Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When studying renormalization of QED in standard textbooks, we typically encounter derivatives with respect to ${\not}{p}=p^\mu \gamma_\mu$, i.e., $\partial/\partial{\not}p$. As far as I understand, this is just a symbolic notation to perform derivative operations over functions of symbols like ${\not}{p}$ itself or $p^2={\not}{p}^{\,2}$, as if ${\not}{p}$ were just some variable which could be replace by $x$, for instance. Clearly, there is something more going on because ${\not}{p}$ is a matrix, so a derivative with respect to it would be something like a derivative with respect to a matrix, which I cannot understand. As far as it concerns the conventional QED, that works fine -- we only need to perform this derivative on ${\not}{p}$ or $p^2$--, but if we depart from it to consider different models, we may encounter operations like $\frac{\partial\,p^\mu}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}$.

I wonder if someone has ever dealt with that, and what was the solution found. I have been trying to keep this symbolic notation to find the answer, but I always get stucked at some point or I end up finding something inconsistent -- for instance, I would expect the result to be Lorentz covariant, but I cannot find a result with such property. Conversely, I am trying to give up this notation and trying to make real sense of the operation, but with no success so far.

Edit: The basic context is set in the discussion of renormalization of QED. You have the renormalized electron's propagator written as $\frac{i}{{\not}{p}-m-\Sigma(p)}$. When you take your quantities on shell, i.e., at ${\not}{p}=m$ (where both sides of this equality are understood to be acting on a spinor $u(p)$), you require that the pole of this propagator is located at $p^2=m^2$ and the residue is $i$. This amounts to the requirement of $\Sigma({\not}{p}=m)=0$ and $\frac{\partial\,\Sigma}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$, once you assumed the symbolic notation of the derivative with respect to ${\not}{p}$. For the conventional QED, $\Sigma=\Sigma({\not}{p})$ and this symbolic derivative can be taken without a problem. Modified models based on QED can lead to a $\Sigma(p)$ that also contains $p^\mu$, for instance, making that derivative operation unclear.

share|improve this question
    
Where, precisely, have you seen this notation? It would be helpful to have more specific context to interpret it properly. –  joshphysics Dec 13 '13 at 20:05
    
See Eq. (17.116) of Hatfield's "Quantum field theory of point particles and strings", or Eq. (7.25) of Peskin & Schroeder's "An introduction to quantum field theory", or the comment before Eq. (62.38) of Srednicki's "Quantum field theory", for instance. –  andrehgomes Dec 13 '13 at 20:25
    
{\not}p yields ${\not}p$, which looks prettier than \not{p} rendered as $\not{p}$ –  Christoph Dec 13 '13 at 21:55
    
I believe @joshphysics is asking for reference of $\frac{\partial\,p^\mu}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}$, but the examples you gave(at least the ones from P&S and Srednicki) are of the form $\frac{\partial f({\not}{p})}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}$ –  Jia Yiyang Dec 14 '13 at 1:38
    
I see now, sorry. Yes, that's correct, all given textbook examples are of the form $\frac{\partial\,f({\not}{p})}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}$. The case for $\frac{\partial\,p^{\mu}}{\partial\,{\not}{p}}$ is something particular of a nonconventional QED model I am working on. The nonconventional part gives contributions to the electron's self-energy $\Sigma$ that are proportional also to $p^{\mu}$ (there are new degrees of freedom coupling to $p^\mu$ so the expression remains covariant). –  andrehgomes Dec 14 '13 at 13:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Here is my tentative answer. First of all, this answer is all based on the conventional QED, where we know the electron's self-energy is like $\Sigma=\Sigma({\not}{p})$. My original question deals with nonconventional QED where $\Sigma$ may also have momentum dependence on $p^\mu$ (which could be contracted with a background field of some kind, for instance, therefore resulting in an observer scalar quantity). Hopefully, my arguments may be extended to that nonconventional case.

Basically, I cannot find a consistent way of doing $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial {\not}{p}}$, and I suspect there isn't one at all because $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ may not be a well defined operation but instead just a practical symbolic notation. Therefore, my approach is to avoid using $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ and instead use $\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}$, which seems to be the meaningful operation.

As far as I could track, in the context mentioned above, the only instance where we need $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ is when imposing $\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial {\not}{p}}\Big|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$. This requirement shows up when we ask the propagator $\frac{i}{{\not}{p}-m-\Sigma}$ to have residue at $i$ when ${\not}{p}=m$ once we already have the condition $\Sigma({\not}p=m)=0$ that ensures it's pole is located at $p^2=m^2$. The important point here is that the specific value $i$ arises after a series of loose symbolic operations for taking the residue:

$Residue = \displaystyle \lim_{{\not}{p}\rightarrow m} ({\not}p-m) \frac{i}{{\not}{p}-m-\Sigma}$,

but in the limit we would get $\frac{0}{0}$ because $\Sigma({\not}p=m)=0$. Thus, we use l'Hôpital's rule (by taking $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ on numerator and denominator) and in the end we see that imposing $\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial {\not}{p}}\Big|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$ indeed fix the residue at $i$. This is motivated by the wish of having the renormalized propagator to look like the free one (where there is no $\Sigma$).

