QFT Schwartz draft

© All Rights Reserved

245 visualizações

QFT Schwartz draft

© All Rights Reserved

- Physics From Symmetry - Jakob Schwichtenberg
- Weinberg, Steven - The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume II
- Introduction to Quantum Field Theory Peskin
- PESKIN - Quantum Field Theory
- Quantum Physics 1
- Peskin&Schroeder Solution Manual
- Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd Ed
- Mandl F., Shaw G. - Quantum Field Theory
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys6301.001 05f taught by Yuri Gartstein (yxg037000)
- 204_29jfdxnxnxn
- Buch003englishArticles01 1015-01-2006researchgate
- Emergent mechanics quantum and unquantum
- Chromotgraphy and Aas Notes
- Atomic Structure Questions
- Cone Beam Computed Tomography Oral and Maxillofaci... ---- (2 the Nature of Ionizing Radiation and the Risks From Maxillofacial Co...)
- Matthias Troyer- Supersolid phases of (lattice) bosons
- Introduction
- 10-spinors
- J. C. Hidalgo and S. Mendoza- Self–similar imploding relativistic shock waves
- photoelectriceffect-180615105718

Você está na página 1de 262

Fall 2008

Table of contents

1 The Microscopic Theory of Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Blackbody Radiation . . . . . . . . . . Einstein Coecients . . . . . . . . . . . Quantum Field Theory . . . . . . . . . Spontaneous and stimulated emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 11 11

2 Lorentz Invariance and Conventions 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 dimensional analysis . . 2.2.2 2 s . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Lorentz Invariance . . . . . . 2.3.1 rotations . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Lorentz transformations 2.4 Discrete transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 19

3 Second Quantization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simple Harmonic Oscillator . . . . . . Plane waves as oscillators . . . . . . . . Second Quantization . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 more details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Normalization and Lorentz Invariance 3.6 Implications of Second Quantization . 4 Classical Field Theory 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 22 23 24 25 25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 27 28 29 29 30 31 31

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Classical Field Theory . . . . . . Equations of Motion . . . . . . . Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulombs law Classical . . . . 4.5.1 Fourier transform interlude 4.5.2 Coulomb potential again . 4.6 Greens functions . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33 34 34 35 36 37

5.1 Perturbation Theory in Quantum Field Theory 5.2 Some early innities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Stark Eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Lamb shift a la Oppenheimer 1930 . . . . 5.3 Old-Fashioned Perturbation Theory . . . . . . . 5.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 stark eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table of contents

5.4.2 Lamb shift a la Oppenheimer 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.5 Coulombs law from OFPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6 Cross Sections and Decay Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7 Cross sections Decay Rates . Special cases . Non-relativistic e+e + . .. . . .. . . .. . limit . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 43 43 44 45

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

7.1 LSZ reduction theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.2 Feynman propagator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8 Feynman Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1 Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory . . . 8.1.1 perturbative solution for Dysons series 8.1.2 U relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Ground State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.4 meaning of I subscript . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Time ordered products and contractions . . 8.2.1 Wicks theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Feynman diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 symmetry factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 signs of momenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Vacuum diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Tree-level scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Mandelstam variables . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 With derivative couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 54 55 55 55 56 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 62 63 64

9 Gauge Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Unitary representations of the Poincare group 9.2.1 a simple example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Embedding particles into elds . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 spin 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 massive spin 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 massless spin 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.4 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Covariant derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Conserved Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 Noethers theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.3 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Quantizing spin 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.1 massive spin 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.2 massless spin 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 Photon propagator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7.1 gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 69 70 71 71 71 72 74 74 75 75 76 77 77 77 78 79 80

Table of contents

10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Quantizing Complex Scalar elds . . . . . . 10.2.1 Diracs sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Feynman rules for scalar QED . . . . . . . . 10.4 External states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Scattering in scalar QED . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Gauge invariance in scalar QED . . . . . . . 10.7 Lorentz invariance and charge conservation 10.7.1 Lorentz invariance for spin 2 . . . . . .

11 Spinors and the Dirac Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Representations of the Lorentz Group 11.3 General representations . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1 unitary representations . . . . . . 11.3.2 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11.4 Spin 2 representation . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.1 Lorentz invariants . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Dirac matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Lorentz Invariants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 Coupling to the photon . . . . . . . . . 11.9 Weyl spinors Helicity . . . . . . . . . 11.10 Spin and statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.11 Majorana fermions . . . . . . . . . . . 11.11.1 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.12 Solving the Dirac equation . . . . . . 11.12.1 free eld solutions . . . . . . . . . 11.12.2 normalization and spin sums . . 11.12.3 charge conjugation . . . . . . . . 12 Quantum Electrodynamics 12.1 Introduction . . . . 12.2 Quantizing Spinors 12.3 Dirac Propagator . 12.4 Spin statistics . . . 12.5 Causality . . . . . . 12.6 QED Feynman rules 12.6.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 94 95 96 97 97 98 100 101 102 104 105 107 108 108 109 109 111 112

13 Tree-level QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 13.1 Matrix identities . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 e+e + . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.1 unpolarized scattering . . . . . 13.2.2 dierential cross section . . . . 13.3 Rutherford scattering e p+ e p+ 13.3.1 QED amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 123 124 125 126 127

Table of contents

13.3.2 corrections to Rutherford . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Compton scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.1 Klein-Nishina formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.2 photon polarization sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.3 t-channel term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.4 Klein-Nishina formula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.5 low-energy limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.6 high-energy behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.7 singularity cancellation from gauge invariance 13.5 Processes in QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

128 129 129 130 130 131 131 133 134 136

14 Path Integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Gaussian integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 The Path Integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3.1 path integral in QM . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 Path integral in QFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 Classical limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 Time-ordered products . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6.1 Current shorthand . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7 Solving the free Path Integral . . . . . . . . 14.7.1 4-point function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 The ward identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.10 Gauge invariance: Fadyeev-Popov . . . . . 14.11 Fermionic path integral . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.12 Schwinger-Dyson equations . . . . . . . . . 14.12.1 Ward identity from Schwinger-Dyson 14.13 BRST invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. equations . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 140 140 140 141 142 142 143 144 145 145 146 148 149 151 152 153

15 The Casimir Eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Casimir eect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Hard Cuto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 Regulator Dependence . . . . . . . . . . 15.4.1 heat kernel regularization . . . . . 15.4.2 other regulators . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4.3 regulator independent derivation 15.4.4 string theory aside . . . . . . . . . 15.5 Counterterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 Scalar eld theory example . . . . . . . 15.6.1 renormalizion of . . . . . . . . . 15.6.2 counterterm interpretation . . . . 16 Regularization Schemes and Tricks 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 Feynman Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . Wick Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quadratic integrals derivative method Pauli-Villars regularization . . . . . . . . Dimensional Regularization . . . . . . . . k integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 155 156 158 158 159 159 160 161 161 162 163

Table of contents

17 Vacuum Polarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 Scalar 3 theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.1 interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 Vacuum polarization in scalar QED . . 17.4 Spinor QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 Physics of vacuum polarization . . . . . 17.5.1 small momentum Lamb shift . . 17.5.2 large momentum logarithms of p 17.5.3 running coupling . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 Other graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 171 172 173 176 176 177 178 179 179

18 g -2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 18.2 Vertex correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 18.3 Evaluating the graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 19 Systematic Renormalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 188 189 189 190 192 193 193 194 195 196 197 198 200 200 202 202 204 204 205 207

19.1 Measuring Correlation Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 Tadpoles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 Electron self-energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3.1 self-energy loop graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3.2 wave-function renormalization at me = 0 . . . . . . . . 19.3.3 wave-function renormalization with a mass . . . . . . 19.3.4 one-particle irreducible graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3.5 pole-mass renormalization conditions . . . . . . . . . . 19.3.6 Summary of electron self-energy renormalization . . . 19.4 Amputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 Renormalized perturbation theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5.1 2-point function in renormalized perturbation theory 19.6 Photon self-energy 2-point function: vacuum polarization . 19.6.1 gauge invariance and counterterms . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 3-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 QED renormalization conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 Minimal Subtraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9.1 propagator in MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10 1 = 2: implications and proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.1 charge is not renormalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.2 All-orders proof of 1 = 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Infrared Divergences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 20.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 Total cross section for e+e + 20.3 Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.1 Tree level graph . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.2 Vertex Correction . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3 counterterms . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.4 expanding out the process . . . 20.3.5 full e+e + . . . . . . . . 20.4 Real-emission: Final state radiation 20.5 Initial state radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 210 211 211 212 213 213 215 216 217

Table of contents

20.6 Applications of infrared divergences . 20.7 e+e + in dim reg . . . . . . . . 20.7.1 loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7.2 dimensionless integrals in dim-reg 20.7.3 total virtual part . . . . . . . . . . 20.7.4 real emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 Compton scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Lamb Shift

.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

21.1 Hydrogen atom spectrum summary 21.2 Bethes Lamb shift calculation . . . . 21.3 Lamb shift phenomenology . . . . . . 21.3.1 Bethes log . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3.2 spin-orbit coupling . . . . . . . .

22 Renormalizability of QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Renormalizability of QED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.1 4-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.2 5,6,... point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.3 renormalizability to all orders . . . . . . . 22.3 Non-renormalizable eld theories . . . . . . . . 22.3.1 non-renormalizable theories are nite too 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 230 230 231 231 232 234

Non-Renormalizable and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Super-Renormalizable Field Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 237 238 239 240 241 243 244 246 246 247 248 248 248 250 251 252

23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 Schrodinger Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 The 4-Fermi theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.0.1 quantum predictions of the Fermi theory . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.0.2 UV-completing the Fermi theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 Theory of Mesons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 Quantum Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5.0.3 Predictions of gravity as a non-renormalizable eld theory 23.6 Summary of non-renormalizable theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 Quantum predictions which are not logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7.1 from physics to philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 Super-renormalizable eld theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8.1 tadpoles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8.2 relevant interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8.3 scalar masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8.4 fermion and gauge boson masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8.5 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 Implications of Unitarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Optical Theorem . . . . . . . . . Decay rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cutting Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Propagators and polarization sums . Breit-Wigner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross sections: The Froissart Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 255 256 257 258 259 260

1.1 Blackbody Radiation

Quantum Mechanics began on October 19, 2000 with Max Plancks explanation of the black-body radiation spectrum. Although his result led to the development of quantum mechanics, that is, the quantum mechanics of electrons, Plancks original observation was about the quantum nature of light, which is a topic for quantum eld theory. So, radiation is a great way to motivate the need for a quantum theory of elds. In 1900 people were very confused about how to explain the spectrum of radiation from hot objects. The equipartition theorem says that a body in thermal equilibrium should have energy equally distributed among the various modes. For a hot gas, this gives the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of thermal velocities, which is beautifully conrmed by data. But when you try to do the same thing for light, you get a very strange result. Take a blackbody, which we can think of as a hot box of light (also known as a Jeans cube) of size L. We know that there are standing electromagnetic waves inside with frequencies n = 2

K| |n L

(1.1)

for integer 3-vectors K n . Before 1900 people thought you can have as much or as little energy in each mode as you want. Then the equipartition theorem says that since there are an innite number of modes excited, the blackbody should emit light equally in all frequencies. In particular, there should be a lot of UV light the ultraviolet catastrophe. Instead, the distribution looks like a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This led Planck to postulate that the energy of each electromagnetic mode in the cavity is quantized in units of frequency 2 Kn | (1.2) En = hn = h |n K | = |k L where h is Plancks constant. Einstein then interpreted this as saying light is made up of particles, called photons. Note that if the excitations are particles, then they are massless

2 K 2 m2 n = En |kn | = 0

(1.3)

Thus Planck and Einstein said that light is massless photons. Light having energy leads to the photoelectric eect; light having momentum leads to Compton scattering. With Plancks energy hypothesis, the thermal distribution is easy to compute. Each mode of frequency n can be excited j times, giving energy En = jn in that mode. The probability of nding that much energy in the mode is the same as the probability of nding a certain amount of energy in anything , P (E ) = exp( E /kBT ). Thus the expectation value of the the energy in each mode is En =

jEn j =0 ( jEn)e jEn j =0 e

d 1 e hn

1 1 ehn

hn h e n 1

(1.4)

10

where = 1/kBT . (This derivation is due to Debye. Nowadays we do the calculation using a canonical ensemble.). Now lets take the continuum limit, L . The distribution of energy in a blackbody becomes E= d3n hn e hn 1 L3 8 3 = 4h d d |n K| 3 1 e hn |n K |2n 1 (1.5) (1.6) (1.7)

= 4h Thus, I ( ) =

e h

Which is Planks showed in 1900 correctly matches experiment. (NB: I threw in a factor of 2 for the 2 polarizations of light, which you shouldnt worry about at all yet.). What does this have to do with Quantum Field Theory? Well, in order for any of this to make sense, light has to be able to equilibrate. If we shine monochromatic light into the box, eventually it reaches all frequencies. But if dierent frequencies are dierent particles, these particles have to get created by something. Quantum eld theory tells us how radiation works at the microscopic level.

1 dE h 3 = 2 h V d e 1

The easiest handle on the creation of light comes from the coecient of spontaneous emission. This is the rate for an excited atom to emit light. This phenomenon had been observed in chemical reactions, and as a form of radioactivity. But it was only understood statistically. In fact, Einstein in 1906 developed a beautiful proof of the relation between emission and absorption based on the existence of thermal equilibrium. Einstein said: Suppose we have a cavity full of atoms with energy levels E1 and E2. Let = E2 E1. In equilibrium the number densities are determined by Boltzmann distributions. n1 = Ne E1 n2 = Ne E2 (1.8)

The probability for an E2 atom to emit a photon of energy and transition to state E1 is called the coefcient for spontaneous emission A. The probability for a photon of energy to induce a transition from 2 to 1 is proportional to the coecient of stimulated emission B2. The induced rate is also proportional to the number of photons of energy . Then dn2 = [A + B2I ()] n2 (1.9)

The probability for a photon to induce a transition from 1 to 2 is called the coecient of stimulated absorption B1. Then dn1 = B1I ( )n1 (1.10) Now if we assume the system is in equilibrium then the rate going up must be the same as the rate going down: dn2 = dn1. Then [A + B2I ( )] n2 = B1I ( )n1 B1e E1 B2e E2 I () = Ae E2 I ( ) = But we already know that I ( ) = A B1e B2 h 3 2 2 e 1 (1.11) (1.12) (1.13) (1.14)

11

from above. Since equilibrium must be satised at any temperature, B2 = B1 = B and A = 3 B 2 2 (1.16) (1.15)

This is a beautiful proof. If light has energy with a Planck distribution, then equilibrium relates A and B . However, why should you need equilibrium to say this? What causes an atom to emit a photon the rst place? The B coecients, for stimulated emission/absorption can be calculated with a background electromagnetic eld and quantum mechanics. Dirac did this in 1932. However, how do you calculated the coecient of spontaneous emission B ? It took 20 years to be able to calculate A/B from rst principles. It took the invention of Quantum Field Theory.

The basic idea behind the calculation of the spontaneous emission coecient was to treat the photon excitations like a quantum mechanics problem. Start by just looking at a single photon mode at a time, say of energy . This mode can be excited j times. Each excitation adds energy to the system. There is a quantum mechanical system with this property one you may remember from your quantum mechanics course: the simple harmonic oscillator. We will review it for homework. For now, let me just remind you of how it works. The easiest way to study the system is with creation and annihilation operators. These satisfy: [a, a ] = 1 (1.17) There is also the number operator which counts modes N = a a Then, and so N |n = n |n Na n = a aa n = a n + a a a n = (n + a)a n a n = n+1 n+1 a |n = n n 1 n |n = 1 Now for the photon, we want to be able to arbitrarily excite any mode in the cavity. Thus N=

{k } ak ak

(1.24)

This seems like absolutely nothing just algebra. But its not.

