2
$\begingroup$

Let $L(\phi)$ be a Lagrangian and $\phi$ a quantum field. The equivalence theorem says that the $S$ matrix remains invariant under field redefinition.

Let us take for example the Lagrangian $$L=\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-m^2\phi^2\tag 1$$ The canonically conjugate field is $$ \pi=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}}=\dot{\phi} $$ which leads to the Hamilton density $$ \mathcal{H}(\phi,\pi)=\pi \dot{\phi}-\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi^{2}+\left(\nabla \phi\right)^{2}+m^{2} \phi^{2}\right) . $$ Suppose we make the field redefinition $\phi=F(\eta)$, then since $\phi$ and $\pi$ are independent we should have $$ \mathcal{H}(\phi,\pi)=\mathcal{H}(F(\eta),\pi)=\mathcal{H'}(\eta,\pi)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi^{2}+\left(\nabla F(\eta)\right)^{2}+m^{2} F(\eta)^{2}\right) . $$ Now since the Hamiltonian does not change the $S$ matrix should not change also. But this result is so trivial that I am not understanding why bother to make it a theorem.

On the other hand if we make the transformation $\phi \rightarrow \eta=F(\phi)$ then we would have $$\mathcal{H}(\phi,\pi) \rightarrow\mathcal{H'}(\phi,\pi)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi^{2}+(\nabla F(\phi))^{2}+m^{2} F(\phi)^{2}\right) . $$

Here the notation $\phi \rightarrow \eta=F(\phi)$ means replace $\phi $ by $\eta$ as is showed above

In order for the scattering amplitude to be invariant we should have $\mathcal{H}=U^\dagger\mathcal{H'}U$ where $U$ is unitary operator.

So is this redefinition $\phi=F(\eta)$ or the redefinition $\phi \rightarrow \eta=F(\phi)$ that is stated in this theorem?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

4
+25
$\begingroup$

The theorem only holds for invertible redefinitions, so both options $\phi=F(\eta)$ and $\eta=F'(\phi)$ are equivalent. The two options are related via $F'=F^{-1}$.

The theorem is obviously false for non-invertible definitions, e.g. you can choose the constant functional $F(\eta)=1$. The "change of variables" $\phi=1$ clearly does not leave the theory invariant.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ What I am asking is how the substitution is made. For example is the Lagrangian transformed Like this $L\rightarrow L(F(\eta))$ or like this $L\rightarrow L(\eta)$? $\endgroup$ Aug 17, 2021 at 9:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know what the symbol $\to$ means. The arrow notation is very imprecise and only leads to confusion. Try to formulate the question without using $\to$'s. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2021 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ Ok Will edit my question $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2021 at 16:44
1
$\begingroup$

Both are equivalent.

  • In the first, we change field variables from $\phi$ to $\eta$ where $\phi = F(\eta)$. Simply plug in $F(\eta )$ wherever you see $\phi$.
  • In the second, we simply replace the symbol $\phi$ with $\eta$ (does nothing). Then we state that $\eta= F(\phi )$. This is the exact same as before, but with the symbols reversed.

Edit: I removed a bit about the equivalence theorem following trivially from the path integral. The equivalence theorem is not so trivial.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The equivalence theorem is not a simple corollary of the path integral. Changes of variables also change the path integral measure nontrivially. In fact, variable changes like this do change the QFT! It is only the S-matrix that remains unchanged. So these can not be corollaries of the path integral. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Prof.Legolasov I deleted my previous comment. I see what you're saying now. I understand that the path integral measure changes under field redefinitions, however I misunderstood what the equivalence theorem was. I thought it was that, in the path integral, if you change variables the overall result doesn't change. What it's actually saying is that, starting with the $\phi$ theory, if you calculate S-matrix elements but using the action $S[F[\phi]]$ rather than $S[\phi]$, you'll get the same results. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ yeah, exactly. It is a nontrivial result about perturbative S-matrix. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Prof.Legolasov it can't be proven non-perturbatively? $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ I actually am not sure, the definition of S-matrix is a bit different non-perturbatively. You’ll need Haag-Ruelle scattering theory. My guess is that it is possible to prove for individual models $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 20:42

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.