I'm having a hard time reconciling the following discrepancy:
Recall that in passing to the effective action via a Legendre transformation, we interpret the effective action Γ[ϕc] to be the generating functional of 1-particle irreducible Green's functions Γ[n]. In particular, the 2-point function is the reciprocal of the connected Green's function,
˜Γ[2](p)=i(˜G[2](p))−1=p2−m2−Σ(p)
which is the dressed propagator.
But, the problem is this: in the spontaneously broken ϕ4 theory, the scalar meson (quantum fluctuations around the vacuum expectation value) receives self energy corrections from three diagrams:
−iΣ(p2)= +
+
Note that the last diagram (the tadpole) is not 1PI, but must be included (see e.g. Peskin & Schroeder p. 361). In the MS-bar renormalization scheme, the tadpole doesn't vanish.
If the tadpole graph is included in Σ, and hence in ˜G and ˜Γ, then ˜Γ cannot be 1PI. If the tadpole is not included, then ˜G is not the inverse of the dressed propagator (that's strange, too). What's going on?
Answer
I'm going to give an explanation at the one loop level (which is the order of the diagrams given in the question).
At one loop, the effective action is given by Γ[ϕ]=S[ϕ]+12lTrlogS(2)[ϕ],
The physical value of the field ˉϕ is defined such that Γ(1)[ˉϕ]=0.
Let's now compute the inverse propagator Γ(2). At a meanfield level, we have the meanfield propagator defined above Gc[ˉϕ0]=ˉGc which is the inverse of S(2)[ˉϕ0]=ˉS(2). This is what is usually called the bare propagator G0 in field theory, and is generalized here to broken symmetry phases.
What is the inverse propagator at one-loop ? It is given by Γ(2)[ˉϕ]=S(2)[ˉϕ]+12lTrˉS(4).ˉGc−12lTrˉS(3).ˉGc.ˉS(3).ˉGc,(4)
No comments:
Post a Comment