same Formula reasoning and technique to get a formula for a scalar field and fermion field?

<br /> \Gamma \left ( \phi _{cl} \right )=\int d^{4}L_{1}\left [ \phi _{cl} \right ]+\frac{i}{2}\log\text{Det}\left [ \frac{\partial ^{2}L_{1}}{\partial \phi \partial \phi } \right ] - i\: Connected\: Diagrams+\int d^{4}x\delta L\left [ \phi _{cl} \right ].\tag{11.63}<br />

If so do you treat the Dirac Fermion \bar{\Psi } \Psi as two different fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can use the same formula also for fermionic fields, but you must be aware that these fields must be described as Grassmann-number valued and that the differentiation and integration with respect to Grassmann numbers/fields are modified. This is all necessary to get the anticommutation properties of the corresponding field operators correctly mapped to the functional formalism.
 
Ok Thanks, very helpful I have some notes on Grassmann variables that I will revisit, but can I start as Peskin and Schroeder did with a new Lagrangian but this time containing a scaler field and a fermionic field expanding both
## \phi \rightarrow \phi _{cl}+\eta ##
##\Psi \rightarrow \Psi _{cl}+\xi##

Then comparing the ##\eta^{2}## to get a value for ##\frac{\delta ^{2}L_{1}}{\delta \phi \delta\phi }##

Or maybe I'm not following it very well
 
The general technique is the same for fermions and bosons. You have to be only careful with the signs for the fermionic case using Grassmann variables. Peskin&Schroeder also treats fermions in the path-integral formalism (Sect. 9.5).

Another very good book using the path-integral formalism from the very beginning is

D. Bailin and A. Love, Introduction to Gauge Field Theory,
Adam Hilger, Bristol and Boston (1986).
 
  • Like
Likes The black vegetable
vanhees71 said:
The general technique is the same for fermions and bosons. You have to be only careful with the signs for the fermionic case using Grassmann variables. Peskin&Schroeder also treats fermions in the path-integral formalism (Sect. 9.5).

Another very good book using the path-integral formalism from the very beginning is

D. Bailin and A. Love, Introduction to Gauge Field Theory,
Adam Hilger, Bristol and Boston (1986).
Okay thanks for your help
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top