1
$\begingroup$

Background

I am considering a scalar field theory with $\sim\phi^3$ interaction term, with Lagrangian \begin{equation} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\left( \partial_\mu\phi\right)^2 - \frac{m^2}{2}\phi^2 - \frac{\eta}{3!}\phi^3.\tag{1} \end{equation} In the interaction picture, this gives the `interaction Hamiltonian density' as \begin{equation} \mathcal{H}_I = \frac{\eta}{3!}\phi^3,\tag{2} \end{equation} which I use to expand the $S$-matrix, \begin{equation} \hat{S} = T\left[ 1-\frac{i\eta}{3!}\int\mathrm{d}^4z\;\phi(z)^3 +\frac{(-i)^2}{2!}\left(\frac{\eta}{3!}\right)^2\int\mathrm{d}^4z\mathrm{d}^4w\;\phi(z)^3\phi(w)^3 +\ldots\right].\tag{3} \end{equation} I then consider the various contributions to the amplitude $$\mathcal{A}=\langle q|\hat{S}|p\rangle\tag{4}$$ using Wick's theorem. There are no first order (in $\eta$) terms.

Question

Omitting prefactors, one of the second-order terms goes as \begin{equation} \mathcal{A}^{(2)}_1 \sim \langle 0|:\hat{a}_q\phi(z):|0\rangle \langle0|:\phi(z)\phi(z):|0\rangle\langle0|:\phi(w)\phi(w):|0\rangle\langle0|:\phi(w)\hat{a}^\dagger_p:|0\rangle,\tag{5} \end{equation} where $:\ldots:$ denotes a Wick contraction and $a_q/a^\dagger_p$ are annihilation/creation operators. This gives an amplitude \begin{equation} \mathcal{A}_1^{(2)} = \frac{(-i\eta)^2}{8}\int\mathrm{d}^4z\mathrm{d}^4w\;e^{iqz}\Delta(z-z)\Delta(w-w)e^{-ipw},\tag{6} \end{equation} where $\Delta(x-y)$ is the Feynman propagator.

What is the meaning of this term? It appears that I have an incoming particle with momentum $p$, which then turns into a bubble and vanishes from existence... likewise a bubble appears from nowhere and turns into a particle with momentum $q$. However, were I to carry out the $z$ integration, for example, would I not have a factor of $\delta(q)$? What is the interpretation of these delta functions?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ These are disconnected diagrams and they do not contribute to the connected component of the $S$ matrix. Each of these diagrams on its own contributes to the one-point function of the scalar field so what you are really calculating here has the form $\langle \phi(p) \phi(q) \rangle = \langle \phi(p) \rangle \langle \phi(q) \rangle$. $\endgroup$
    – Prahar
    Jul 1 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, I know that these types of diagrams don't contribute to the connected component, but I still struggle to visalise exactly what they do mean. $\endgroup$
    – dsfkgjn
    Jul 1 at 7:30
  • $\begingroup$ OP's application (5) of Wick's theorem seems incorrect (v2). The RHS of eq. (5) is manifestly zero because $\langle 0|:\{f(a,a^{\dagger})-f(0,0)\}:|0\rangle=0$, where $f:\mathbb{C}^2\to \mathbb{C}$ is an arbitrary function. See also my Phys.SE answer here. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jul 1 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ Could you define f, or explain this result in words? $\endgroup$
    – dsfkgjn
    Jul 1 at 7:48
1
$\begingroup$

The offending amplitude is zero unless $p=q=0$. To see this we can carry out the integrations over $w$ and $z$, which gives us 4D delta functions: $$ \mathcal{A}_1^{(2)} = \frac{(-i\eta)^2}{8}\delta^{(4)}(p)\Delta(0)\delta^{(4)}(q)\Delta(0) $$ In this form it is clear that the term vanishes if $p\neq0$ or $q\neq0$.

The corresponding diagram (in ASCII-art) is --O O--. It describes a particle disappearing into the vacuum and another particle popping out of the vacuum again. By momentum conservation this is only possible if all components of the four-momenta of the two particles vanish. (Hence the two delta functions in the amplitude.) Note that if your particles are massive this amplitude always vanishes on-shell, so it does not contribute to physical processes.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I'd obtained these delta functions, but didn't know what to make of them. Regarding your last sentence, is this because there is a `zero point energy' which prevents massive particles from having zero momentum? $\endgroup$
    – dsfkgjn
    Jul 5 at 7:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On-shell particles have $p^2=m^2$, so their energy is at least $m$. It's not zero point energy, it's just their mass. But yes, they cannot have zero four-momentum. $\endgroup$ Jul 5 at 20:32

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.