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

  • Thread starter Thread starter LAHLH
  • Start date Start date
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?
 
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top