For example, lets look how a photon interacts with an atom. We want to use Fermis golden rule to calculate the transition rate between states. Recall that the rule states that the rate is proportional to the matrix element squared |M |2 (E f Ei) (1.25)

12

where the -function serves to enforce energy conservations. Using perturbation theory, we know we can write interactions of the form |M |2 = | f |Hint |i |2 (1.26)

We dont know exactly what the interaction Hamiltonian Hint is, but its got to have something to connect the initial and nal atomic states and some creation operator or annihilation operator to create the photon. So it must look like

Hint = H0ak + H0ak +

(1.27)

For the 2 1 transition, the initial state is an excited atom with n photons of momenta k : |i = |atom ; nk (1.28) The nal state is a lower energy atom with n + 1 photons of momentum k f | = atom; nk + 1|

M2 1 = atom; nk + 1|H0ak + H0ak |atom ; nk

So,

= atom|H0|atom

nk + 1|ak | nk

= M0 nk + 1|nk + 1 nk + 1 = M 0 nk + 1 where Thus M0 = atom|H0|atom |M2 1|2 = |M0|2(nk + 1) But if we are exciting an atom, then the initial state is an unexcited atom and n photons: |i = |atom; nk and the nal state we have lost a photon and have an excited atom f | = atom ; nk 1|

(1.36)

(1.37)

Then

= atom |H0|atom nk 1|ak |nk = M 0 nk Thus dn2 = |M0|2n2(nk + 1) Remember Einsteins equations: dn1 = |M0|2 n2(nk) dn2 = (A + B2I ( )) n2 dn1 = B1I ( )n1

13

dE hk 3 = nk dk 2 2 2 I (k )k 3 h

nk =

Note that this doesnt depend on what nk is, this is just a phase space integral. There is no mention of temperature or of equilibrium it is true for any values of nk. Thus 2 I (k ) + 1 (1.48) dn2 = Cn2 k3 dn1 = Cn1 Thus 2 I (k ) k3 (1.49) (1.50) (1.51)

B1 = B2 A 2 2 = 3 k B

Which are Einsteins relations. Beautiful! This derivation is due to a paper of Diracs from 1927. Note that we never needed to talk about statistical mechanics, ensembles, or temperature.

2.1 Introduction

This lecture is meant to establish the conventions used in the course, and to review Lorentz invariance and notation. It is taken partly from Mike Lukes QFT lectures http: //www2.physics.utoronto.ca/luke/PHY2403/References_les/lecturenotes.pdf (2.1)

In particular section 1B. You might want to look at those lectures for more, and somewhat dierent, details.

2.2 Conventions

2.2.1 dimensional analysis

We will set = h =1 2 (2.2) (2.3)

c=1

throughout. This makes all quantities have dimensions of mass to some power. Sometimes we write the mass dimension of a quantity with brackets: [M d] = d Really, everything is either a length (eg position x) or a mass (eg momentum p). With [x] = 1. So [x] = 1 [ t] = 1 [ p] = 1 [veolcity] = Thus Action is dimensionless So Lagrangians have dimension 4 [x] =0 [t] (2.4) = c = 1 [ p] = 1/ (2.5) (2.6) (2.7) (2.8) (2.9) (2.10) (2.11) 15

[d4x] = 4 [S ] = [ d4x L] = 0

[L] = 4

16

For example, a free scalar eld has Lagrangian thus and so on. L = d2 [ ] = 1 (2.12) (2.13)

2.2.2 2 s

Keeping the factors of 2 straight can be a pain. They come from going back and forth between position and momentum space. For example, dkeikx = 2 (x) (2.14)

In fact, you should internalize this relation as you will use it a lot. The convention we will use is that momentum space integrals have 2 s and a + sign in the exponent f (x) = d4k f (k )eikx (2 )4 (2.15)

The position space integrals have no 2 s and a minus sign in the exponent (k ) = f d4xf (x)e ikx (2.16)

Lorentz invariance implies a symmetry under rotations and boosts.

2.3.1 rotations

Rotations you should be extremely familiar with, and are more intuitive. For example, under rotations, a vector (x, y ) transforms as x x cos + y sin We can write this as x y y x sin + y cos cos sin sin cos xi Rij x j , x y xi = = x y , x cos + y sin x sin + y cos i = 1, 2 (2.17) (2.18)

(2.19) (2.20)

Or as

We separate upper and lower indices to refer to column and row vectors respectively. So we can also write xi = (x, y ) (x, y ) Note that RT = R 1. That is

T Rij R jk = j k =

T = xiRij

(2.21)

(2.22) (2.23)

or equivalently RTR = 1

17

This is actually enough to characterize it as a rotation, and we dont need the explicit form of the rotation matrix as a function of anymore. We can contract upper and lower indices xixi = (x, y ) x y = x2 + y 2 (2.24)

This is just the norm of the vector xi and is rotation invariant. That xixi means sum over i is sometimes called the Einstein summation convention. In terms of matrices xixi xiRTRxk = xixi since R = R xixi = ij xix j

T 1

(2.25)

. In fact, we can formally describe the rotation group as preserving the inner product RikR jlkl = [(RT )( )(R)]i j = (RTR)ij = ij (2.26)

Lorentz transformations work exactly like rotations, except we use vectors with 4 components with a Greek index V , and the matrices satisfy 1 1 (2.27) T = = 1 1

2 2 2 xix j = xiijx j = x2 0 x1 x2 x3

is known as the Minkoswki metric. So Lorentz transformations preserve the Minkowskian inner product The Lorentz group is the most general set of transformations with this property. A general Lorentz transformation can be written as a combination of 3 rotations and 3 boosts: 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 cos xy sin x y 1 cos sin xz xz = 0 sin xy cosxy 0 cosxz sin xz 1 sin x z cos x z sin xz cosxz 0 0 0 1 cosh y sinh y cosh x sinh x cosh z sinh z sinh x cosh x 1 1 1 1 sinh y cosh y 1 sinh z cosh z 1

(2.28)

(2.29)

(2.30)

Note that these matrices do not commute, so the order we do the rotations and boosts is important. We will only very rarely need an actual matrix representation of the group elements like this, but it is helpful to see it. So now vectors transform as V V

W W (T )

(2.31) (2.32)

That is, these vectors transform covariantly or contravariantly. The contraction of a covariant and contravariant vector is Lorentz invariant .

V = W V W V W (T )

(2.33)

18

Only when you are using explicit representations of the Lorentz group elements to the index positions really matter. Otherwise as long as the indices are contracted, I dont care whether they are up or down : V W = V W = V W = V0W0 V1W1 V2W2 V3W3 (2.34) (2.35)

This is a bad habit and I probably shouldnt be encouraging it, but as I said, this is meant to be a practical course. Conventionally, position vectors have upper indices x = (t, x, y, z ) derivatives have lower indices = = (t , x , y , z ) x (2.37) (2.36)

momenta are like derivatives and have lower indices p = (E , px , p y , pz) (2.38)

Note that sometimes you will see (Mike Luke does this) p = (E , px , p y , pz). It doesnt matter if you put these signs in the individual vector elements as long as you always contract with the Minkowski metric = diag(1, 1, 1, 1). That is, the signs only really matter when you write out the explicit contraction of a Lorentz invariant expression. Scalar elds are Lorentz invariant (x) (x) (2.39) Note that our denitions of x may be changing x x, but the space-time point x is xed, just our labels for it change. For example, think of temperature as a scalar. If I change frames, the labels for the points changes, but the temperature at that point stays the same. Vectors transform as V (x) V (x) (2.40) Im not bothering with up and down indices, but the proper thing to do is write V = V . Again, x transforms too, but passively. The dierence with a scalar is that the components of a vector eld at the point x rotate into each other as well. Tensors transform as and so on. We also write T T (2.41)

2 2 2 2 2 = = = t x y z 2 2 2 = 2 = x + y + z

(2.42) (2.43)

Note that you should never have anything like V W X with 3 (or more) of the same indices. Be very careful to relabel things. For example, dont write (V 2)(W 2) = V V W W instead write

2 2 (V 2)(W 2) = V W = V V WW = V VWW

(2.44)

(2.45) (2.46)

19

In summary, we say V 2 = V V , are Lorentz invariant . But V , F , , x are Lorentz covariant (or contravariant, but only mathematicians say that). (2.48) , 1, V (2.47)

Lorentz transformations are those which preserve the Minkowski metric T = Equivalently, they are those which leave invariant. So the transformations and x x = t2 x 2 y 2 z 2 P : (t, x, y, z ) (t, x, y, z ) (parity) T : (t, x, y, z ) ( t, x, y, z ) (time reversal) (2.50) (2.49)

(2.51) (2.52)

(2.53)

(2.54)

We say that the Lorentz transformations which are continuously connected to the identity transformation are Proper Othonchronous Lorentz transformations. They can be characterized by (2.55) (2.56)

With T and P we get all Lorentz transformations. Note detP = detT = 1 and T00 < 0. Also, we say a vector is timelike when

2 V > 0,

(timelike) (spacelike)

(2.57) (2.58)

2 V < 0,

Obviously time = (t, 0, 0, 0) is timelike and (0, x, 0, 0) is spacelike. Whether something is timelike or spacelike is preserved under Lorentz transformations since the norm is preserved. If its norm is zero we say it is lightlike 2 V = 0, (lightlike) (2.59) If V is a 4-momentum, this says that it is massless. Photons are massless, which is the origin of the term lightlike.

3.1 Introduction

Last time we saw that if we treat each mode of the photon as a separate particle, and give it multiple excitations like its a harmonic oscillator, we can derive the relation between the coecients of induced and spontaneous emission without resorting to statistical mechanics. This was our rst QED calculation. Today we will make this a little more precise, give it a little more justication, and pave the way for more detailed computations in Quantum Electrodynamics. I should mention here that there are two ways of quantizing a eld theory. The rst is the called canonical quantization. It is historically how quantum eld theory was understood, and closely follows what you learned in quantum mechanics. Its also easy to see the relation between the formalism and physical problems. The second way is called the Feynman Path Integral. It is more beautiful in a way, and more general, but it is hard to understand physically what you are calculating. In any case, both are necessary for a proper education in quantum eld theory, so we will start with the traditional canonical quantization. From now on I will set = c = 1. I will also be cavalier about signs and small numerical factors. This is mostly because I am too lazy to make sure they are right. But it is also because I want to keep talking about electromagnetic elds, which are physical, and to keep treating them like scalars, which are easy to study. It turns out that if you worry about the signs and treat the photon like a scalar, things just dont work (after all, thats how we know the photon is not a scalar!). Eventually, we will to QED properly and then I will be careful about signs, but not yet.

Recall the simple harmonic oscillator. Anything with a linear restoring potential (the simplest thing possible), like a spring, or a string with tension, or a wave, is a harmonic oscillator. For example, a spring has m I.e. it oscillates with frequency = k m (3.2) (3.3) d2x kx = 0 dt2 x(t) = cos k t m (3.1)

x(t) = c1eit + c2e it The classical Hamiltonian for this system is H= To quantize it, we say 1 p2 1 m 2x2 2m 2 [x, p] = ih 21

(3.4) (3.5)

22

Second Quantization

A very very important trick is to write this as a= with Then H = a a + 1 2 (3.8) ip m x+ , m 2 a = m ip x 2 m (3.6) (3.7)

[a, a ] = 1

Thus energy eigenstates are eigenstates of the number operator N = a a which is Hermetian. Also, all the stu we saw yesterday is true. N |n = n |n a n = n + 1 |n + 1 a |n = n |n 1 (3.10) (3.11) (3.12) (3.9)

One more useful fact is how these operators evolve in time. Recall that in the Heisenberg picture, states dont evolve, operators do. Then i d 1 a = [a, H ] = a, a a + dt 2 = (aa a a aa) = [a , a]a = a (3.13) (3.14)

a(t) = e ita(0)

The excitations of a plane electromagnetic wave in a cavity are very similar to the excitations of a harmonic oscillator. Recall that theres a nice Lorentz-covariant treatment of electromagnetism using 0 Ex E y Ez Bz B y Ex 0 (3.15) F = 0 By E y Bz Ez B y Bx 0 F = 0 (3.16)

F is antisymmetric. This makes Maxwells equations have the simple form (in empty space)

The nice thing about using F is that it concisely encodes how E and B rotate into each other under boosts. We can always write with F = A A A = 0 (3.17) (3.18)

Requiring A = 0 is not necessary. It is a gauge choice (Lorentz gauge). We will discuss gauge invariance in great detail in a few weeks. For now, it is enough to know that the physical E and B elds can be combined in this way.

23

Then, F = A ( A ) = A = 0 (3.19)

From here on, I will drop the subscript on A , writing it as A. You can keep the if you want, but none of the qualitative conclusions that follow today will depend on it, and it makes things less cluttered. So,

2 2 (t x )A = 0

(3.20)

KK A(x) = ak(t)ei k x

where

2 2 (t + k )ak(t) = 0,

(3.21) (3.22)

K| k = |k

This is exactly the equation of motion of a harmonic oscillator. Thus electromagnetic elds are oscillators. We can decompose a general solution to Maxwells equations as A(x, t) = d3k ikx ak(t)eikx + a k(t)e (2 )3 (3.23)

Since the modes of an electromagnetic eld have the same classical equations as a simple harmonic oscillator, we can quantize them the same way H= d3k 1 k(ak ak + ) (2 )3 2 (3.24)

This is known as second quantization. First quantizing is saying that all the modes have energy proportional to their frequency. Second quantizing is saying that there are integer numbers of excitations of each of these modes. But this is somewhat misleading the fact that there are discrete modes is a classical phenomenon. The two steps really are 1) interpret these modes as having momenta k = h and 2) quantize each mode as a harmonic oscillator. In that sense we are only quantizing once. But these are only words. There are two new features in second quantization 1. We have many quantum mechanical systems one for each k all at the same time. 2. We interpret the nth excitation of the k harmonic oscillator as having n photons. Lets take a moment to appreciate this second point. Recall the old simple harmonic oscillator the electron in a quadratic potential. We would never interpret the |n states of this system as having n electrons, because thats completely wrong. (Actually, there is an interpretation of these n states as n particles called phonons . Phonons are a special topic which may be covered in semester 2.) The fact that a pointlike electron in a quadratic potential has analogous equations of motion to a Fourier component of the electromagnetic eld is just a coincidence. Dont let it confuse you. Both are just the simplest possible dynamical systems, with linear restoring forces. To set up a proper analogy we need to rst treat the electron as a classical eld (we dont know how to do that yet), and nd a set of solutions (like the discrete frequencies of the EM waves). Then we would quantize each of those solutions, allowing |n excitations. However, if we did this, electrons would have Bose-Einstein statistics. Instead, they must have Fermi-Dirac statistics, so restrict n = 0, 1. Theres a lot to learn before we can do electrons, so lets stick with photons for now.

24

Second Quantization

Now lets get a little more precise about what this Hamiltonian means. The natural generalization of [a, a ] = 1 is

[ak , a p ] = (2 )3 3( p k ) These ak operators create particles with momentum k

(3.25) (3.26)

1 ak |0 = |k 2 k

(3.27)

This factor of 2k is just a convention, but it will make some calculations easier. You will show for homework that it has nice Lorentz transformation properties. Also, we know how the momentum states |k evolve from the way ak evolves:

|k, t = ak (t)|0 = eiktak (0)|0 = eikt |k

(3.28)

For normalization, we start with Then And a complete set is 0|0 = 1 |0 = 2 p(2 )3 3( p k ) p |k = 2 pk 0|a pak 1= So that |k = Finally, dene A(x) = d3k 1 ikx akei kx + ak e (2 )3 2k (3.33) d3 p 1 |p p| (2 )3 2 p d3 p 1 2p(2 )3 3( p k ) = |k (2 )3 2p (3.29) (3.30)

(3.31)

d3 p 1 | p p |k = | p (2 )3 2 p

(3.32)

This is the same as the free solutions to Maxwells equations, equation (3.23) but instead of ak being a function, it is now the creation/annihilation operator for that mode. The factor of 2k has been added for later convenience, and in fact guarantees the A(x) is Lorentz invariant. The connection with Eq. (3.23) should be considered only suggestive, and this taken as the denition of an operator A(x) constructed from the creation and annihilation operators ak and ak . Note that: d3k 1 ikx |0 (3.34) akeikx + ak e p |A(x)|0 = 0| 2 p a p (2 )3 2k = d3k (2 )3 p i kx e 0|a pak |0 + e ikx 0|a pak |0 k = e ikx So A(x)|0 = |x p |x = e ik x That is A(x) creates a photon at position x. (3.37) (3.38) (3.35) (3.36)

25

The important formulas are

[ak , a p ] = (2 )3 3( p k )

K + m2 k

2

All these 2k factors are a conventional normalization, designed to make things easily Lorentz invariant. They come from 1 dk 0 (k 2 m2) (k0) = (3.43) 2k which implies d3k (3.44) 2 k is Lorentz invariant. (You will check these relations in Problem Set 1). It also implies is Lorentz invariant. Then, 2k 3( p k ) p |k = 2 kp 0|a pak |0 = 2k(2 )3 3 ( p k ) d3k 1 i K x e p K |p (2 )3 2 p

d3k 2 p

(3.45)

(3.46)

appears again.

