What Are the Implications of Srednicki's \langle 0 \mid \phi(x) \mid 0 \rangle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LAHLH
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Srednicki's equation for the vacuum expectation value \langle 0 \mid \phi(x) \mid 0 \rangle indicates that the sum of all diagrams with a single source, once the source is removed, must equal zero for the LSZ formula to hold. To achieve this, a counterterm Y is introduced in the Lagrangian, allowing for adjustments to ensure the vacuum expectation value remains zero. The discussion clarifies that if the sum of connected diagrams with a single source removed is zero, it remains zero even when the source is reintroduced. This principle extends to replacing the single source with any subdiagram, maintaining that the overall sum remains zero. The focus on one-particle irreducible (1PI) diagrams is questioned, prompting further exploration of their significance in the context of the discussion.
LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

Srednicki has \langle 0 \mid \phi(x) \mid 0 \rangle =\frac{1}{i} \frac{\delta}{\delta J(x)} W_1 (J) \mid_{J=0}

Which is the sum of all diagrams with that started with a single source (before the differentiation) now with the source removed.

Since we want this to be zero for the validity of the LSZ formula, we introduce counterm Y \phi in the Lagrangian. We can choose this Y appropriatley at various orders of g now such that the vacuum expectation value is zero as we require.

I'm OK with all so far.

Now Srendicki says that because we have done this the sum of all connected diagrams with a single source is zero. Shouldn't this be the sum all diagrams with a single source with the source removed is zero?

Then he also goes on to say if we replace the single source in each of these diagrams with another subdiagram (any subdiagram), the sum of these is still zero. I do not understand why this is the case?

Could anyone please explain, thanks a lot if so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LAHLH said:
Now Srendicki says that because we have done this the sum of all connected diagrams with a single source is zero. Shouldn't this be the sum all diagrams with a single source with the source removed is zero?

Sure, but then it's also zero if you put the source back.

That is, let f(x) be the sume of all connected diagrams with a single source removed (and x is the coordinate label where the source was removed). We adjust Y so that f(x)=0.

If we put the source back, we have \int d^4x\,J(x)f(x). But since f(x)=0, the integral is also zero!
LAHLH said:
Then he also goes on to say if we replace the single source in each of these diagrams with another subdiagram (any subdiagram), the sum of these is still zero. I do not understand why this is the case?

Same argument. Replace J(x) with h(x), where h(x) is some other subdiagram with a source missing and the endpoint labeled x. Since f(x)=0, we have \int d^4x\,h(x)f(x)=0. So the whole diagram is zero if any part of it is zero.
 
Thanks alot. that makes sense.

On a maybe related note, on P97, we only sum over the 1PI diagrams, I'm just wondering why only these diagrams?
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K