14
$\begingroup$

What's so not-quantum about tree-level diagrams?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ From the tag of the question, you are already assuming "FIELD" theory, are you? So the queston is how classical the fields are? $\endgroup$ – user135 Dec 18 '11 at 16:34
11
$\begingroup$

The reasons were given here. Essentially, at tree level you recover classical results. Loop corrections are proportional to powers of $\hbar$ and these are quantum terms.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It is a bit more obscure for particles with spin, because then the classical result has still an $\hbar$. $\endgroup$ – user135 Dec 18 '11 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ That is right, but classically spin does not exist and so, the result is consistent. $\endgroup$ – Jon Dec 18 '11 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ Dead link in the answer. $\endgroup$ – Xan Dec 19 '16 at 17:38
7
$\begingroup$

Tree level diagrams are one-particle relativistic quantum mechanics, but not quantum field theories.

The point is obscured by two reasonable details in modern QFT books: they avoid to speak of "2nd quantisation", and they set h=1 everywhere (so for instance it is not so clear how different the h->0 limit is for fermions than for scalar fields, or how bosons can add to build a classical electromagnetic field but fermions can not). It is expected that you go across a relativistic quantum mechanics textbook before jumping to QFT, but sometimes the career path is different.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There are relativistic quantum mechanics textbooks that are not quantum field theory texts? $\endgroup$ – Arun Nanduri Dec 20 '11 at 18:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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