All we have done to quantize the electromagnetic eld is to treat it as an innite set of simple harmonic oscillators, one for each wavenumber k . So Quantum Field Theory is just quantum mechanics with an innite number of elds. 2 Even if we put the system in a box of size L, so that k = L n, we can still have n . This will become a tremendous headache for us, since these s will creep into practically every calculation we do. A big chunk of this course will be devote to understanding them, and at some level they are still not understood. In quantum mechanics we were used to treating a single electron in a background potential V (x). Now that background, the electromagnetic system, is dynamical, so all kinds of funny things can happen. We already saw one, Dirac in his calculation of the Einstein coecients. We can be a little bit more explicit about how we got this now. We write the Hamiltonian as H = H0 + Hint Where H0 is some state that we can solve exactly. In this case it is the atom + the free photons H0 = Hatom + Hphoton (3.49) (3.48)

26

Second Quantization

The Hint is some modication that is small enough to let us use perturbation theory. Then all we need is Fermis golden rule, the same one from quantum mechanics (which you might want to review). It says the rate for transitions between two states is proportional to the square of the matrix element of the interaction between the two states. = | f |Hint |i |2 (E f Ei) (3.50) In our case, Hatom gives the states | n of the hydrogen atom, with energies En. Hphoton is the Hamiltonian above, d3k 1 Hphoton = k(ak ak + ) (3.51) (2 )3 2 and we can treat the interaction semi-classically: Hint = eAJatom (3.52)

Here Jatom is shorthand for the atom treated as a source for photons. Essentially, we are treating the atom as a xed background that is, we wont need to consider how the atom gets deformed. The important point is that this interaction has an A eld in it. Then, according to Fermis golden rule, the transition probability is proportional to the matrix element of the interaction squared (3.53) M1 2 = atom ; nk 1|Hint |atom; nk = atom |Jatom |atom nk M2 1 = atom; nk + 1|Hint |atom ; nk = atom|Jatom |atom nk + 1 (3.54) where we have used nk 1|A |nk = nk + 1|A |nk = d3 p nk 1| a p |nk = nk (2 )3 d3 p nk + 1 | a p |nk = nk + 1 (2 )3 (3.55) (3.56) (3.57) (3.58)

So,

dn1 |M1 2|2 = atom |Jatom |atom 2nk dn2 = |M2 1|2 = atom |Jatom |atom 2(nk + 1)

This was derived by Dirac in his calculation of the Einstein coecients. Note that we only used one photon mode, of momentum k , so this was really just quantum mechanics. All QFT did was give us a delta-function from the d3 p integration.

4.1 Introduction

We have now seen how Quantum Field Theory is dened as quantum mechanics with an innite number of oscillators. QFT can do some remarkable things, such as explain spontaneous emission without statistical mechanics. But it also seems to lead to absurdities, such as the innite shift in the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom. To show that QFT is not absurd, but extremely predictive, we will have be very careful about how we do calculations. Well begin by going through carefully some of the predictions which QFT gets right without innities. These are the tree-level processes, which means they are leading order in perturbation theory. We will start to study them today.

Before we get in to more QFT calculations, lets review some elements of classical eld theory. The Hamiltonian is the sum of the kinetic and potential energies of a system H=K +V (4.1)

So the Hamiltonian gives the total energy. The Hamiltonian has all the information about the time evolution of a system. This is true both classically, where time-translation is determined by a Poisson bracket, and quantum mechanically, where time-translation is determined by a commutator. The problem with Hamiltonians is that they are not Lorentz invariant. The Hamiltonian picks out K ). It is great for energy, which is not a Lorentz scalar, but the 0 component of a Lorentz vector: V = (H , P non-relativistic systems, but for relativistic systems we will almost exclusively use Largrangians. The Lagrangian (for elds, the Lagrangian density) is the dierence between kinetic energy and potential energy L=K V (4.2) So while the Hamiltonian corresponds to a conserved quantity, energy, the Lagrangian does not. Dynamics from a Lagrangian system is determined by trying to minimize the action, which is the integral over space and time of the Lagrangian density S= d4x L(x) (4.3)

We dont usually talk about kinetic and potential energy in quantum eld theory. Instead we talk about kinetic terms and interactions . Kinetic terms are bilinear in the elds. Bilinear means there are two elds. So kinetic terms look like 1 LK , 2 , 1 2 F , 4 1 2 2 m , 2 1 1 2, 2 1 A , (4.4) (4.5)

where

F = A A 27

28

So anything with two elds of the same or dierent type is a kinetic term. The kinetic terms tell you about the free elds. Fields with kinetic terms are said to be dynamical or propagating. If we want to be really particular, a eld should actually have time-derivatives in its kinetic term to be dynamical (for example A0 above does not), but we will be loose about this terminology. I should also point out at this point that it is standard to use the letters or for scalar elds, , , for fermions, A , J , V for vectors and h for tensors. Interactions have 3 or more elds LI 3, A, g g A ,

2 g2A2 A ,

1 h hh , MP

(4.6)

Since the interactions are the potential energy terms from the Hamiltonian, we also sometimes write Hint or V for LI . Its all just notation. Generally, we assume that the coecients of the interaction terms are small in some sense, so that the elds are weakly interacting and we can do perturbation theory. If the interactions are not small, sometimes we can still solve the system, but it is usually very dicult. All we will talk about this semester is situations in which the interactions are weak.

To calculate the equations of motion from a Lagrangian, we can use the Euler Lagrange equations L L =0 () S= 1 d4x ( )( ) + V ( ) 2 V ( ) + [] = 0 + V ( ) = 0

S

Where do the Euler-Lagrange equations come from? Basically, just from demanding that = 0 when you assume L = L( , d) (see Peskin and Schroeder section 2.2). This is the form that all classical Lagrangians had. Nowadays, we allow for much more general Lagrangians, for example, we can have terms like d3 in them. Its actually pretty easy to derive the equations of motion for a general Lagrangian with any number of elds and derivatives. The way I like to do it is to integrate by parts, so at least theres one without derivatives. In this case, 1 S = d4x + V ( ) (4.11) 2 Then we vary with respect to . + V ( ) = 0 (4.12) We get a factor of 2 because appears quadratically and symmetrically. That is, if we integrated by parts so that the other had no derivatives, we would have gotten the same term, and the 2 is the sum of both. For example, a term like L = ( )A3 3 would give L = [A3 3 ] = 3A3 ( ) = ( )A3 3] where I have isolated the 3 places appears. So then the equations of motion are [A3 3 ] + 3 2A3 ( ) ( )A3 3] = 0 (4.15) (4.14) (4.13)

29

Usually these things simplify, but this is the safest way to calculate equations of motion in general.

4.4 Currents

An extremely useful trick for doing calculations in eld theory is to use currents . Currents are used in many ways 1. Currents can refer to something which is really a current, like the electrons moving in a wire. These are external currents. For example, the current for a single charge at the origin is J (x): J0(x) = (x) Ji(x) = vi(x) (4.16)

2. The second way currents are used is a source for elds. This is a term in the Lagrangian like L A J (4.17)

This current can either be an explicit external current, such as the charge current above, or just a formal place holder. The current is never a dynamical eld, that is, it never has its own kinetic terms. We may include dynamics of the source, for example, time dependence of J (x, t), but we wont generally try to solve for the dynamics of J at the same time as solving for the dynamics of real propagating elds like A . 3. Currents can be place-holders for certain terms in a Lagrangian. For example, if our Lagrangian were 1 2 L = F + + A (4.18) 4 We could write this as 1 2 L = F + + A J (4.19) 4 with J = . The nice thing about this is that if we had a dierent kind of eld interacting with A , A , we could write this as A J as well but now with J = . Sometimes we dont for example, care about whether we have a scalar or a fermion , but only about the eld A , then this notation is particularly useful. Using currents helps separate the problem into how the eld or produces the eld A and then how A aects other elds. Sometimes we dont care about where J comes from, like if its a background magnetic eld in the lab. Sometimes we care very much, like if we want to see how an atom spontaneously emits a photon.

Lets recall how Coulombs law comes out of classical eld theory. Lets say we have a charge at the origin. This can be represented with an external current J (x): The Lagrangian is 1 2 + Hint L = F 4 (4.21) J0(x) = (x) = e (x) Ji(x) = 0 (4.20)

30

The interaction of the current with the electromagnetic eld is Hint = A J = A (x)J (x) Lets calculate the equations of motion 1 2 L = F A J 4 1 = ( A A )F A J 4 1 1 = A F A F A J 4 4 1 = A F AJ 2 F = J Which are Maxwells equations in the presence of a source. Expanding ( A A ) = J A ( A ) = J In Lorentz gauge, A = 0, since Ji = 0, this is just A0(x) = J0(x) So A0(x) = 1 J0(x) = e (x) (4.31) (4.30) (4.28) (4.29) (4.23) (4.24) (4.25) (4.26) (4.27) (4.22)

Thus

This type of expression comes about in almost every calculation in quantum eld theory. It says that the A eld is determined by the source J after it propagates with the propagator A = 1 (4.32)

We will understand these propagators in great detail, both today and in the rest of the course.

Continuing with the Coulomb calculation, we can take the the Fourier transform. Using (x) =

n

n n ikx

(k ) = 1 d3k ( k 2)neikx (2 )3

(x) =

More generally

n

f (x) =

So Thus in general

d3k (2 )3 [

f (k )eikx =

(k ) f ](k ) = ( k 2)nf k2

31

We will use this implicitly all the time. When a eld theorist thinks box he thinks k 2.

So, Implies A0(x) = e (x) (4.39)

A0(x) = = e (2 )3

0

d3k e ikx e (2 )3 k 2

1 2

k 2dk

d cos

1 0 0

= =

e (2 )2 e 1 8 2 ir

dk

dk

Note that the integrand does not blow up as k 0. So we can regulate with

dk

eikr e i kr = lim k 0

dk

ei kr e ikr k + i

(4.44)

Now assume > 0, then we pick up the pole at k = i. For e ikr we close the contour up and miss the pole, so this term gives zero. For eikr we close the contour down and get

dk

Thus

eikr = (2i)er k + i e 1 4 r

(4.45) (4.46)

A0(x) =

If you are not familiar with contour integration, please see Hitoshi Murayamas notes on Contour Integrals, which I have made available. We can also reproduce this result by taking the limit m 0 of a massive vector boson.

The important point is that we solved this by using A = 1 J (4.47)

Even if J were much more complicated, producing all kinds of crazy looking electromagnetic elds, we could still use this equation. For example, suppose we wanted to model the thing that generates the Coulombs law. For example, we might have a Lagrangian like

2 L = + F + A

(4.48)

where represents a charged object which radiates the A eld. Now As equation of motion is (in Lorentz gauge) A = (4.49)

32

So this is just what we had before but with J = . And again we will have A = J This is actually a really useful way to solve equations, and quite general. For example, lets suppose our electromagnetic eld had a self-interaction. The electromagnetic eld doesnt its equations of motion are linear. But there are plenty of self-interacting elds out there. The gluon is one. Another is the graviton. The Lagrangian for the graviton looks heuristically like 1 1 L = h h + h3 + Jh 3 2 (4.50)

h represents the gravitational potential, like A0 is the coulomb potential. (Dont get scared were just doing simple scalar eld theory, Im just calling it gravity). The h3 term represents a graviton self interaction, which is present in general relativity. And we can think of 1/Mpl . The equations of motion are h + h2 + J = 0 Now we solve perturbatively in . For = 0, h0 = This is what we had before. Then we plug in h = h0 + h1 Thus h= 1 J + h1 + h2 0+ 1 h1 = h0 h0 +J =0 (4.53) (4.54) (4.55) 1 J (4.56) 1 J (4.52) (4.51)

We can keep this up, resulting in a nice expansion for h. In fact, its not too hard to compute the perihelion shift of mercury using this kind of rst order solution. Theres a nice pictorial representation of this solution. h =

1

The line is a and the hatched circles represent the external currents. The vertex in the second graph is the interaction, proportional to . You can use this picture to guess the next term. This is known as the Greens function method. The object = 1 = 1 k2 (4.57)

1 J 1 J 1

+

is also known as a propagator. Propagators are integral parts of quantum eld theory. Here we see that classically, they tell us how the eld propagates through space when it is sourced by a current J (x). But note that the propagator has nothing to do with the source.

5.1 Perturbation Theory in Quantum Field Theory

The simplest way to study perturbation theory is with Feynman path integrals. But while the path integral is easier to handle in many ways, it obscures the connection to quantum mechanics and perturbation theory. So today we will just plow ahead with the canonical formalism, using creation and annihilation operators. Since we have seen that Quantum Field Theory is just quantum mechanics with lots of elds, the rules for perturbation theory should not have changed. So we can begin by review them, and applying them to our second quantized photon.

The rst confusion about the second-quantized photon eld was that the Hamiltonian Hphoton = 1 d3k k(ak ak + ) 2 (2 )3 (5.1)

Seemed to say that the vacuum has innite energy E0 = 0|H |0 = d3k 1 = (2 )3 2 (5.2)

This was initially quite confusing. However, there is an easy way out how do you measure the energy of the vacuum? You dont! Only energy dierences are measurable, and in these the zero-point energy, the energy of the ground state, drops out. Although we are getting way ahead of ourselves here, this is the basic idea behind renormalization innities can appear in intermediate calculations, but they must drop out of physical observables. (Actually, there is one way the absolute energy of the vacuum is observable: through gravity. Then the innity is a really big problem, known as the cosmological constant problem). In 1930, Oppenheimer thought to use perturbation theory to compute the shift of the energy of the Hydrogen atom due to the photons. (R. Oppenheimer, Phys Rev . 35 461, 1930). He got innity and concluded that quantum electrodynamics was wrong. In fact the result is not, innite, but a nite calculable quantity known as the Lamb shift which agrees perfectly with data. However, it is instructive to understand Oppenheimers argument. Lets recall how perturbation theory works in quantum mechanics. We break the Hamiltonian into a part whose energy eigenstates we know, and a small perturbation: H = H0 + Hint With

0 0 H0 n = En | n

(5.3) (5.4)

33

34

Then, | n =

m n

m |Hint | n | m + En Em

m n

(5.5) (5.6)

En = n |Hint | n +

| n |Hint | m |2 Em En

This should be familiar from quantum mechanics. Now, we can use this formula to compute the shift in energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

First, take a xed non-dynamical background eld. Say an electric eld in the z direction (this is the Stark eect). Then the potential energy is proportional to the electric eld

K K x = e |E |z Hint = E

Now an atom has no electric dipole moment, so the rst order correction is zero But to second order E0 =

m> 0

(5.7)

(5.8)

(5.9)

m> 0

m

| m m | = 0

(5.10)

We can (in principle) evaluate this matrix element, and its some nite number, proportional to

2 0|Hint | 0 = e2|E |2 0|z 2| 0 e2|E |2a2 0

(5.11) (5.12)

So

E0

e2|E |2a2 0 E0

Now, instead, forget about the external electric eld, but use our second quantized photons. Then

photon atom H 0 = H0 + H0

(5.13) (5.14)

The energy states of H0 are H0| n; {nk } = (En + nkk)| n; {nk } Where we allow for any number of excitations of the photons of any momenta k . The interaction is Hint = J (x) A(x) = J 1 d3k a ei kx + ake ikx (2 )3 2k k (5.15)

J (x) is a current (we will discuss currents next time) and contains the physics of how the photon interacts with the atom. It doesnt matter to the point we are trying to make, so dont worry about what exactly J (x) is.

