1
$\begingroup$

In chapter 21 (p.127-129) of Srednicki's book the quantum action $\Gamma(\phi)$ is defined in formula (21.1) I won't repeat here (it's quite long). Then he considers the following path integral:

$$Z_\Gamma(J) = \int \mathcal{ D} \phi \exp\left[ i\Gamma(\phi) + i \int d^dx J\phi\right] = \exp[iW_\Gamma(J)].\tag{21.4}$$

adding:

$W_\Gamma(J)$ is given by the sum of connected diagrams (with sources) in which each line represents the exact propagator, and each $n$-point vertex represents the exact 1PI vertex $\bf{V}_n$.$W_\Gamma(J)$ would be equal $W(J)$ if we included only tree diagrams in $W_\Gamma(J)$.

Isolating the tree-level contribution to the path integral by means of introduction of the dimensionless parameter called $\hbar$ we have the following path integral:

$$Z_{\Gamma,\hbar}(J) = \int \mathcal{ D} \phi \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar}\left(\Gamma(\phi) + i \int d^dx J\phi\right)\right] = \exp[iW_{\Gamma,\hbar}(J)]\tag{21.6}$$

It is followed by the following text:

In a given connected diagram with sources, every propagator (including those connected to sources) is multiplied by $\hbar$, every source by $1/\hbar$, and every vertex by $1/\hbar$.

  1. I don't get this assertion. There is no hint neither why it should be like this.

Later on $W_{\Gamma,\hbar}(J)$ is developed in a series of loop occurrence in diagrams, or in different words a series in orders of $\hbar$:

$$W_{\Gamma,\hbar}(J)= \sum_{L=0}^{\infty} \hbar^{L-1} W_{\Gamma,L}(J).\tag{21.8}$$

I can understand the formula under the assumption that I take the above cited assertion for correct/granted. Srednicki's keeps on saying:

If we take the formal limit of $\hbar\rightarrow 0$, the dominant term is the one with $L=0$, with is given by the sum of tree diagrams only. This is just what we want. We conclude that:

$$W(J) = W_{\Gamma, L=0}(J).\tag{21.9}$$

  1. This assertion is also curious (I don't understand it ). I thought that $W(J)$ would be the sum of all connected diagrams whereas here it seems to be only a subset, i.e. all connected diagrams without loops. I assume that it is related with what was said above (the reason I included the part above).

Actually, it seems that Srednicki's explanation of the quantum action is elegant, so I would really appreciate if somebody could explain the mentioned assertions to me what they actually mean.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$
  1. The $\hbar$-weights are a direct consequence of eq. (B9) in my Phys.SE answer here:

    • A vertex has $\hbar$-weight$=-1$.

    • An internal propagator comes with $\hbar$-weight$=+1$ (rather than $-1$) because an internal propagator is accompanied by 2 source differentiations (which each carry $\hbar$-weight$=+1$).

    • By the same token, an external leg (=source+propagator) has $\hbar$-weight$=0$ because it is accompanied by 1 source differentiation. Hence a source has $\hbar$-weight$=-1$.

  2. $W(J)$ is by definition a sum of all possible connected diagrams made out of bare propagators and (amputated) bare vertices. The statement is that it is also the sum $W_{\Gamma, L=0}(J)$ of all possible trees made out of full propagators and (amputated) 1PI vertices. This is also explained in my Phys.SE answer here.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.