So I am currently taking a class on advanced quantum field theory, and I came across something that I don't understand. I have been thinking about it for quite some time and I cannot get my head around it.

So the $1PI$ effective action is given by:

$$\Gamma[\Phi]= J \Phi- W[J[\Phi]]$$

Plugging this into an exponential yields:

$$e^{-\Gamma[\Phi]} = e^{-J \Phi} e^{W[J[\Phi]]} = LHS.$$

Plugging in the definiftion, of $W$ yiels:

$$LHS = e^{-J \Phi} \int [d \phi] e^{-S[\phi]+ J[\Phi] \phi}.$$

Now, we can do a Feynman expansion of the action and write:

$$S[\phi]= S[\Phi]+ \frac{1}{2} \psi S''[\Phi] \psi + S'[\Phi] \psi + \sum_{n \geq3} \frac{S^{(q)}}{q!} \psi^q$$

plugging in yields

$$LHS = e^{-J \Phi} \int [d \psi] e^{-S[\Phi]- \frac{1}{2} \psi S''[\Phi] \psi - S'[\Phi] \psi - \sum_{n \geq3} \frac{S^{(q)}}{q!} \psi^q -J[\Phi](\Phi +\psi) }$$

The $J \Phi$ terms in the exponent cancel and we can take out the action $S[\phi],$ we get:

$$LHS = e^{-S[\phi]} \int [d \psi] e^{- \frac{1}{2} \psi S''[\Phi] \psi - S'[\Phi] \psi - \sum_{n \geq3} \frac{S^{(q)}}{q!} \psi^q -J[\Phi]\psi} $$

Now the second part of this product is again a path integral. Since we Taylorexapnded around $\Phi,$ we should find

$$\langle \Phi +\psi \rangle= \Phi \Leftrightarrow \langle \psi \rangle = 0,$$

This additional restriction of the path integral is enforced by the source term $J[\Phi] \psi$

We can therefore say that the second factor is a sum of diagrams, with propagator $S''[\Phi]$ and vertices $S'[\Phi] \psi$ and $\frac{S^{(q)}[\Phi]}{q!} \psi^q.$

Now taking the $\mathrm{ln}$ on both sides, yields

$$\Gamma[\Phi]= S[\Phi] + \mathrm{ln} \left( \int [d \psi] e^{- \frac{1}{2} \psi S''[\Phi] \psi - S'[\Phi] \psi - \sum_{n \geq3} \frac{S^{(q)}}{q!} \psi^q -J[\Phi]\psi}\right).$$

Now, my professor called the second term "$\Gamma^{1PI}[\Phi]$" and therefore writes

$$\Gamma[\Phi] = S[\Phi] + \Gamma^{1PI}[\Phi].$$

Now what comes next seems to be very important but is nowhere proven. He claims, that the $\Gamma^{1PI}$ is a sum over $1PI$ graphs.

My question is: How can this be seen from the representation that he chose. Of course, one finds

$$G^{-1}=\frac{\delta^2 \Gamma [\Phi]}{\delta \Phi \delta \Phi}= S''[\Phi] +\frac{\delta^2 \Gamma^{1PI} [\Phi]}{\delta \Phi \delta \Phi} = S[\Phi] - \Sigma,$$

if we define $\Sigma_{a,b}= -\frac{\delta^2 \Gamma[\Phi]}{\delta \Phi_a \delta \Phi_b}.$

And coming from another approach to QFT, one finds via the Dyson equation

$$G = G_0 + G_0 \Sigma G \Rightarrow G^{-1} = G_0^{-1} - \Sigma,$$

Where $G_0$ is the bare propagator, $G$ the dressed propagator and $\Sigma$ the $1PI$-function.

So it appears to be correct to say that $\Gamma^{1PI}$ governs the $1PI$ (self energy contribution), i.e. is a sum over $1PI$ graphs. But I cannot see how it follows from the definition that we originally found (via the path integral over $\psi.$) In other words:

How can we see that the additional term indeed is a sum over the $1PI$ contributions.

I hope, I could make my question clear. If not, please ask


1 Answer 1

  1. The effective action $\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}]$ is the generating functional of 1PI diagrams, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

  2. The effective action $\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}] = S[\phi_{\rm cl}] +{\cal O}(\hbar)$ is the original classical action up to quantum corrections, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post, where calculations very similar to OP's are performed.

  3. Points 1 & 2 yield that OP's sought-for difference $\Gamma^{1PI}[\phi_{\rm cl}]:=\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}] - S[\phi_{\rm cl}]$ is the generating functional of 1PI loop-diagrams, cf. the $\hbar$/loop-expansion.

  • $\begingroup$ Hey Qmechanic, thanks for the answer. 1. It is very useful and yet another argument, why this is true, but how do you see that $S[\Phi] $ consists of merely non-loop diagrams? 2. Furthermore, in the lecture notes my professor argued that it also just follows from the fact that $\langle \psi \rangle = 0.$ Any idea, how that follows from there? $\endgroup$
    – jabru
    Jul 2 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ 1. I updated the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jul 2 at 16:50

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.