35

So now E0 = d3k

m,nk

(5.16)

We can simplify the matrix elements as | 0|Hint | m; {nk } |2 = | 0|J (x)| m Now nk |A |0 = 0 unless nk = 1. So, And so nk |A(x)|0 = k |A(x)|0 = eikx E0 =

m

(5.17)

(5.18) (5.19)

d3k

| 0|J (x)eikx | m |2 Em + k E0

Now, to evaluate the numerator, lets just say J = 1 for simplicity (this would be the case in a Yukawa theory, for example). Well also take m to be really excited, so its eectively just a free electron with momentum m Then m(x) | 0|J (x)ei kx | m |2 = d3mei m x d3x0(x)J (x)ei (k + m)x (5.20) (5.21)

Then the sum over m goes into an integral, which forces m = k and Em = k = |k |, Then E0 = d3m d3k d3x 0(x)J (x)ei (k + m)x |m | + |k | E0 (5.22)

The phase factor forces, roughly, k + m 0. This means that we started with small 4-momentum in the atom ( 0) and the momenta gets split into a large k and a large m going in the opposite direction, but overall momentum is still conserved. Were not going to do the integral exactly, I just want to observe that it is divergent. For p k + m it goes roughly like E0 = d3 p p E0 pdp = (5.23)

This means that there should be a quadratically divergent shift in the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom! Oppenheimer also showed that if you take the dierence between two levels, the result is also divergent at large k , but only logarithmically so. He conclude that quantum eld theory was a failure and must be abandoned. What happened here? When it was just an atom and an external eld, the shift was nite. But when we allow for the creation of photons, the shift diverges. Theres more phase space to create these photons than the denominator in the energy sum suppresses them. There is nothing wrong with Oppenheimers calculation, its just that there are other innities which he missed which eventually cancel this innity (for example, the electron mass is innite). We will understand how to handle these innities in a controlled way later in the course, this was just a preview to demonstrate the complexities well be up against. The main point is that this way of doing perturbation theory can be very misleading because it is non-relativistic.

We start with a bare Hamiltonian and a perturbation H = H0 + V (5.24)

36

We will allow there to be a continuous range of energies. For example, in the case of the Hydrogen atom coupled to an EM eld, the photon energies k are continuous. Say we have a particular eigenstate of H0, | : H0 = E Then the eigenstate in the presence of the full H is H | = E | | = | + 1 V | E H0 (5.26) (5.27) (5.25)

The inverted object appearing here is a kind of Greens function known as the Lippmann-Schwinger kernel. It satises 1 (5.28) LS = E H0 + i we have added an i to the denominator to make sure there arent any unwanted singularities. It is not important for now. In practice, this E H0 means take the dierence between the energy of the excited state and the energy of the ground state. Then E = |H | |H0| (5.29) = |V | = | + |V 1 1 V | + V | E H0 E H0 (5.30) (5.31) (5.32) (5.33) (5.34)

= |V | + |V

1 1 1 V | + |V V V | + E H0 E H 0 E H0

This is just good-old time-independent perturbation theory written in a funny language of propagators. So you see that we have been using Greens functions and propagators to do perturbation theory all along. We call this old-fashioned perturbation theory. The equation says that to calculate the energy shift in perturbation theory there is a sum of terms. In each term the potential creates in intermediate state (n) which propagates with the propagator LS (n) until it hits another potential, where it creates a new eld (m) which then propagates and so on, until they hit the nal potential factor, which transitions to the nal state. There is a nice diagrammatic way of drawing this series, called Feynman graphs. The rules are All states are physical , that is, they are on-shell at all times. Matrix elements Vnm will vanish unless momentum is conserved at each vertex. Therefore, energy is not conserved at each vertex.

By the way, on-shell means that the state satises its free-eld equations of motion. For example, a scalar eld satisfying ( m2) would have p2 = m2. We are in general allowed to consider o-shell states (and they will be critical to doing modern perturbation theory), but in quantum mechanics you dont use them. Thinking o-shell is one of the great conceptual advances in quantum eld theory.

5.4 Examples

Lets do some illustrative examples to see how old-fashioned perturbation theory works in practice.

5.4 Examples

37

In the Stark eect calculation we did, the intermediate states were excited atoms. So we use n = Then, E0 =

m> 0 n> 0

| n n | 1 = Hatom E0 Hatom E0

(5.35)

This propagator represents an electron moving in a coulomb potential. We can draw this shift like E0 =

n> 0

(5.36)

Oppenheimers failed attempt to calculate the Lamb shift works the same way. In this case, the intermediate state includes a propagating photon. So now what we were using as an external eld is a separate propagator based on the free Hamiltonian Hphot = 1 d3kk(ak ak + ) 2 (5.37)

Now we the sum over excited atomic states and photon momenta: d3 p (5.38)

n> 0

So the vertex splits the atom into an excited atom and a photon. Both propagate. The combined propagator is | n; p n; p | n, p = d3 p (5.39) Hatom + Hphoton E0

n> 0

Then the other vertex splits the same photon back into the atom and we have E = 0|V n, pV | 0 (5.40)

Note that momentum is conserved, since the numerator is | n; p n; p |, the photon and excited atom coming out of both vertices is the same state, so we can connect the lines and this diagram becomes a loop! E0 =

Keep in mind that this picture is just a shorthand for the perturbation expansion. But you can see its really useful to remember what were doing. The loop means that there is an unknown momentum, p, which we have to integrate over. Were only forcing momentum to be conserved overall, but it can be split between the atom and photon however it likes. By the way, to see that momentum must be conserved is a little tricky with atomic states, since they are not momentum eigenstates. Nevertheless its true, and we saw evidence of it in Oppenheimers calculation when the phase factor exp( i (k + m)x) forced k + m 0. The amount by which k + m 0 is the momentum of the original atomic state. If you nd this all a little vague, dont worry, we will be much more precise when we do perturbation theory properly in quantum eld theory. Its also helpful to learn to live with a little vagueness if you have sound physical intuition.

38

Lets try another example: an electron scattering o another electron. In this case, the states are free electrons, so they are momentum eigenstates and we can now be exact about the amplitudes. The diagram for this process is

E1 E3

Say the intermediate photon has energy E , and the incoming electrons have energies E1 and E2 and the outgoing electrons have energies E3 and E4. We need to calculate the transition matrix elements Ti f = Vin 1 Vnf Ei En (5.41)

E E2 E4

Where Ei = E f are the initial/nal energies, and En is the energy of the intermediate state, which includes the energy of the photon. Ignoring the spin of the electron and the photon, the interaction of the electron with the electromagnetic eld is V = eeAe = eJA,

J = e e

(5.42)

So the matrix elements just give a factor of e. And we have Tif = e2 Ei En (5.43)

What is the intermediate state energy? In OFPT, where everything is on-the-mass-shell ( p2 = m2), energy is not conserved in the interactions. That is, the energy of the intermediate state En is dierent from Ei and E f . However, momentum is conserved. There are two possibilities: Case 1) the rst electron emits the photon and we look at the state before the photon hits the nal state. Then the rst electron is already in its nal state, with energy E3 and so the total intermediate state energy is En = E3 + E2 + E 1

(1) Ei En (1)

(5.44) (5.45)

Case 2) has the second electron emit the photon. Then the energy is (5.46) (5.47)

1

(2) Ei En

Now overall energy conservation says E1 + E2 = E3 + E4, so E1 E3 = E4 E2 E . Adding these two cases gives e2 e2 e2 e2 2e2E Tif = + = + = (5.48) (1) (2) E E E E (E )2 (E )2 Ei En Ei En p3 K p1. We also know that the intermediate photon is Also, 3-momentum is conserved in OFPT, so K p = K K |. Thus, let us dene a 4-vector k with massless and on-shell (by denition in OFPT), so E = | p

k = p3 p1 = (E , K p)

(5.49)

39

Note that the Lorentz invariant propagator re-emerged! (The factor of 2E just maintains the correct normalization). So our diagram is really 1 T fi = J 2 J (5.52) k Where J = ee is the electron source current. We have seen that if this source is treated as a static pointlike charge, we get the Coulomb potential. So now we have reproduced this observation from OldFashioned Perturbation Theory. Note also that k is not on-shell, since k 2 0 however now both energy and momentum are conserved. So it seems that there should be a formalism for perturbation theory in which 4-momentum is conserved at vertices and so propagators can be Lorentz invariant. This is time-dependent perturbation theory.

6.1 Cross sections

The things we know how to calculate in quantum mechanics, or in quantum eld theory (which is just quantum mechanics with lots of elds) are matrix elements f |i (6.1)

where | f is the nal state and |i the initial state. Matrix elements are the things which square to probabilities. This is the Schrodinger picture representation, where the states evolve in time. In the Heisenberg picture, we leave the states alone and put all the time evolution into an operator. In the special case where we scatter from t = to t = + , we give this operator a special name: the S -matrix. The S matrix is dened as f (t = )|i(t = + )

schro dinger =

f |S |i

(6.2)

The S matrix has all the information about how the initial and nal states evolve in time. Quantum Field Theory will tell us how to calculate S -matrix elements. Technically, the S -matrix is dened only for asymptotic (t = ) states. We also usually calculate the S -matrix perturbatively. In a free theory, it is simply the identity matrix 1. So we write S = 1 + iT (6.3)

In general, the S matrix will conserve momentum. So it is helpful to factor an overall momentum conserving function to start with T = (2 )4 4(ki) M (6.4)

Thus we can focus on computing the non-trivial part of the S -matrix, M. In a scattering process, we measure the probability by colliding beams of particles together and producing particular nal states. Say 2 incoming particles with momenta p1 and p2 and a bunch of outgoing (nal) particles with momenta p j : p1 + p2 pj (6.5)

We would like to isolate, and eventually calculate the S-matrix element going into this process. Today we will discuss how to isolate it. In reality, we collide beams with lots of particles. Since each collision is separate, we can write this as a sum of collisions in which there are only two particles colliding in the entire volume V and over the entire time T . To get something covariant, we have to also divide by the incoming ux. This gives us a cross section 1 1 dP (6.6) d = T where is the ux and P is the probability. 41

42

The ux factor compensates for the boost when we do the calculation in a dierent frame. In the rest frame of one particle, the ux is just the magnitude of the velocity of the incoming particle divided by the total volume: = |K v |/V . If you like you can write the velocity as K v =K p / p0. In a dierent frame, like the center-of-mass frame (COM), we have ux from both sides, so we have to add their velocities. Then = |K v1 K v2|/V . This should be familiar from non-relativistic scattering. So we have d = V 1 dP T |K v1 K v2| (6.7)

Next, we also know from quantum mechanics that probability is given by amplitudes squared. Since quantum eld theory is just quantum mechanics a lot of elds, we have dP = | f |S |i |2 d f | f i |i (6.8)

Here d is the region of nal state momenta we are looking at. It is proportional to the product of the dierential momentum d3 p j of each nal state and must integrate to 1. So d =

j

V 3 d pj (2 )3

(6.9)

This has d = 1. The f | f and i |i in the denominator come from the fact that the one particle states are dened at xed time, and so are not normalized to 1 (this would not be Lorentz invariant). Instead we had

ak |0 =

So that

1 |k 2k

[a p , a q ] = (2 )3 3( p q )

(6.10) (6.11)

This 3(0) can be understood by using the relation ( p) = = So, 3(0) = Thus, So, 1 2

1 (2 )3

j

(6.15)

then So

f |S |i = 4( p)[1 + i f | M|i

nal states j

(6.20)

43

p K All the V s and T s have dropped out, as they must, and it is helpful to recall that K v = E.

While were at it, we may as well also calculate the formula for the decay rate. This is a 1 to many decay p1 p j (6.22)

You may be concerned that it is impossible for the incoming particle to be an asymptotic state at if it is to decay, and so we shouldnt be able to use an S matrix at all. You are absolutely right. But it turns out that we can use it anyway. The basic reason is that we calculate the decay rate in perturbation theory, so it really is just like a 1 2 scattering process. If particle 1 decayed before our interaction, then it would be higher order in perturbation theory. Eventually, we will treat unstable particles properly, but that involves renormalization. So for now, lets just press on assuming it is not a decay but a 1 2 scattering. Then everything is as before but we only have one 2EiV in the denominator and there is no ux factor = |K v |/V . Then 1 d = |M|2d LIPS (6.23) 2E1 That was easy!

We will often be calculating dierential cross sections and decay rates for a certain special cases, like 2 2 scattering in the COM frame. Our formulas simplify in these cases. For 2 2 scattering in the COM frame we have p1 + p2 p3 + p4 (6.24)

dLIPS = (2 )4 4( p) d3 p3 1 d3 p4 1 (2 )3 2E3 (2 )3 2E4 (6.25) We dont need this entire dierential distribution, so we will integrate over K p4 using the delta function dLIPS = 1 d 16 2 dpf p2 f 1 (E3 + E4 Ecm ) E3 E4 (6.26)

K4|. Now we want to integrate over pf , but we cant forget about the mass shell condiwhere pf = |K p3| = | p

tions. These are E3 =

2 m2 3 + p f and also E4 =

delta function. Let x = E3 + E4 Ecm = x( p f ). Then Thus p p dx Ecm d = (E3 + E4 Ecm ) = f + f = pf dp dp E3 E4 E3E4 dLIPS = 1 16 2 d

0

dx

44

cm

(6.29)

cm

1

2 64 2Ecm

|pf | |M|2 | pi |

(6.31)

If all the masses are equal than | p f | = | pi | and this formula simplies further: d d =

cm

1 2 2 |M| 64 2Ecm

(masses equal)

(6.32)

To make sure we are not fooling ourselves, lets take the non-relativistic limit and show that we get the regular result from quantum mechanics. Well consider the case where an electron e of mass me scatters o a proton p of mass m p. From non-relativistic quantum mechanics, we know the cross section should be given by the Born approximation: d d =

b orn

1 2 m |V (k )]2 4 2 e

(6.33)

where the Fourier transform of the potential is given by (k ) = V d3xe ikxV (x) (6.34)

and k is the dierence in the electron momentum before and after scattering (the momentum transfer ). 2 (k ) = e 2 so For example, if this is a Coulomb potential, V k d d =

b orn

1 2 e2 2 m( ) 4 2 e k 2

(6.35)

Now, for the eld theory version, in the center-of-mass frame is the proton rest frame and Ecm = m p. Also the scattering is elastic so | pi | = | pf |. Then the prediction is d d =

cm

1 |M|2 64 2m2 p

(6.36)

1 ] = M 2 and so [(d )b orn ] = First, lets check the dimensions in these formulas: [V ] = [ r ] = M 1, thus [V 2 M , which is the correct dimension for a cross section. For the relativistic formula, to get a cross section, we must have [M] = 1. Since we are taking the non-relativistic limit, we dont care about the electron and proton spin. Treating them as scalars, the minimal Lagrangian which couples a scalar to the electromagnetic eld is

1 1 1 2 + | + eA |2 m2 2 L = F 2 2 4 = ( m2) + eA +

(6.37) (6.38)

6.5 e+e +

45

Now in the non-relativistic limit the momentum p = (E , K p ) is close to being at rest (m, 0), so E m, that is t m and |K p | m. Thus this becomes roughly

K )2 + emA0 2 L = (

(6.39)

where we have one for the proton and one for the electron. Then the matrix element has a piece pro1 portional to e m p from the interaction where the p+ creates a photon, a factor of the propagator k2 from the photon moving, and a piece proportional to em p from where the photon hits the electron. Thus Thus, M e mp d d =

cm

1 eme k2 e4m2 e 1 64 2 k 4

(6.40) (6.41)

which is the same thing up to factors of 2 which I lost somewhere along the way. Thus the non-relativistic limit works. Note that the factor of m in the electron-photon interaction is very unconventional. It is more stan1 dard to rescale so that

2m

Lnr =

p2

1 0 2 K )2 e + 1 p( K )2 p + eA0 2 e( e eA p 2 me 2m p

(6.42)

which has the usual 2m for the kinetic term and an interaction with just a charge e and no mass m in the coupling. But of course it amounts to the same thing in the end. By the way, since in the non-relativistic 1 1 1 limit = , this rescaling is closely related to our normalization factors .

