1
$\begingroup$

In this paper, the authors consider a real scalar field theory in $d$-dimensional flat Minkowski space-time, with the action given by $$S=\int d^d\! x \left[\frac12(\partial_\mu\phi)^2-U(\phi)\right],$$ where $U(x)$ is a general self-interaction potential. Then, the authors proceed by saying that for the standard $\phi^4$ theory, the interaction potential can be written as $$U(\phi)= \frac{1}{8} \phi^2 (\phi -2)^2.$$

Why is this so? What is the significance of the cubic term present?

In this question Willie Wong answered by setting $\psi = \phi - 1$, why is that? Or why is this a gauge transformation? Does anyone have better argument to understand the interection potential?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's a field redefinition. You can use this $\psi$ in your calculations and if necessary switch back to $\phi$ in the end, if you need to. In other words, knowing the correlation functions $\langle \phi(x_1) \dotsm \phi(x_n) \rangle$ is completely equivalent to knowing $\langle \psi(x_1) \dotsm \psi(x_n) \rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Vibert Mar 1 '13 at 8:46
3
$\begingroup$

It's not a gauge transformation, it's a field redefinition. Srednicki gives an example of this in exercise 10.5. In this exercise, a free field theory is turned into what looks like an interacting field theory by a field redefinition, however in perturbation theory, the scattering amplitudes vanish, confirming that the physics hasn't changed.

I suspect you will find the same here (though I haven't done it!) - if you compute scattering amplitudes for the 3-way vertices represented by the cubic terms resulting from this field redefinition, they should cancel.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That's precisely what I meant with my comment above. $\endgroup$ – Vibert Mar 1 '13 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vibert Oh yes, I think we posted simultaneously! $\endgroup$ – twistor59 Mar 1 '13 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ Twistor, i got the problem 10.5. can you please redefine this field so i will have more clear understanding. $\endgroup$ – user12906 Mar 1 '13 at 9:04
  • $\begingroup$ @QFTdreamer I'm not sure exactly what you mean. All I'm saying is that your $\phi \rightarrow \phi-1$ is analogous to Srednicki's $\phi \rightarrow \phi+\lambda\phi^2$. $\endgroup$ – twistor59 Mar 1 '13 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ How will I confirm that my redefination is correct? $\endgroup$ – user12906 Mar 1 '13 at 9:27

Your Answer

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