$\require{cancel}$In Peskin & Schroeder chapter 10 page 332 we have the renormalization condition $$\left. \Sigma (\cancel{p})\right|_{\cancel{p}=m} ~=~ 0. \tag{10.40} $$

How is it possible to set the sum of traceless matrices equal to a diagonal matrix $m$? How do we interpret this?


$\cancel{p} = p^\mu\gamma_\mu = m$ seems to be a typo. It should be $p^2 = p^\mu p_\mu = m^2$ in stead.

Fermion propagator is $$ G = \frac{i}{\cancel{p}-m_0 - \Sigma(\cancel{p})+i\epsilon} = \frac{1}{1-b(p^2)}\frac{i}{\cancel{p}-\frac{m_0 + a(p^2)}{1-b(p^2)} + i\epsilon}, $$ where $$ \Sigma(p) = a(p^2) + b(p^2)\cancel{p}. $$ The propagator has a pole at $$ m_p = \frac{m_0 + a(m_p^2)}{1-b(m_p^2)}, $$ where $m_0$ is bare mass (infinite) and $m_p$ is the physical mass (finite).

One may rearrange the above Fermion propagator via introducing modified self energy $\hat{\Sigma}(\cancel{p})$ (alternatively and often obfuscating to the neophytes, via introducing counterterms as the preferred route in most text books) so that $$ G = \frac{iZ}{\cancel{p}-m_p - \hat{\Sigma}(\cancel{p})+i\epsilon}, $$ where $$ Z = \frac{1}{1-b(m_p^2)}, $$ and $$ Z^{-1}\hat{\Sigma}(\cancel{p}) = [a(p^2)-a(m_p^2)] + [b(p^2)-b(m_p^2)]\cancel{p}. $$ Note that the difference $a(p^2)-a(m_p^2)$ is finite, even though $a(p^2)$ and $a(m_p^2)$ are individually infinite. Explicit regularization schemes (such as the widely used dimensional regularization) are not necessary at all! if we follow the regime of sticking with finite differences (i.e. $a(p^2)-a(m_p^2)$)and measurable quantities (i.e. $m_p$).

The on-mass-shell renormalization conditions are just trivial identities stemming from the above definition of modified self energy $\hat{\Sigma}(\cancel{p})$, $$ \hat{\Sigma}(\cancel{p})|_{p^2 = m_p^2} = 0, $$ $$ \hat{\Sigma}'(\cancel{p})|_{p^2 = m_p^2} = 0. $$

Of cause, we can redo the above excise at a different mass scale $\mu$ (the renormalization scale) other than $m_p$. But it won't change the physical picture. The renormalization group technic (via sliding the renormalization scale $\mu$) is also dispensable (at least in the context of high energy physics), since simply resuming the geometric series can achieve the same.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ $p^\mu\gamma_\mu=m$ is not a typo. It is a very standard way to renormalise fermionic correlation functions. One regards $\not p$ as a formal complex number, and evaluates the residue at $\not p=m$. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 19 '18 at 15:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As stated by Yoni, $\not{p} = p^\mu\gamma_\mu$ is the sum of traceless matrices. It can't be a complex number. $\endgroup$ – MadMax Jun 19 '18 at 15:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sure, a matrix is not a complex number. As I said, it is a rather standard trick. It is a formal complex number. Pick any book where fermionic correlation functions are discussed; the normalisation conditions are $\Sigma(\not p=m)=0$ and $\frac{\mathrm d\Sigma}{\mathrm d\not p}(\not p=m)=0$. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 19 '18 at 16:00
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ No, by $\not p=m$ I mean $\not p=m$. Have a look at Bjorken&Drell, eq. 19.27, or Itzykson&Zuber, eq. 7.32, or Mandl&Shaw, eq. 9.24, or Peskin&Schroëder, eq. 10.40, or Schwartz, eqs. 19.60-19.64, or Srednicki, eq. 62.27, or Ticciati, eq. 10.13.14, or Weinberg, eq. 11.4.9, or, as I said before, any book where fermionic correlation functions are discussed. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 19 '18 at 16:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well in that case, I strongly suggest correcting the typo in these books. $\endgroup$ – MadMax Jun 19 '18 at 16:53

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.