On the other hand, we can do the same thing in a meaningful way writing the propagator as $i({\not}{p}-m-\Sigma)^{-1} = i\frac{{\not}{p}+m+\Sigma}{p^2-(m+\Sigma)^2}$ and look for the residue,

$Residue = \displaystyle \lim_{p^2\rightarrow m^2} (p^2-m^2) i\frac{{\not}{p}+m+\Sigma}{p^2-(m+\Sigma)^2}$,

and again we would find $\frac{0}{0}$ and then use l'Hôpital, but by means of the $\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}$ derivative instead. We find that imposing $\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial p^2}\Big|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$ fix the residue at $2m i$. The extra $2m$ factor is indeed the same we would find for the free case ($\Sigma=0$).

The value of the residue is different in both cases first because the dimensionality of the derivatives are different. Second, the latter approach have a pole at $p^2=m^2$ and this makes precise sense, and the former symbolic approach mention before has the pole at ${\not}{p}=m$ in a very loose sense.

The first point is: in the end, both conditions are expected to give precisely the same result. Both conditions are always taken on shell (${\not}{p}=m$), therefore, given the correct dimensionality factor $2m$, derivatives with respect to $p^2$ should be equivalent to ones with respect to ${\not}{p}$. (One way of understand that is by looking at the effect of both derivatives on $p^2={\not}{p}^{\,2}$ after imposing ${\not}{p}=m$.)

The second point is: because $\Sigma$ depends on ${\not}{p}$ it is much easier to work with $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ instead of $\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}$, also because to use the latter we need to know $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}$, which is not immediately obvious. Once we know the symbolic notation is equivalent to the meaningful one, using $\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}$ is more practical for the conventional QED, because all we need to derive depends on ${\not}{p}$ or $p^2={\not}{p}^{\,2}$.

In some model based on nonconventional QED, we may need to know the derivative of $p^\mu$ with respect to either ${\not}{p}$ or $p^2$. The former I cannot figure out (and I suspect it may not make sense at all), but I expect that figuring out $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}$ should be enough. For the latter task I invoke Lorentz covariance for the result and write $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}=a(p^2) p^\mu$. Multiplying both sides by $p_\mu$ and further differentiating by $p^2$ leads to the conclusion that $a=\frac{1}{2p^2}$ and, therefore, $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}=\frac{p^\mu}{2p^2}$.

In the conventional QED I can check the consistency of this result. There, we know that the structure of $\Sigma$ is $\Sigma({\not}{p})=A(p^2){\not}{p}-B(p^2)m$. If we use this explicity structure when finding the conditions for the residue of the propagator to be $2mi$, by the meaningful approach, we would find

$\left[\frac{1}{2}A+m^2\left(\frac{\partial A}{\partial p^2}-\frac{\partial B}{\partial p^2}\right) \right]_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$,

and this results does not require any derivative of $p^\mu$ with respect to $p^2$. On the other hand, we already know this result should be equivalent to $\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial p^2}\Big|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$ which, using the explicit form of $\Sigma$ does require derivation of $p^\mu$ with respect to $p^2$. Using $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}=\frac{p^\mu}{2p^2}$ indeed gives the expected result, indicating that the result $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}=\frac{p^\mu}{2p^2}$ is consistent so far.

The next step would be to generalize the discussion to consider $\Sigma$ with a more general form than the mentioned above (including, for instance, factors with $\gamma_5$ and $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ contracted with $p^\mu$ and suitable background fields). I am able to outline some points:

  • The result $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial p^2}=\frac{p^\mu}{2p^2}$ remains the same.

  • The condition for the residue using the symbolic notation seemly remains the same, $\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial {\not}{p}}\Big|_{{\not}{p}=m}=0$, but it may not be useful as long as we don't know $\frac{\partial p^\mu}{\partial {\not}{p}}$.

  • It seems to be harder to find the analogous condition by the meaningful approach with $\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}$ because we need to invert a more complicated $\Sigma$ structure, but nevertheless we would know how to actually apply the resulting condition, because we know how to do the derivative.

The way out, and I may be streching too far, I suspect may be a correspondence like $\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial {\not}{p}}(\dots)\right]_{{\not}{p}=m} = 2m \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}(\dots)\right]_{{\not}{p}=m}$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.