2m 2E 2 p

6.5 e+e +

Lets do a simple example of calculating a matrix element. We will consider the process of electronpositron annihilation into muon-antimuon (taken from chapter 1 of Peskin and Schroeder). We want to calculate M = e+e| + Now we know the electron doesnt interact with the muon directly, only through the electromagnetism. So well have to sum over intermediate states M = e+e| + =

A

e e+ A

This diagram has a precise meaning, as we will see soon, but for now just think of it as a pictorial drawing of the process: the e+e annihilate into the photon, which propagates along, then decays into a + pair. Lets try to guess the form of these matrix elements by using angular momentum. We will go to the center-of-mass frame, in which the e has momentum p = (E , 0, 0, E ) and the e+ has momentum p+ = (E , 0, 0, E ). We know the electron is spin 1/2, so we have 4 possibilities for the spin of the incoming state. |i = | , |i = | , |i = | , |i = | (6.46)

(6.43)

e+e|A

A | +

(6.44)

(6.45)

46

Since the e+ and e are coming from opposite directions (in the CM frame) there is no orbital angular momentum. Now, the photon has spin 1, so only the rst 2 initial states could possibly annihilate into a photon. Since the electron spin is perpendicular to its momentum, the photon spin will be either in the x or y direction. The two possible resulting photon polarizations are 1 = (0, 1, 0, 0), 2 = (0, 0, 1, 0) (6.47)

Both of these polarizations are produced by the e+e annihilation. We can just pick a convention, say | produces 1 and | produces 2. Next, the muon is also spin 1/2 so it has 4 possible spin states too. Similarly only 2 of them can annihilate into a photon. However, the + and are not going in the z direction. Their momenta can be written as p = E (1, 0, sin, cos), p + = E (1, 0, sin, cos ) (6.48) Where is the angle to the e+e axis. There is also an azimuthal angle about the z axis which we have set to 0 for simplicity (the problem has cylindrical symmetry). So in this case the two possible directions for the photon polarization 1 = (0, 1, 0, 0), 2 = (1, 0, cos, sin) (6.49) You can check that these are orthogonal to p and p +. Now the matrix element is given by summing over all possible intermediate polarizations for a particular initial state. So we have, summing over the two possible nal states M1 = M( | | f ) = 1 1 + 1 2 = 1 M2 = M(| | f ) = 2 1 + 2 2 = cos Thus, the nal cross section, summing over initial states is |M|2 = |M1|2 + |M2|2 = 1 + cos2 d e4 = 1 + cos2 2 d 64 2Ecm (6.52) (6.53) (6.50) (6.51)

This leads to

Which gives the correct angular distribution in e+e + . Peskin and Schroeder in their derivation neglect to point out that there is a factor of the photon prop1 2 agator k2 which they ignore. Since k is the virtual photon momentum, k = (Ecm , 0, 0, 0) so k 2 = Ecm . + + There is another factor of 2E = Ecm from the e e side and a factor of 2E = Ecm from the side, which come from the relativistic normalization described in the previous section. Thus all these Ecm s cancel.

7.1 LSZ reduction theorem

Most of the calculations we will be interested in in Quantum Field Theory are scattering cross sections. That is, we have a collider where two particles at t = are collided with each other and we are interested in what happens at t = + . We would like to do the calculation in momentum space, because generally we know the incoming momenta of the particles. Let us add time dependence explicitly to our creation operators

i pt ap ( t) = a p e Since we know how ap and ap depend on time, we know how the free quantum eld depends on time

(7.1)

(x, t) =

(7.2)

KK where here k x = kt k x . Note that there is no separate dynamical energy E , the energy is determined K 2 + m2 these are on-shell external states. exactly by the momentum by k k So we want to set up the initial state as

| i = | p1 p2 = So, |f = 2 p1

2 p2 a p ( )a p ( )|0 1 2 2 pn a p () ap ()|0 3 n

2 p 3

This expression is not terribly useful as is. We would like to relate it to something we can compute with our Lorentz invariant quantum elds (x, t).The LSZ (Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmermann) reduction theorem relates f |i to an expression involving s. The following proof is an extended version Srednickis. You can nd various dierent versions in various textbooks. To begin lets try to isolate the creation and annihilation operators. We can observe that

ikx (it + k) ak e + ake ikx = 2kakeikx

(7.6)

x pK (it + p) (x, t) = d3xe i K px K (it + p) d3xe i K

(7.7) (7.8)

d3k (2 )3

d3x

k + p ikx i K x ake e p K + 2k 47

48

The x integral gives a (3)( p + k ) in the rst term and a (3)( p k ) in the second term. Either way, it forces k = p and so we get

2p a peipt

(7.9)

To derive LSZ we will compute something very close to this: d4xeipx( + m2) (x, t) (7.10)

K p 2 + m2 . We will have to be This integral is over 4 xs and p is an arbitrary 4 vector, so that p0 careful about boundary conditions at t = but we will still assume that everything vanishes smoothly 2 at x = and so we can integrate the i term by parts, which brings down a K p 2. Now,

d4xeipx( + m2) (x, t) = = And also

2 it ei px(it + p (x, t) = p0ei px(it + p + eipx(t i pt 2 = ei px(t + pp0 + i ( p0 p)t) (x, t) 2 2 d 4xeipx[t i + m2] (x, t) 2 d 4xeipx[t + 2 p] (x, t)

(x, t)

2 2 = eipx(t + p ) (x, t)

2 2 d 4xeipx[t + p ] (x, t) = i

(7.16) (7.17)

=i

dtt

Now ordinarily we would drop something like this, but we have to be careful because we are precisely interested in the boundaries where t = . Thus putting everything together, we nd i That is, 2 p [a p() a p( )] = i Similarly (by taking the Hermetian conjugate)

() a p ( ) = i 2 p a p

2 p

dtt[a p(t)] =

2 p [a p() a p( )]

(7.18) (7.19)

(7.20)

Were almost done. We wanted to compute f |S |i = 4 1234 0|a p3() an()a p ( )|0 ( )a p 2 1

(7.21)

and we have an expression for a p() a p( ). Note that all the initial states have a p s and s and the nal states have a p s and + s. This leads to a very important trick. We can rewrite the S-matrix element as (7.22) f |S |i = 4 1234 0 T {[a p3() a p3( )][a p4() a p4( )] ( )] 0 () ap ( )][a p () a p [a p 2 2 1 1

(7.23)

49

where the time-ordering operator T {} indicates that all the operators should be ordered so that those at later times are always to the left of those at earlier times. This just migrates all the unwanted a ()s associated with the initial states to the left, where they annihilate on f | and all the unwanted a( ) s to the right, where they annihilate |i . So all the stu we dont want drops out of this expression. Note that we get a 1 for all the initial states, which turns the i s into i s. Thus, we get

p3 p4| p1 p2 = i

1+m

4+m

(7.24) (7.25)

2 i = ( x ) .

i

It says that to calculate a scattering matrix element, put some extra + m2 factors in front. Remember that we had to take p0 p at some point in the proof. This puts the external states in |i 1 and | f on shell. It also causes their propagators, which look like + m2 to blow up. However, the the factors of + m2 will precisely cancel these divergences. They will also kill anything which does not have a divergence. Thats the whole point of the LSZ formula: it isolates the asymptotic states by looking for a pole. Now, we did this derivation for free elds. If you want to be an interacting eld, the result is the same, but the derivation is signicantly more complicated. We need to make sure the asymptotic states at and + are one-particle, not multi-particle states. To do this, the proof proceeds by constructing wave packets for the initial and nal states and shows that the multi-particle components of the wavepackets disperse dierently allowing the one-particle components to be isolated. To really prove the theorem, we also need elements of renormalization. Basically, we have to require that 0| (x)|0 = 0 and k | (x)|0 = e ikx (7.27) (7.26)

We showed these hold in the free theory, but unless we are careful, these will not hold when can interact. The bottom line is that we demand that these relations hold, by redening, or renormalizing, at each order in perturbation theory. We will come back to this in a few weeks. The physical reason that LSZ works for interacting elds is that + m2 is just a funny way of writing 1 zero for an asymptotic state, whether its free or interacting. But only a 1-particle state will have a + m2 pole in the amplitude to cancel the zero. Thus the + m2 terms project out the 1-particle states. In any case, I dont know of anyone who has ever needed to use the details of LSZ for anything. So I encourage you to skim the proof on your own, but dont stress out about it if you cant master it on rst pass. You can study it again in the future if you want to its not going anywhere. Its easy to think that LSZ is totally trivial, but it isnt! Its the only thing that tells us what the initial states are (the things created from the vacuum at t = ) and what the nal states are (the things that annihilate into the vacuum at t = + ). The i in the phase factors in the + m2 terms project these out. The time ordering is totally physical: all the creation of the initial states happens before the annihilation of the nal states. In fact, because this is true not just for free elds, all the crazy stu which happens at intermediate times in an interacting theory must be time-ordered too. But the great thing is that we dont need to know which are the initial states and which are the nal states anymore when we do the hard part of the computation. We just have to calculate time ordered products, and the LSZ theorem sorts out what is being scattered for us.

50

Lets warm up by calculating this time-ordered product in the free theory. We start with the free eld operator d3k 1 (7.28) a eikx + ake ik x (x, t) = (2 )3 2k k where k0 = k = m2 + k 2 . Then 0| (x1) (x2)|0 = d3k1 (2 )3 d3k2 1 1 |0 ei (k2x2 k1x1) 0|ak1ak 2 (2 )3 2k1 2k2 d3k 1 ik(x2 x1) e (2 )3 2k

0| (x1) (x2)|0 =

(7.29)

Now, we are interested in 0|T { (x1) (x2)}|0 . This is (remember latest to the left) 0|T { (x1) (x2)}|0 = = d3k 1 eik(x2 x1) (t1 t2) + ei k(x1 x2) (t2 t1) (2 )3 2k (7.30) (7.31)

where = t1 t2. Taking k k leaves the volume integral 0|T { (x1) (x2)}|0 = Now it turns out that e ik( ) + eik( ) = lim To see this, we rst separate out the pole 1

2 2 k + i

(7.32)

d ei = 2 2 k + i

(7.33)

1 1 1 1 = [ (k i)][ ( k + i)] 2k (k i) ( k + i)

(7.34)

where we have dropped terms of order 2 and write k = , which is ok since we will take 0 in the end. Now, 1 ei = 2ie ik ( ) + O () (7.35) ( + i ) k since we only pick up the pole if we close the contour up, which we would only do for > 0, and the minus sign comes from doing the contour counterclockwise. Similarly,

0

Thus, lim

1 ei = 2ieik ( ) + O () (k i) d ei = 2i ik e ( ) + e ik( ) 2k

(7.36) (7.37)

2 2 k + i

0

d3k 1 i k K (x K 1x K 2) e (2 )3 2k

2k 1 ei 2 2i 2 k + i

(7.38)

Letting the limit be implicit, this is: 0|T { (x1) (x2)}|0 = i d4k eik (x1 x2) 2 4 (2 ) k m2 + i (7.39)

51

This beautiful Lorentz invariant object is called the Feynman propagator. Keep in mind: k0

The i comes from a contour integral. We will always get factors of i in two-point functions of real elds. The is just a trick for representing the time ordering a simple way. We will always take 0 at the end, and often leave it implicit. You always need a + i for time ordered products, but is really just short hand for a pole-prescription in the contour integral, which is exactly equivalent to adding various (t) factors. For = 0 this looks just like the classical Greens function for the Klein Gordon equation = J . Thats because it is the same thing. We are just computing classical propagation in a really complicated way.

8.1 Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory

From the LSZ theorem, we need objects like f |i 0|T { (x1) (xn)}|0 where these s are not free but the elds which evolve due to the full Hamiltonian. First, we separate, as usual, the Hamiltonian into H0 and the perturbation V . H = H0 + V We already know how the free elds evolve, due to H0 I (x, t) = ei H0t0(x)ei H0t = 1 d3k i kx akeikx + ak e (2 )3 2k (8.3) (8.2) (8.1)

The subscript I stands for interaction, since we are now in the interaction picture. Note that the free K 2 + m2 . So going to the interaction picture is elds are dened at a reference time t = t0 = 0 and k = k easy in QFT, and particularly nice because the phase factors become Lorentz Invariant. So really what we computed the Feynman propagator last time, we were computing 0|T { I (x) I ( y )}|0 = d4k 1 ei k( x y) (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i (8.4)

Now lets dene an operator U which expresses the full eld (x, t) in terms of the evolving free eld I (x, t) where 0 is the reference time at which the free elds are equal to the interacting elds. We are relating to I at the same time t , but the evolution has started from time t0. We know (x, t) = ei Ht0(x, 0)ei Ht = ei Hte iH0 t(eiH0t0(x, 0)e iH0t)eiH0te iHt Then U (t, 0) = eiH0te iHt It follows that itU (t, 0) = eiH0t( H0 + H )e iHt = eiH0t Ve iH0t eiH0te iHt So itU (t, 0) = VI (t)U (t, 0) where VI (t) = eiH0t Ve iH0t 53 (8.10) (8.9) (8.7) (8.8) (8.6) (8.5)

54

Feynman Rules

All weve done is conjugate everything with eiH0t and we are left with the Schrodinger equation with bunch of I s. Now we need to solve itU (t, t0) = VI (t)U (t, t0)

t t0

(8.11)

If everything commuted, the solution would just be UI (t, t0) = exp( i VI (t )dt ). But VI (t1) does not necessarily commute with VI (t2), so this is not the right answer. It turns out the right answer is very similar

t

dt VI (t )]

(8.12)

t0

where T is the time ordering operator. This solution works because time ordering eectively makes everything inside commute: T {AB } = T {BA } Which is why we get the exponential solution. Time ordering of an exponential is dened in the obvious way through its expansion

t

(8.13)

U (t, 0) = 1 i

dt VI (t )

1 2

t 0

dt

0

dt T {VI (t )VI (t )} +

(8.14)

If you dont nd the previous argument compelling, we can solve for U (t) the hard way, using perturbation theory. itU (t) = VI (t)U (t) At zeroth order U (t) = 1 To rst order in VI U (t) = 1 + To second order U ( t) = 1

t 0 t 0 t t

(8.15) (8.16) dt VI (t )

0

dt VI (t ) U (t ) = 1 + dt VI (t ) 1

t t 0 t

(8.17)

dt VI (t )U (t )

(8.18)

=1

dt VI (t )

dt

0 0

dt VI (t )(t )

(8.19)

t

U ( t) = 1

dt (t )

dt

0

dt T {VI (t )VI (t )}

(8.20)

t

U (t) = 1

dt VI (t )

1 2

t 0

dt

0 t

dt T {VI (t )VI (t )} +

dt VI (t )]

t

dt VI (t )]

t0

55

8.1.2 U relations

It is convenient to abbreviate U with

t2

dt VI (t )]

(8.24)

t1

Remember that in QFT we always have later times on the LEFT. It follows that U21 U12 = 1 and for t1 < t2 < t3 So, (x, t) = U (t, 0) I (x, t)U (t, 0)

(x, t1) = U (t1, 0) I (x, t1)U (t1, 0) = U10 (x, t1)U10

The last thing we need to know is what the ground state is in the interacting theory. Call it | . In the free theory Then |0 I = eiH0t |0 = |0 |(t) = U (t, )|0 = Ut |0 That is, the reference time, for which the | = |0 is t = . Thus we can evolve everything to a common time t0. Recalling (x, t1) = U01 (x, t1)U10 we nd | (x1) (x2)| = 0|U0U01 I (x1)U10 U02 I (x2)U20 U0 |0 (8.33) (8.32) (8.30) (8.31)

And time-ordered products have a particularly nice structure, because we can commute things around and combine the U s: |T { (x1) (x2)}| = 0|T { I (x1) I (x2)U0U01 U10 U02 U20 U0 }|0 = 0|T { I (x1) I (x2)U}|0 = 0 T I (x1) I (x2)exp[ i Which is a remarkably simply nal result.

