0
$\begingroup$

I've been working through the chapters in Schwartz on the renormalisation of QED, and I have some confusion to do with the form of the Vertex correction. By my understanding, the correlation function can be expressed \begin{align*} \left<\Omega\right\vert T\{\hat{\psi}(x_1)\hat{A}_\nu(x)\bar{\psi}(x_2)\}\left\vert\Omega\right> = \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}&\int \frac{d^4q_1}{(2\pi)^4}\int\frac{d^4q_2}{(2\pi)^4}e^{iq_1\cdot x_1}e^{ip\cdot x}e^{-iq_2\cdot x_2}\\ &\times (2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(q_2-p-q_1)iG(q_1)(-ie\Gamma^\mu)iG(q_1)iG_{\mu\nu}(p). \end{align*} In this expression $G$ stands for the corrected electron or photon propagators. So the vertex function $\Gamma^\mu$ is the 1PI contribution to the vertex.

$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$enter image description here $~~$

The claim is then made the form of the vertex must be $$\Gamma^\mu = F_1(p^2)\gamma^\mu + F_2(p^2)\frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu}}{2m}p_\nu.$$ In order to derive this expression he uses

  1. 4-momentum conservation.

  2. The Ward identity, which holds for off-shell photons.

  3. The "Gordon identity", which is where I am confused $$\bar{u}(q_2)(q_1^\mu + q_2^\mu)u(q_1) = 2m\bar{u}(q_2)\gamma^\mu u(q_1) + i\bar{u}(q_2)\sigma^{\mu\nu}(q_{1\nu} - q_{2\nu})u(q_1).$$

I thought that the point of renormalising correlation functions rather than S-matrix elements was because they could be embedded in larger Feynman diagrams. In order to use the Gordon identity, we have to take the electrons to be on-shell. Why is it okay to assume the electrons are on-shell, or is there another way to justify this form of the correction for off-shell electrons?

edit: For clarity, when I say off-shell electrons, I mean to say that the entire vertex correction is embedded in a larger Feynman diagram, for instance: enter image description here

In this case the vertex correction is not sandwiched between 2 off-shell spinors but between 2 propagators.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure you need to assume the electrons are on-shell? Don't you just need to assume that the functions $u(p)$ satisfy the appropriate equations? $\endgroup$ – Oбжорoв May 14 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Oбжорoв Your comment should be an answer - because it is the answer... $\endgroup$ – mike stone May 14 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Oбжорoв So the corrected propagator satisfies ($\gamma^\mu p_\mu - m$)G(p) = 0? $\endgroup$ – Edbroad123 May 14 at 13:40
0
$\begingroup$

You don't need to assume the electrons are on-shell. The relation you need is $(\gamma^\mu p_\mu -m) u(p)=0$, which holds by definition.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I've just edited the question for clarity, but if the vertex correction is embedded in a larger Feynman diagram, it wouldn't be sandiwched between off-shell spinors, it would be sandwiched between propagators. $\endgroup$ – Edbroad123 May 15 at 13:29

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.