Problem with Feynman Rule for Vertices

  • Thread starter Neitrino
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Feynman
In summary, The conversation is about someone seeking help with deriving Feynman rules for certain vertices in a paper they were reading. They were using 't Hooft's diagrammar and Cheng and Lee's Gauge Theory as a guide, but were not getting the same results. They asked for advice on what they were doing wrong, and someone provided a link to a previous thread where the process was explained. The main method is to consider the interaction terms in the Lagrangian and take functional derivatives until no more fields are left, with the remaining quantity being the Feynman rule for that vertex. Care must be taken when differentiating terms to avoid mistakes.
  • #1
Neitrino
137
0
Dear PF,
I would like to thank you for existence of Physics forums since it appears very helpful.

Dear PF,
I was reading one paper and trying to derive Feynman rules for some vertices, but I could not get the same result as given in paper, as a guideline I use ‘t Hooft’s diagrammar and the same is given in appendices of Cheng and Lee – Gauge Theory of elementary particle physics. I attach extract from one Arxiv paper, extract from diagrammar and what I was trying to write.
Could you please have a look and advise me what I do wrong?

Thank you in advance.
 

Attachments

  • hep-th 0511178.pdf
    46.1 KB · Views: 283
  • Diagrammar.pdf
    141.8 KB · Views: 244
  • Fynman Rules.pdf
    57.8 KB · Views: 269
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Dear all,
Could anyone pls give some feedback... May be my question senseless...
some advise pls...
 
  • #3
I asked a similar thing in a thread a while back.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=135689

Basically you just consider the 'interaction terms' in the Lagrangian and then take the functional derivatives till you have no more fields left in that term. The remaining quantity is the Feynman rule for that vertex.

For instance, suppose you have the term [tex]ie\gamma^{\mu}\bar{\psi}\psi A_{\mu}[/tex], then taking the functional derivatives would leave you with [tex]ie\gamma^{\mu}[/tex], that's the Feynman rule. Just remember that if you've something like [tex]e\phi^{2}\psi[/tex] you'll pick up the factor of 2 from differentiating [tex]\phi^{2}[/tex] twice. I know it sounds obvious but you won't believe how often slip ups like that throw a spanner in the works!
 

FAQ: Problem with Feynman Rule for Vertices

1. What is the Feynman Rule for Vertices?

The Feynman Rule for Vertices is a mathematical formula used in quantum field theory to calculate the amplitude for a particle interaction. It calculates the probability of particles interacting at a specific vertex in a Feynman diagram.

2. What is the problem with the Feynman Rule for Vertices?

The Feynman Rule for Vertices has been criticized for being non-renormalizable, meaning it cannot be used to accurately calculate values at high energies. This leads to inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the results.

3. How does the Feynman Rule for Vertices affect quantum field theory?

The problematic nature of the Feynman Rule for Vertices has led to the development of alternative theories, such as the Standard Model, which attempt to address and resolve the issues with the original rule. It also highlights the importance of finding a more comprehensive and accurate theory to explain particle interactions.

4. Can the Feynman Rule for Vertices be fixed?

There have been attempts to modify the Feynman Rule for Vertices to make it renormalizable, such as the use of higher-order corrections. However, this has not been fully successful and the search for a more complete and accurate theory continues.

5. How does the problem with the Feynman Rule for Vertices impact our understanding of the universe?

The issues with the Feynman Rule for Vertices highlight the limitations of our current understanding of the universe and the need for further research and development in quantum field theory. It reminds us that our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature is still incomplete and there is much more to discover.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top