(8.34) (8.35)

dtVI (t)]

(8.36)

We saw that I is just the free eld 0 with explicit time-dependence in the phase factors I (x, t) = eiH0t0(x)e iH0t = 1 d3k ikx akeikx + ak e (2 )3 2k (8.37)

56

Feynman Rules

Similarly the interaction potential is just the potential written in terms of interacting s. That is, suppose we know the interaction in terms of the elds at some time t0: V= d3x 3 = d3x 3 0 (8.38)

We use 0 instead of the interacting eld not because the elds are not interacting, but because our basis of elds at the time t = t0 is the basis of free elds. Then VI = ei H0t

iH0t d3x 3 = 0 e

d3x 3 I

(8.39)

We will usually just drop the I subscripts on V and , because going to the interaction picture just means adding it0k to the phase factors, which is unambiguous. For this lecture, however, we will keep I s in to make an explicit distinction between free and interacting elds.

8.1.5 Summary

In summary, the I subscript refers to the free theory evolving with the free Hamiltonian. No subscript means the full interacting elds. Matrix elements are related by | (x1) (x2)| = 0|U0U01 I (x1)U10 U02 I (x2)U20 U0 |0

ti

(8.40)

where

Uij = T exp[ i

dt VI (t )]

(8.41)

tj

and | is the ground state in the interacting theory. For the special case of time ordered products, such as what we need for S -matrix elements, this simplies to |T { (x1) (x2)}| = 0 T I (x1) I (x2)exp[ i

dtVI (t)]

(8.42)

Lets use this formula to calculate something. Lets take our interaction to be of the form 3. Then VI = To next order, we use the formula |T { (x1) (x2)}| = 0 T I (x1) I (x2)exp i = 0|T { I (x1) I (x2)|0 i 2

d3x(x)3

(8.43)

dtVI (t)

d4x

Notice how the d t combined with the need to be able to compute expressions like

57

To begin, recall that each I (x) has a creation and an annihilation operator and some exponentials I (x) = d4 p (2 )4 1 ipx ap e + a pe ipx 2 p (8.48)

So the expression becomes a bunch of a p s and a p s and exponentials. In our example, we get something like ip3x ip3x ip2 x2 ip1 x1 ip8x e + h.c.) (a p e + h.c.)(ap + h.c)(a p e + h.c)(ap e (a p e + h.c.) (8.49) 4 3 2 1 8

If theres more a p s than a p s the answer will be zero. If two p s are the same, then there could be some 2particle states, or more generally n-particle states, which might give a factors of n. So well have to be careful to divide out by symmetry factors for identical particles. For our example interaction

integrated over x, y and the 8 p s. For this to give a non-zero matrix element on the vacuum, all the a pis will have to be paired o with all the a p s. This is really easy to do for each eld, from right to left, either create a eld from the j vacuum, or annihilate one thats already been created. e just sum over all ways of doing this. Then each pairing will give d4k i 0|T { I (x) I ( y )}|0 = ei k (x y) DF (x, y ) (8.50) (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i

0 T I (x1) I (x2) I (x)3 I ( y )3 0 There are 3 possible contractions 1. DF (x1, x2)DF (x, y)3 2. DF (x1, x)DF (x2, y)DF (x, y )DF (x, y ) 3. DF (x1, x)DF (x2, x)DF (x, y )DF ( y, y ) So the result is the sum of these, plus the phases, with appropriate symmetry factors.

(8.51)

This procedure we described follow from a more general theorem called Wicks theorem. I dont really know why you need the more general form, but we cant really cover eld theory without mentioning it. Recall the Feynman propagator 0|T { I (x) I ( y )}|0 = d4k i ei k (x y) DF (x, y ) (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i (8.52) (8.53)

, a p2], since this is a a term in the expansion. In fact really, what we used was [a p We only used the a p 1 1 p2 delta function. If we expand the operator we nd in addition to the [a p1, ap2] term used for the Feynman propagator, terms like (8.54) a + a p1a p2 ap a + ap 1 p2 1 p2 All of these have a p s on the left and a ps on the right, so they have vanishing matrix elements in the vacuum. We call such terms normal ordered , and indicate it with a 9 .

normal ordering: all the a p s are on the right, and all the a p s are on the left. Represented with colons.

Thus for the two point function: T { I (x) I ( y )} = DF (x, y ) + : I (x) I ( y): (8.55)

58

Feynman Rules

Wicks theorem says that T { I (x1) I (xn)} = : I (x1) I (xn) + all possible contractions : (8.56)

where a contraction means take two elds (xi) and (x j ) from anywhere in the series and replace them with a factor of DF (xi , x j ) for each pair of elds. All possible contractions includes one contraction, two contractions, etc, involving any of the elds. But each eld can only be contracted once. Since normal ordered products vanish unless all the elds are contracted this implies that The proof is by induction. For one eld, T { I (x)} = : I (x): (8.57)

Now suppose the theorem holds for n elds. Since we can commute the elds within a time ordering symbol, lets just put them all in time order, and reliable the x s appropriately (we could have called them y s if you like). Then T { I (x1) I (x2) I (xn)} = I (x1)T { I (x2) I (xn)}

ip1x = (a p e + a p1e ip1x)[: I (x2) I (xn) + contractions of {x2, 1

(8.58) , xn }: ] (8.59)

inside the normal ordering. For a p1 its easy since it is already on the Now we need to get the ap1 and a p 1 has to be commuted passed everybody. Each time we get a left, where it needs to be. The term with a p 1 ap (x j ) = 1 ap (a p + a pj ) 1 j

(x j )a p 1

ap , apj 1

(8.60)

But this commutator is just a delta function, which is the same thing we used to calculate the Feynman propagator. So this gives a factor of DF (x1, x j ). As we move a p along, we pick up all the possible contractions, which is all there is to the proof. The result of Wicks theorem is that time-ordered products are given by a bunch of contractions plus normal ordered products. Since the normal-ordered products vanish in vacuum matrix elements, we get the special case we used above. The bottom line is that all of the S-matrix elements we will compute can be reduced to a bunch of DF s and a bunch of phase factors.

Theres a very important way to rewrite the sum of contractions called Feynman diagrams. It says draw a point for each xi or x or y in the expression. Then each DF (x, y ) is a line between x and y . Then there are as many lines coming out of the x s as there are insertions. The nal amplitude will be a sum of all the ways of contracting everything together. Lets work through our example. We started from VI = (x)3 (8.61) and were lead to

To evaluate this diagram, rst write every DF in momentum space DF (x, y ) = i d4 p ei p(x y) (2 )4 p2 m2 + i (8.62)

d4x x2

59

Thus all the x s appear only in exponentials. There were 8 p s to begin with, and we paired them o, so there are 4 ps left from the Fourier transforms of the 4 DF s. We have M = 2 d4x d4 y d4 p (2 )4

4

i i i i 2 2 2 p + i p + i p + i p2 + i 2 3 4 1

Now we can do the x and y integrals, which produce (4)( p1 + p3 + p4) and (4)( p2 + p3 + p4). This says that momentum is conserved at each vertex in the Feynman diagram. If we integrate over p3 using the rst -function, p3 = p1 p4 the second function becomes (4)( p1 + p2). Then we have, relabelling p4 = k: i i i d4k d 4 p1 d4 p2 ip1x1 ip2x2 i e e (4)( p1 + p2) M = 2 2 2 + i k 2 + i 4 4 ( p + k ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 )4 p2 + i p + i 1 1 2 Next, remember that we are interested in an S -matrix element. From the LSZ theorem, f |S |i = i d4x1 e ipix1( = 2

2 2 1m )

d4x2ei pfx2(

2 2 2m )

|T { (x1) (x2)}|

(8.63) (8.64)

d4x2eip fx2( p2 f) M

Now we note that the x1 integral gives 4( p1 pi) and the x2 integral gives a 4( p2 + p f ). So we can now do the p1 and p2 integrals, giving f |S |i = 2 d4k i i (4)( pi pf ) ( pi + k )2 + i k 2 + i (8.65)

Note how the two propagator factors in the beginning get canceled. This always happens for external legs remember the point of LSZ was to force the external lines to be on-shell. This integral is obviously innite. We will spend a large part of the remainder of the course trying to make sense out of these things. Finally, the 4( p1 p2) term in the answer forces overall momentum conservation, and will always be present in any calculation. But we will always factor it out, like we did when we related dierential scattering amplitudes to S -matrix elements. We can summarize this procedure with the Feynman rules Internal lines get propagators

i p2 m2 + i

Vertices come from interactions in the Lagrangian. They get factors of the coupling constant times i from the exp(iV ). External lines dont get propagators, because these are canceled by terms from the LSZ reduction formula. Momentum is conserved at each vertex Integrate over undetermined momenta.

We havent kept track of overall normalization. There are lots of factors of 2, 3, 4, that show up, which have to be carefully kept track of. In practice, we would draw each unique diagram, then try to gure out the appropriate symmetry factor. In the end, the rules are quite simple. There is a factor of m! from the expansion of exp(iV ) = (iV )m. But if we expand to order m m! there will be m identical vertices in the same diagram. We can also swap these vertices around, leaving the diagram looking the same. So if we calculate the diagram once, the m! from permuting 1 the diagrams will cancel the m! from the exponential. Thus, we can forget about this part.

1 1

60

Feynman Rules

Consider a n(x) interaction. It leads to a vertex at the point x with n lines sticking out. When we connect those lines up to the rest of the diagram, we get DF (x, yi)n. The yis can also be xs, but rst lets suppose theyre not. If we swap around which line connects to which yi, we will get the same expression, corresponding to a dierent contraction with the same Feynman diagram. So we can calculate the Feynman diagram once and just multiply by factor of n! for every vertex with n lines sticking out. Instead of doing this, it is conventional to rescale the vertex by a factor of n! 4 , 4! g 3 , 3! (8.66)

Now suppose some of the yis are x s. For example, if we have (x)2 DF (x, x)2. This looks like a bubble starting at x and ending at x. In this case, there is only one contraction, so there are fewer diagrams than we thought and we have to divide by 2! to compensate. Similarly, if we had (x)2 ( y )2, the diagram with two lines connecting x and y corresponds to only one contraction, DF (x, y )2, so we need to put back a 2! here too. In general, we need to put back a factor corresponding to the number of geometric symmetries of the diagram. See chapter 4 of Peskin and Schroeder for some more examples. Identical particles. Identical particles are already taken care of in Wicks theorem. Moving around the a ps and a p s has the algebra of identical particles in them. The only time it matters is when the identical particles are external particles, that is, when we cant distinguish the particles we are scattering. And then its only for nal states, since we distinguish our initial states by the setup of the experiment. Thus when n of the same particles are produced, we have to divide the cross section by n!.

There is a standard convention about how to choose the direction that the momenta are going. For external momenta it makes sense to assign them their physical values, which should have positive energy. Then momentum conservation becomes pi = which appears in a -function as (4)( pi p f ) (8.68) pf (8.67)

This is not the same as 4( p) which we sometimes write as shorthand, but would obviously require some of the momenta to have negative energy For internal lines, we integrate over the momenta, so the result is symmetry to k k . But it is important to keep track of which way the momentum is going so that all the -functions at the vertices are also ( pin pout ). So we draw arrows on the lines to indicate this

p1

Actually, the arrows will eventually come to be associated with the direction the charge is owing, and then we will sometimes add additional arrows to refer to just the momentum. But for now, lets stick to the arrows representing the direction momentum ow. Also, sometimes Feynman diagrams are drawn with time going upwards. I prefer to have time going to the right, but again, this is just a matter of taste. You could have time going diagonally northeast and the diagram would have the same meaning.

p2

p3

p4

61

A lot of the contractions will result in diagrams where the external lines just connect to each other, and all the non-trivial stu appears in bubbles. There are also diagrams representing the time ordered product of nothing | which are just the bubbles. It is not hard to relate these two, then we can factor out the vacuum uctuations | and just concentrate on the interesting physics. Call the internal points xi and the external points yi. The bubbles are just functions of the xi, for example, some bubbles would give f (xi) = DF (xi , x j ) DF (xk , xl) These factor out completely from any Feynman diagram M = fn(x j ) g ( yi) So if we sum over all possible bubbles for a xed way of connecting the external lines we get M=[ fn(xi)] g ( yi)

n

(8.69)

(8.70)

(8.71)

But this sum over bubbles is exactly | . So the thing we really want to calculate is | ( y1) ( yi)| = 0|T { ( y1) I ( yn)}|0 | This gets rid of all the bubbles. Now remember how we dened the transfer matrix by S = 1 + iT with the M -matrix, which is the thing were ultimately trying to calculate, is dened by T = 4( p)M (8.74) (8.73)

no bubbles

(8.72)

What contributes to the 1? Well, anything in which the nal states and initial states are identical will contribute to the 1. This includes not only the tree level graph, at 0th order in perturbation theory, where the initial states just move along into nal states. But also modications of these graphs where a bubble comes out of one of these trivial lines. The M matrix only describes the interesting physics, where some scattering actually happens. Thus when we calculate M we only have to evaluate diagrams in which all the initial states and nal states are connected together, where we can get from any of the external yis to any of the others by moving along lines in the graph. Thus M = 0|T { ( y1) I ( yn)}|0

fully connected

(8.75)

These are the only graphs that have interesting physics in them. Everything else is factored out and normalized away as nothing happens.

Now lets do an example in 3 theory. Take the Lagrangian to be 1 1 g L = m2 2 + 3 2 2 3! d 1 2 ( ) = 2 |M| d 64 2Ecm (8.76) (8.77)

We want to calculate

62

Feynman Rules

where remember

S = 1 + (2 )4 4( pi)iM

If the incoming momenta are p1 and p2 and the outgoing momenta are p3 and p4. There are 3 diagrams. The rst

p1 p3

i ig2 ( ig ) = ( p1 + p2)2 m2 + i s m2 + i

p3

2

iM2 = (ig )

i ( p1 +

p3)2 m2 + i

p1

p2

(8.78)

p4

(8.79)

p1

i ig 2 ( ig ) = ( p1 + p3)2 m2 + i u m2 + i

2

p2

p2

p4

(ig ) =

ig 2 t m2 + i

(8.80)

p3 p4

(8.81)

g4 1 1 d 1 ( ) = + + 2 d s m 2 t m 2 u m2 64 2Ecm

(8.82)

We have dropped the i, which is ne as long as s, t, u are not equal to m2. For that to happen, the intermediate scalar would have to go on-shell in one of the diagrams, which is a degenerate situation, usually contributing only to 1 in the S-matrix. The is will be necessary for loops, but in tree-level diagrams you can pretty much ignore them.

