Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

189 submissions , 149 unreviewed
4,784 questions , 1,977 unanswered
5,282 answers , 22,469 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
770 active unimported users
More ...

  Renormalization condition: why must be the residue of the propagator be 1

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
8537 views

In on-shell scheme, one of the renormalization conditions is that the propagator, say, a scalar theory

$$\frac{1}{p^2+m^2-\Sigma(p^2)-i\epsilon}$$

must have a unit residue at the pole of physical mass $p^2=-m^2$. Some textbooks say this is to make sure the propagator behaves like a free field propagator near the pole. But why?

UPDATE(27-Jun-2015): I was just randomly checking my old questions, now I fully agree with innisfree's answer.


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jia Yiyang

asked May 8, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Jia Yiyang (2,640 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jun 27, 2015 by Jia Yiyang
But ... why not?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kostya
@Kostya: I'd agree that it will reduce to free field propagator if the interaction is somehow turned off, but I can't see any connection between "$p^2\to-m^2$" and "interaction being turned off"

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jia Yiyang

3 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

The OS condition that $$ \frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial p^2}|_{p^2=-m^2} = 0 $$ implies that the residue in the propagator remains equal to one.

Suppose that we used a different renormalization scheme in which our counter-terms contain no finite parts (e.g. MS scheme). In the OS scheme, we removed finite parts which were logarithmic in our artificial regularization scale $\mu$. In our new choice, the propagator might have a residue, say $R$.

This residue manifests itself in an irritating way; the field will be re-normalized such that $\phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}} \phi_B$. In the LSZ formula, however, external lines contribute factors $R$ (from the KG equation cancelling the propagators). So external scalar lines contribute a factor $\sqrt{R}$ in the MS scheme.

So, whilst this choice in the OS scheme is somewhat arbitrary, it's convenient, because external scalar lines contribute a factor 1.

I'm trying to learn these points myself, so hopefully someone can expand/correct my answer where necessary...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user innisfree
answered May 8, 2013 by innisfree (295 points) [ no revision ]
So you are saying it's more of a mathematical convenience? I haven't read MS scheme so I'll keep this in mind for now.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jia Yiyang

@JiaYiyang: It is a consensus of the physics community, hence a cultural convenience, not a mathematical one. The inverse of the Green's function is a differential operator perturbed in the non-free case by an integral operator called the self-energy, and asymptotically it equals the Fourier transform of the differential operator defining the asymptotic states. For your choice of the Minkowski metric, this should give $p^2+m^2$, and not $a(p^2+m^2)$ with some $a\ne 1$. 

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The pole corresponds to an on-shell particle going from one point to another. Then, the residue effectively tells you how many of those particles are being transmitted. Since in your physical/renormalized theory, the propagator should correspond to $1$ quantum of the renormalized field being transmitted, you set the residue at the pole to $1$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
answered May 9, 2013 by Siva (720 points) [ no revision ]
But why does the residue equal (instead of just being proportional to) the number of particles? Can you give a reasoning without reference to free field case? In the sense that I don't want a reasoning like “because in free field propagator they are equal”, since this would be logically no difference with the textbook argument.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jia Yiyang
Well, what if the start and the end point were the same. Then you'd expect to get the vev of $|\phi*(x) \phi(x)$ which you expect to give you the particle density at that point... and you want a single operator insertion to create 1 particle.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
That's a nice answer. Related, I think, to the need to add factors of $\sqrt{R}$ to external lines in other schemes.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user innisfree
@Siva:I don't quite get you, isn't the vev of $\phi^*(x)\phi(x)$ just 0, since particle density is 0 for vacuum? And by "single operator insertion to create 1 particle" what kind of insertion do you mean exactly?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jia Yiyang
If you expand out $\phi$ and $\phi^*$ ino creation and annihilation operators, you will notice that one term will survive (and three will vanish due to normal ordering). So you'll have $<\phi^* \phi> = <a^{\dagger}a> = 1$. By "operator insertion at X", I just mean that a field operator acts acting at point $X$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:31 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

I propose to look at this from the coordinate representation. The Green's function (propagator) may be built from the equation solutions, so the question is in fact about solutions $\phi$ of an "interacting" theory. Let's simplify the theory to a non-relativistic scattering of a scalar particle with mass $m$ from a static potential. The exact solution is not reduced to a free one, but has asymptotics at large distances describing free physical particles with the same mass. Similar property must be fulfilled by the Green's function. So, if one wants to build an "interacting" theory for physical particles, one should guess the interaction correctly. It should not modify the particle mass, but should deviate its path from a free one (scatter, in other words). In the occupation number representation it means change of occupation numbers of physical particles. The on-shell renormalization condition is such a subtraction way that removes the self-mass from the initial "interaction". Renormalization (subtraction) "finalizes" our initially wrongly guess of the interaction of physical particles.

The propagator residue is indeed directly connected with the wave function normalization condition in a trivial way.

UPDATE of 07 august 2021:

I would like to clarify once and forever the statement "... I can't see any connection between "$p^2→−m^2$" and "interaction being turned off" ".

Actually there are many (wrong) speculations about "bare particles" parameters, as if they existed indeed, but were non observable due to absence of interactions. In fact we always proceed from the equations of motions (good or bad) of interacting observable particles. That is why we know their physical parameters like mass, charge, spin, etc. However there exist a regime of very high kinetic energy giving the solutions numerically nearly identical to the solutions of free equations. Thus arose a notion of a "free particles". It is not a regime of coupling tending to zero; the coupling may stay the same (permanent for dressed particles or decaying at infinity or at shorter range for scattering processes), but the kinetic energy may prevail effects of those interactions in our numerically acceptable accuracy for this high energy particle (the interaction effects like radiation or excitations are also governed with some other equations, which have non trivial physical solutions). So we (may) study a free particle equations with physical mass at different $\vec{p}$. That is why in the propagators stays always the same physical mass.

The situation is slightly more complicated for dressed particles (infra-particles, for example), however in principle it is the same - our accuracy requirements are fulfilled for "free" equation solutions, so we content ourselves with these solutions. But one should never forget - the origin of them is our "full-fledged equations".

You may read my papers on arXiv about dressing examples and integration of short distance "physics".

answered Jun 29, 2015 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ revision history ]
edited Sep 10 by Vladimir Kalitvianski

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...