These variables s, t, u are called Mandelstam variables. They are a great shorthand, used almost exclusively in 2 2 scattering and in 1 3 decays. For 2 2 scattering, with initial momenta p1 and p2 and nal momenta p3 and p4, they are dened by s = ( p1 + p2)2 = ( p3 + p4)2 t = ( p1 p3)2 = ( p2 p4)2 u = ( p1 p4)2 = ( p2 p3)2 (8.83) (8.84) (8.85)

63

where mi are the invariant masses of the particles. As we say in the previous example, s, t and u correspond to particular diagrams where the propagator has invariant mass s, t or u. So we say s-channel for annihilation diagrams. In these the intermediate state has p2 = s > 0. The t- and u- channels to scattering diagrams

p1

s, t and u are great because they are Lorentz invariant. So we compute M2(s, t, u) in the CM frame, and then we can easily nd out what it is in any other frame, for example the frame of the lab in which we are doing the experiment. So you see s, t, u can be very useful and we will use them a lot!

p1 p2 p4

p1 p2

p3 p2 p4

s channel

p3

t channel

p3 p4

u channel

Suppose we have an interaction with derivatives in it, like L = 1( 2)( 3) (8.87)

where I have included 3 dierent scalar elds for clarity. In momentum space, these s give factors of momenta. But now remember that (x) = d3 p (2 )3 1 i px ap e + a pe ipx 2 p (8.88)

So if the particle is being created, that is emerging from a vertex, it gets a factor of i p, and if its being destroyed, that is entering from a vertex, it gets a factor if ip . So a for incoming momentum and a + for outgoing momentum. In this case, its quite important to keep track of whether momentum is owing into or out of the vertex. For example, take the diagram 1 2

1 2

64

Feynman Rules

. The exchange momenta is and p2 Label the initial momenta p1 and p2 and the nal momenta are p1 k = p1 + p2 = p1 + p2. The diagram gives )(ik ) i M = ( i)2( ip2

i ip 2 ( ik ) k2

(8.89) (8.90)

= i2

2 [ p2 p1 + ( p2)2][ p2 p1 + ( p2 ) ] ( p1 + p2)2

As a cross check, suppose we integrated this term by parts L = 3[( 1)( 2) + 1 2] (8.91)

Now our 1 diagram becomes 4 diagrams, from the 2 types of vertices on the two sides. But we can just add up the contributions to the vertices before multiplying, which gives

M = (i)2 ( ip2 ) + ( ip2) )( ip1 2

i k2

ip 2

+ ip2 ip1

(8.92) (8.93)

= i2

2 [ p2 p1 + ( p2)2][ p2 p1 + ( p2 ) ] 2 ( p1 + p2)

which is exactly what we had above! So integrating by parts doesnt eect the matrix elements. To see that in general, we just have to show that total derivatives dont contribute to matrix elements. Suppose we have a term L = ( 1 n) (8.94)

where there are any number of elds in this term. This would give a contribution from the derivative acting on each eld, which gives a contribution that elds momenta. So if the vertex would have given V without the derivative, adding the derivative makes it (

incoming

pi

pj )V

outgoing

(8.95)

but the sum of incoming momenta is equal to the sum of outgoing momenta, because momentum is conserved at the vertex. Therefore, total derivatives dont have an eect. To be precise, total derivatives dont have an eect in perturbation theory. It turns out a term like F F F = ( A A ) F (8.96)

F to the Lagrangian, nothing happens. That is, nothing is a total derivative. Thus if we add a term F happens in perturbation theory. It turns out that there are eects of this term that will never show up in Feynman diagrams, but are perfectly real. They have physical consequences. For example, this term leads to the violation of time-reversal invariance (the strong CP problem), and a term like it may be responsible for the existence of matter over antimatter in the universe. These kinds of eects are related to pseudoparticles called instantons and sphalerons and are a purely non-perturbative phenomenon.

8.7 Summary

We saw that in classical eld theory, there is way to solve the equations of motion using greens functions. For example, in the presence of a classical source, this led to Feynman diagrams of the form for the Coulomb potential e2 e2 (r ) A0 2 J0 k r

8.7 Summary

Now we have seen the same amplitude reproduced with the real Feynman diagrams

p3 p1

If fact, if you really think about it, what we showed was that d M2 e4 k4 (8.97)

p2 p4

65

e2 e2 = 2 2 ( p3 p1) k

and then we used the Born approximation from non-relativistic quantum mechanics (k )2 d V to extract V (k ) = k2 . But its the same thing Coulombs law is coming from a Lagrangian 1 L = A A + AJ 2 (8.99)

e2

(8.98)

For the classical case, we just took J = 0 (3)(x), to simulate a point charge. For the Feynman diagram case, we replaced J by some interaction J = eA, so that the point charge is now thought of like a scalar eld, which is the non-relativistic version of an electron. Diagrammatically

I think it is helpful also to see more directly why the Feynman rules and the classical perturbation theory are the same. Starting with a Lagrangian with a cubic interaction

1

where

G(x) is shorthand for the Greens function which solves the classical equation G(x) = (x) (8.101)

=J

1 J = k2

p3 p1 p2 p4

L = h h + h3 + hJ

(8.100)

J+

1 1 ( J )( J ) +

It is also sometimes called a Kernel. The Feynman rules are the same thing, but the Greens function is replaced by the Feynman propagator DF (x, 0) = 0|T { (x) (0)}|0 = But this is also a Greens function, satisfying DF (x, 0) = (x) (8.103) i d4k eikx (2 )4 k 2 + i (8.102)

But the time ordering makes it a Greens function for scattering processes. Both Greens functions are 1 essentially just k2 dont let the i distract you from this essential point.

66

Feynman Rules

What are these Greens functions? In the classical case, solving G(x) = (x) gives you G(x) which is the size of a eld if you add a source it at x = 0. If the source is moving around, the movement propagates at the speed of light (not faster!), since is Lorentz invariant. So the Greens function tells you how this movement propagates. In the quantum case, we saw that the eld (x) creates a particle at position x (x)| p = ei px (8.104)

Thus 0| (x) (0)|0 tells you the amplitude for a particle created at 0 to get to x. Thats the same thing as what the Greens function is telling you. So both of these things are propagators. Obviously the quantum one can interfere with itself and pair produce things and do all kinds of fun quantum mechanical stu that the classical eld cant do. But in the classical limit, they are the same, and we can see that immediately in the equations of motion. We also saw that the same amplitude comes from old-fashioned perturbation theory (OFPT), where the sum over intermediate states includes dierent time orderings Ti f = e2

(1) Ei En

e2

(2) Ei En

2e2E k2

1 2 p

(8.105)

Tif is the same thing as our Lorentz-invariant matrix element M, but calculated a third way, using timeindependent perturbation theory from quantum mechanics. So theres lots of ways to do the same calculation. The Feynman rules have the advantages over OFPT that They are manifestly Lorentz invariant useful in relativistic settings 4-momentum is conserved at each vertex, as opposed to just 3-momentum. This forces us to sacrice having intermediate particles be on-shell. But thats ok, since intermediate particles are not observable thinking o-shell is now thought of as a great conceptual advance. They are systematic for higher order corrections, in which virtual particles are pair created. As we saw with Oppenheimers attempt at the Lamb shift. As far as I know, nobody has ever been able to sort out loop corrections (renormalization) in OFPT

The Feynman rules have the advantage over classical eld theory that they are quantum mechanical! Finally, lets break down the steps that led to the Feynman rules. We started with wanting to calculate cross sections for scattering processes. These were given by some kinematic factors times S-matrix elements d kinematics f |S |i We factored out the uninteresting part of S -matrix 1 S = i 4( p)M d kinematics M2 (8.107) (8.108)

2

(8.106)

Then we derived the LSZ theorem which said to add some phases and project out the poles of the external lines and to write the matrix element as a time ordered product

ip f ipix1 p2 0|T { }|0 M = p2 ie fe

2

(8.109)

Then the time ordered product could be expressed in perturbation theory in terms of interactions and free particle propagators 1 1 n 1 m 1 (8.110) 0|T { }|0 = 2 2 2 2 pi p f k1 k2

8.7 Summary

67

The propagators from the external legs canceled the p2 from LSZ and the phases give delta functions, enforcing momentum conservation. In the end only the interesting stu contributes to the cross section d kinematics n 1 m1 2 2 k1 k2 (8.111)

Keep in mind that all the messy intermediate steps in getting to the Feynman rules took 30 years, from 1930-1960 to be worked out. So although the nal seems simple, and you might even have guessed it from thinking about classical theory, historically there was a lot that went into it. The Feynman rules are fantastic because they are not only simple and intuitive (if you know classical eld theory), but also exact and systematic.

9.1 Introduction

Up until now, we have dealt with general features of quantum eld theories. For example, we have seen how to calculate scattering amplitudes starting from a general Lagrangian. Now we will begin to explore what the Lagrangian of the real world could possibly be. Then, of course, we will discuss what it actually is, or at least what we have gured out about it so far. A good way to start understanding the consistency requirements of the physical universe is with a discussion of spin. Spin should be familiar from quantum mechanics. Spin is a quantum number, labelled by 1 3 J , which refers to representations of the rotation group SO(3). Fermions have half integer spin J = 2 , 2 , and bosons have integer spin J = 0, 1, 2, 3, . Spin 1 particles are critical to quantum electrodynamics, because the photon is spin 1. But they are also essential to understanding quantum eld theory in general. I cannot emphasize enough how important spin 1 elds are it has hard to do any calculation or study any theoretical question in quantum eld theory without having to deal with spin 1. In order to understand spin 1, we rst have to understand some of the requirements of a consistent quantum eld theory.

In quantum eld theory, we are interested particles, which transform covariantly under translations and Lorentz transformations. That is, they should form representations of the Poincare group. This means, there is some way to write the Poincare transformation so that | P | More explicitly, there is some kind of basis we can choose for our states | , call it | i so that | i P i j | j (9.2) So when we say representation we mean a way to write the transformation so that when it acts the basis closes in to itself. In addition, we want unitary representations. The reason for this is that the things we compute in eld theory are matrix elements M = 1| 2 (9.3) (9.1)

which should be Poincare invariant. If M is Poincare invariant, and | 1 and | 2 transform covariantly under a Poincare transformation P , we nd M = 1|P P | 2 69 (9.4)

70

Gauge Invariance

So we need P P = 1, which is the denition of unitarity. There are many more representations of the Poincare group than the unitary ones, but the unitary ones are the only ones well be able to compute Poincare invariant matrix elements from. As an aside, it is worth pointing out here that there is an even stronger requirement on physical theories: the S matrix must be unitary. Recall that the S-matrix is dened by | f = S |i (9.5) Say we start with some normalized state i |i = 1, meaning that the probability for nding anything at time t = is P = i |i 2 = 1. Then f | f = i |S S |i . So we better have S S = 1, or else we end up at t = + with less than we started! Thus unitarity of the S -matrix is equivalent to conservation of probability, which seems to be a property of our universe as far as anyone can tell. Well see consequences of unitary of S later on, but for now lets stick to the discussion of spin. The unitary representations of the Poincare group were classied for the rst time by Eugene Wigner in 1939. As you might imagine, before that people didnt really know what the rules were for constructing physical theories, and by trial and error they were coming across all kinds of problems. Wigner showed that unitary representations are uniquely classied by mass m and spin j . m can take any value and spin is spin of 3D rotations. Im not going to go through the proof here, but it is done in great detail in Weinbergs book. The rules are that for a general mass m 0, a eld of spin j has 2 j + 1 polarizations, labeled by = 1 j , j + 1, , j (you can think of = jz if you like). So a massive eld of spin 0 has one state, spin 2 has two, spin 1 has three, and so on. For massless states, all spins have only two polarizations: = j (massless spin 0 has only one polarization since j = j ). Its not hard to prove this using group theory, but we will content ourselves with understanding it using elds and Lagrangians. Again, see Weinbergs book for details. The whole trick in constructing a local Lorentz invariant eld theory is to embed these spin states into 3 1 objects with spacetime indices. That is we want to squeeze states of spin 0, 2 , 1, 2 , 2 etc into scalars, vectors, tensors, and spinors. That way we can write down simple looking Lagrangians and develop general methods for doing calculations. Then we end up with a complication: tensors have 0, 4, 16, 64, , 4n elements (forgetting half integer spin for now), but spin states have 0, 3, 5, 7, , 2 j + 1 physical degrees of freedom. The embedding of the 2 j + 1 states in the 4n dimensional tensors causes all the trouble. But in the end, nobody has gured out a better way to do things (although recent excitement about twistors indicates that there may be an alternative).

We dont need all that fancy language to see the problem. Say we were naive and guessed that a spin 1 state should have a Lagrangian like L = V V (9.6) The free eld solutions are simply plane waves V = eikx (9.7)

where for polarization , any 4-component vector is allowed. We can just declare that transforms like a vector, then |V |2 = 2 is Lorentz invariant. However, if we try to make particles this way, we nd their norms are 2 2 2 2 (9.8) V |V = 2 = 0 1 2 3 The norm is Lorentz invariant, but not positive denite! We cant get anywhere with a theory without a positive denite inner product (norm). For example, if I have a particle with = 0 = (1, 0, 0, 0), the total probability is just |2|2 = 1. If I instead took a state with polarization = 1 = (0, 1, 0, 0) the total probability would still be |2|2 = 1. However if I consider them at the same time I would have a state | = |0 |1 (a two particle state), whose norm is | = 0|0 + 1|0 + 0|1 + 1|1 = 1 1 = 0 (9.9)

71

So the probability of nding anything is 0. That doesnt make any sense, since I was suppose to have two particles! I can even separate the particles far away in the universe. Still, I nd my answer depends on whether I consider the particles together or separately. Weinberg uses the term cluster decomposition to describe these kinds of considerations. So having the Lagrangian V V violates cluster decomposition. What went wrong in this example? The vector V has 4 degrees of freedom, which is three for spin 1 and one for spin 0 (it is a reducible representation). We found that when we try to put both of these spins in the same eld V negative norm states pop out. So heres where the fancy language helps. Under unitary transformations, the norm can never change. So if we can make sure each eld only describes particles of a single spin (a irreducible representation), we can give the particle positive norm states and we will never have a problem. Thus the challenge is to embed irreducible unitary representations of the Poincare group (characterized by mass and spin) into elds which transform under general representations of the Lorentz group, like V (x).

Lets now explore how we can construct Lagrangians for elds which contain only particles of single spins.

9.3.1 spin 0

For spin-0, the embedding is easy, we just put the 1 degree of freedom into a scalar .

For spin 1, there are three degrees of freedom if its massive or two if its massless (well derive this shortly). So the smallest tensor eld we could possible embed these in is a vector eld A which has 4components. The challenge is to make it so that not all of those degrees of freedom are active. Lets start with massive spin one. If we had the Lagrangian 1 1 L = A A + m2A2 2 2 ( + m2)A = 0 (9.10) (9.11)

So we have four propagating modes. This is the three we want, for massive spin-1, plus another, which turns out to be spin 0. To see that, note that some of these A s can be written as A = (9.12) So that the Lorentz transformation properties simply emerge from those of , but the actual degree of freedom is a spin-0 scalar . So we would like to isolate the other degrees of freedom. There is a nice way to do that. If we take the Lagrangian to be 1 2 L = F + m2A2 4 (9.13) (9.14)

(9.15)

So that one degree of freedom is projected out. Thus there only 3 degrees of freedom in a vector eld starting from this Lagrangian. These are the 3 degrees of freedom of a spin-1 eld. The equations of motion also simplify to ( + m2)A = 0 (9.16)

72

Gauge Invariance

where is called a polarization. By the equations of motion, k 2 = m2 and k = 0. These polarization vectors are conventionally normalized so that 2 = 1. We can also choose a canonical basis. Take the momentum of the eld to be in the z -direction k = (E , 0, 0, p), E 2 p 2 = m2 = ( 0, 0, 1, 0) (9.18)

then two obvious vectors satisfying k = 0 and 2 = 1 are + = (0, 1, 0, 0), the other one is L =( p E , 0, 0, ) m m (9.20) (9.19)

L 2 Its easy to check that (L ) = 1 and k = 0. By the way, massive spin 1 elds are not a purely theoretical concept: they exist! There is one called the -meson, that is lighter than the proton, but unstable, so we dont often see it. More importantly, there are really heavy ones, the W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force and radioactivity. You will study them in great detail in a standard model class. But theres an important feature of these heavy bosons that is easy to see already. Note that at high energy E m, the longitudinal polarization becomes

E (1, 0, 0, 1) m

E

2

(9.21)

2 So if we scatter these modes, we might have a cross section that goes like d 2 g m2 , where g is the coupling constant. So, no matter how small g is, if we go to high enough energies, this cross section blows up. However, cross sections cant be arbitrarily big. After all, they are probabilities, which are bounded by 1. So at some scale, what we are calculating becomes not a very good representation of what is really going on. In other words, our perturbation theory is breaking down. We can see already that this happens m at E g . If m 100 GeV and g 0.1, we nd E 1 TeV. Thats why we expect that our theory, with the W or Z bosons of mW 100 GeV, should act funny at the LHC. We dont know exactly how to calculate things at that scale. We have some ideas, but cant prove any of them yet, which is why we are building the machine. By the way, the fact that there is a spin-1 particle in this Lagrangian follows completely from the Lagrangian itself. We never have to impose any spin-oney conditions in addition. We didnt even have to talk about spin, or Lorentz invariance at all all the properties associated with that spin would just have fallen out when we tried to calculate physical quantities. Thats the beauty of symmetries: they work even if you dont know about them! It would be ne to think of A as 4 scalar elds that happen to conspire so that when you compute something in one frame certain ones contribute and when you compute in a different frame, other ones contribute, but the nal answer is frame independent. Obviously its a lot easier to do the calculation if we know this ahead of time, so we can choose a nice frame, but in no way is it required.

The easiest way to come up with a theory of massless spin 1 is to simply take the m 0 limit of the massive spin 1 theory. Then the Lagrangian becomes 1 2 L = F 4 which is the Lagrangian for electrodynamics. So this is the right answer. (9.22)

73

But we also know that massless spin 1 should have only 2 polarizations. What happened to the third? Well, rst of all, note that as m 0 the longitudinal polarizations blows up: L =( p E , 0, 0, ) m m (9.23) (9.24)

k (E , 0, 0, E )

Partly, this is due to normalization. Note that we also have p E so L k up to the divergent normalization. Well come back to this. The other problem is that the constraint equation m2( A ) = 0 is automatically satised for m = 0, so we no longer automatically have A = 0. Thus taking the massless limit isnt so easy. Instead, lets just postulate the Lagrangian and start over with analyzing the degrees of freedom. So we start with 1 2 L = F , F = A A (9.25) 4 This has an important property that the massive Lagrangian didnt: gauge invariance. It is invariant under the transformation A (x) A (x) (x) (9.26)

For any function (x). Thus two elds A which dier by the derivative of a scalar are physically equivalent. The equations of motion following from the Lagrangian are A (A ) = 0 This is really 4 equations and it is helpful to separate out the 0 and i components:

2 j A0 jA j = 0

(9.27)

(9.28) (9.29)

Ai + i(tA0 jA j ) = 0

To count the physical degrees of freedom, lets choose a gauge. Instead of Lorentz gauge, we will use Coulomb gauge jA j = 0. Then the A0 equation of motion becomes

2 j A0 = 0

(9.30)

2 which has no time derivative. Now under gauge transformations iAi iAi + i , so Coulomb gauge is 2 preserved under A A + for any satisfying i = 0. Since A0 A0 + t and A0 also satises 2 i A0 = 0 we have exactly the residual symmetry we need to set A0 = 0. Thus we have eliminated one degree of freedom from A completely, and we are down to three. One more to go! The other equations are

Ai = 0

(9.31)

which seem to propagate 3 modes. But dont forget that Ai is constrained by iAi = 0. In Fourier space A (x) = d4k (k )eikx (2 )4 (9.32)

And we have k 2 = 0 (equations of motion), kii (gauge choice), and 0 = 0 (gauge choice). Choosing a frame, we can write the momentum as k = (E , 0, 0, E ). Then these equations are solved by 1 = (0, 1, 0, 0), Often people use a dierent basis L = (0, 1, i, 0), R = (0, 1, i, 0) (9.34) 2 = (0, 0, 1, 0) (9.33)

74

Gauge Invariance

which are called helicity eigenstates, and correspond to circularly polarized light. But I have always found it easier to use the 1 and 2 basis. In any case we have found that the massless photon has two polarizations. We could also have used Lorentz gauge, in which case we would have found that three vectors satisfy k = 0 1 = (0, 1, 0, 0), 2 = (0, 0, 1, 0), f = (1, 0, 0, 1) (9.35) However, the forward polarized photon f is not normalizable, so we have to throw it out. There is actually residual gauge symmetry in Lorentz gauge which can remove this polarization too. If A = for some , then we can shift with = to remove this state. Again, this is the residual scalar degree of freedom. In the same way, if we had not imposed the second Coulomb gauge condition 0 = 0, we would have found the other polarization satisfying kii = 0 is 0 = (1, 0, 0, 0). But this also cannot be normalized j ij 0 so that i = , since is timelike.

9.3.4 summary

2 To summarize, for massive spin 1, we needed to have the kinetic term F + m2A2 in order to enforce A = 0 which eliminated one degree of freedom from A , leaving the 3 for massive spin 1. The 2 Lagrangian for a massive spin 1 particle does not have gauge invariance, but we still need F . 2 For the massless case, having F gives us gauge invariance. This allows us to remove an additional polarization, leaving 2 which is the correct number for a massless spin-1 representation of the Poincare group. Sometimes people say that 1 mode is eliminated because A0 doesnt propagate, and the other mode is eliminated by a gauge transformation. Some people say the two modes are both eliminated by gauge invariance. I dont know if these words make a dierence to anything, or even what exactly they mean. The only concrete statement is that the gauge invariant Lagrangian for a vector eld propagates two massless spin 1 degrees of freedom.

In order not to screw up our counting of degrees of freedom, the interactions in the Lagrangian should respect gauge invariance as well. For example, you might try to couple But this is not invariant. L= + A (9.36) (9.37)

A A + ( )

In fact, its impossible to couple A to a eld with only one degree of freedom, like the scalar eld . We must be able to make transform to compensate for the gauge transformation of A , to cancel the term. But if there is only one eld , it has nothing to mix with so it cant transform. Thus we need at least two s, 1 and 2. Its easiest to deal with such a doublet by putting them together into a complex eld = 1 + i2, and then to work with and . Under a gauge transformation, can transform like Which makes ei(x) m2 (9.38) (9.39)

gauge invariant. But what about the derivatives? | |2 is not invariant. We can in fact make the kinetic term gauge invariant using covariant derivatives. If a eld transforms as ei(x) (9.40)

75

Then ( + igA ) ( + igA i )ei(x) = ei(x)( + igA ) So we dene the covariant derivative by D ( + igA ) ei(x)D which transforms just like the eld does. Thus is gauge invariant. L = (D )(D) + m2 (9.43) (9.42) (9.41)

We can expand out the Lagrangian we just found (dropping the mass for simplicity):

L = (D)(D ) = + igA igA ( ) + g 2A2

= + A J + O ( g 2) J = ig [( ) ( )]

The equations of motion for the free eld are simply = 0, which directly implies J = 0. So by just demanding this symmetry hold for the interactions, we were automatically led to a conserved current. It turns out this follows from a general result. Lets just write the thing that the gauge eld couples to as J : 1 2 + A J L = F 4 then under a gauge transformation the action transforms as d4xA J = d4x(A + (x))J (9.48) (9.49) (9.47)

d4x[A J (x) J ]

where we have integrated by parts in the last step. For the action to be invariant for any function (x) we must have J = 0, that is the current must be conserved. We say conserved because the total charge Q= satises tQ = d3xt J0 = d3xJ0 (9.50)

KJ K d3x

(9.51)

K vanishes at the boundary, meaning that no charge is leaving our experiment, which is Gausss Law. If J then tQ = 0. Thus the total charge doesnt change with time, and is conserved.

9.5.1 Noethers theorem

The existence of conserved currents is quite a general consequence of symmetries in a Lagrangian. The direct connection is embodied in Noethers theorem. Its a beautiful theorem, and like many great theorems, is almost trivial to prove.

76

Gauge Invariance

Say we have a Lagrangian L( i) which is invariant when a bunch of elds i transform some way under a symmetry parameter . We dont even need to be a function of spacetime for this theorem, it can be a number. But it has to be a continuous symmetry (i.e. not ), so that we can take i arbitrarily small. Then L i L ( i) 0 = L = + (9.52) i i Now if we use the equations of motion (the Euler Lagrange equations) L L ( )=0 i i 0 = ( L i L i ) + i i = ( Thus our conserved current is simply J = L i ) i L i i (9.53) (9.54) (9.55) (9.56)

So that

You can make this more general, by allowing for L not just to depend on and but also on higher derivatives, and also by allowing that the symmetry only leaves the Lagrangian invariant up to a total derivative. But those cases are unenlightening so well stop here. In summary Noethers Theorem: If the action has a continuous symmetry, there exists a current associated with that symmetry which is conserved on the equations of motion. the symmetry must be continuous it works for global symmetries, parametrized by numbers not just local (gauge) symmetries parametrized by functions (x) the current is conserved on-shell , that is, when the equations of motion are satised the theorem itself has nothing to do with gauge elds. but gauge invariance require continuous symmetries, so we often use the theorem in the context of gauge elds.

To emphasize

9.5.2 example

The easiest way to understand this therm is with an example. Take a scalar eld, with Lagrangian L = | |2 m2| |2 The Lagrangian is invariant under ei, whose innitesimal form is That is Then, J = + i, = i, i = i (9.58) (9.59) (9.60) (9.57)

L i = i[( ) ] i

This is the same thing we saw was conserved before, because its the same thing that couples to the gauge eld when the symmetry is gauged. However, the current is conserved even if there is no gauge eld. All we need is the global symmetry to have a conserved current.

77

We could derived J . We could have done this before discussing gauge elds. Then we would have written down A J by hand to generate the interactions, which would be interpretable as covariant derivatives. This approach is not so important for this symmetry, but is a nice way to think about gravity, described clearly in Feynmans lectures on gravity, which I strongly recommend.

9.5.3 summary

To summarize, we saw that to have a massless unitary representation of spin 1 we needed gauge invariance. This required a conserved current, which in turn required that charge be conserved. To couple the photon to matter, we needed more than one degree of freedom so we were led to and , which are related by symmetry transformations. So there are a lot of implications of demanding unitary representations!

To quantize a spin one eld, we just allow for the polarizations to be separate degrees of freedom. So as far as the free elds are concerned, it is just 2 or 3 scalar elds. But we have to be a little careful about the Lorentz transformation properties of the polarization vectors.

A (x, t) = d3k 1 (2 )3 2k

3 ikx ikx (i + i ) (k )ak,ie (k )ak,ie i =1

(9.61)

This just means we have separate creation and annihilation operators for each of the polarizations, and we sum over them. i (k ) represents a canonical set of basis vectors in the frame where p = k , which we will now explain. i is the complex conjugate polarization, in case we choose a complex basis. Lets think a little more about how the polarization vectors change with Lorentz transformations. Obviously any of the 4 degrees of freedom in = (0, 1, 2, 3) will mix if we transform them as (9.62)

So what we mean by a representation is that we also transform the momentum vector p , and we have to re-expand our polarization vectors in terms of the rotated basis in the new frame. In that sense, they wont mix. For the massive case, our previous basis had momentum in the z direction p = ( E , 0 , 0 , p) and so we can write our basis as + ( p) = (0, 1, 0, 0), ( p) = ( 0, 0, 1, 0), L ( p) = ( p E , 0, 0, ) m m (9.64) (9.63)

where these all satisfy 2 = 1 and p = 0. E p 1 S The fourth degree of freedom in S ( p) = m p = ( m , 0, 0, m ) which in position space is = (x) for some function (x), which transforms as a scalar. To see that the polarization based on the scalar doesnt mix with the other three is trivial: if something is the divergence of a function (x), under a Lorentz transformation it will still be the divergence of the same function, just in a dierent frame! So if we are doing things right, the vectors in the spin-1 representation (the i s) shouldnt mix with the vector in the S spin-0 representation . Now, if our basis vectors are changing as we boost, why havent we made everything entirely trivial. The answer is that there are Lorentz transformations which leave k alone, and therefore leave our basis alone. For those Lorentz transformation, our basis vectors must rotate into each other and form a complete representation.

78

Gauge Invariance

For example, suppose we go to the frame q = (m, 0, 0, 0) Then we can choose our polarization basis vectors as 1 ( q ) = (0, 1, 0, 0), 2 ( q ) = (0, 0, 1, 0), 3 ( q ) = (0, 0, 0, 1) (9.66) (9.65)

and S = (1, 0, 0, 0). Now the group which preserves q is simply the 3D rotation group SO(3). Clearly, the S 3 i polarizations will rotate among each other under 3D rotations and stays the same. If we boost it i S looks like the will mix with . But all bets are o because the basis vectors will also change, for L example to + , and above. So its enough just to x the 4-momentum k when trying to decide if we have a representation of not. This method of studying representations of the Lorentz group is called the method of induced representations. The representations are induced by representations of the little group , which is dened as the group preserving the 4-momentum k . So now you know what i (k ) means.

We quantize massless spin one exactly like massive spin 1, but summing over 2 polarizations instead of 3. A (x, t) = A sample basis is p = (E , 0, 0, E ) 1 ( p) = (0, 1, 0, 0), 2 ( p) = (0, 0, 1, 0) (9.68) (9.69) d3k 1 (2 )3 2k

2 ikx ikx (i + i ) (k )ak,ie (k )ak,ie i =1

(9.67)

these satisfy 2 = 1 and p = 0. The bad polarizations are f ( p) = (1, 0, 0, 1), b ( p) = (1, 0, 0, 1) (9.70)

where f and b stand for forward and backward. 2 But now we have a problem. From the massive case, we know that 1 and rotate into each other p E under Lorentz transformations and also into the longitudinal mode L ( p) = ( m , 0, 0, m ). As m 0, this longitudinal mode becomes the same as our forward-polarized photon, up to normalization

m 0 f lim L ( p) = ( p) = p

(9.71)

In fact, you can show that this really happens. For some Lorentz transformations

1 2 1 ( p) a1() ( p) + a2() ( p) + a3() p 1 2 2 ( p) b1() ( p) + b2() ( p) + b3() p

(9.72) (9.73)

where the a s and b s are numbers depending on the particular boost and rotation angles specied by . This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. We have found that under Lorentz transformations the massless polarizations transform as + k (9.74) When we calculate something in QED we will get matrix elements |M|2 = M (9.75)

for some M transforming like a Lorentz vector. Since we only sum over the 2 physical polarizations, if we Lorentz transform this expression we get |M|2 = M + k M (9.76)

79

This is known as a Ward identity. It must hold by LORENTZ INVARIANCE and the fact that UNITARY representations for MASSLESS PHOTONS have TWO POLARIZATIONS. That it actually does hold in QED is complicated to show, but we will do it eventually. It is closely related to gauge invariance. Since the Lagrangian is invariant under A A + , in momentum space, this is A A + k . Since A = eikx, this should directly imply that + k is a symmetry of the theory, which is the ward identity.

In order to calculate anything with a photon, we are going to need to know its propagator A = 0|T {A A }|0 (9.78)

The easiest way to derive it is to just look for the classical Greens function. Then turning it into a time ordered product is exactly the same as for a scalar. Let us rst try to calculate the photon propagator by using the equations of motion, without choosing a gauge. In the presence of a current, the equations of motion are F = J A A = J (k 2 kk )A = J (9.79) (9.80) (9.81)

We would like to write A = J , so that (k 2 k k ) = . That is, we want to invert the kinetic term. The problem is that det(k 2 kk ) = 0 (9.82) We can see this because k 2 kk has a zero eigenvalue, with eigenvector k . This simply represents the gauge invariance: A is not uniquely determined by J ; dierent gauges will give dierent values for A . So what do we do? We could try to just choose a gauge, for example A = 0. This would reduce the Lagrangian to 1 1 F A A (9.83) 4 2 However, now it looks like there are 4 propagating degrees of freedom in A instead of 2. In fact, you can do this, but you have to keep track of the gauge constraint A = 0 all along. This is known as a secondclass constraint, and its a real pain to work with constrained systems. We would need more information than what is contained in the Lagrangian. The solution is to add a new auxiliary (non-propagating) eld which acts like a Lagrange multiplier to enforce the constraint through the equations of motion 1 2 1 L = F + ( A )2 + J A 4

1

(9.84)

(Writing instead of is just a convention). The equations of motion of are just A = 0 which was the Lorentz gauge constraint. In fact, we could just treat as a number, and for very small there is a tremendous pressure on the Lagrangian to have A = 0 to stay near the minimum. Now, the equations of motion for A are 1 k 2 (1 )k k A = J (9.85)

80

Gauge Invariance

k k k2

(9.86)

(classical refers to this being the classical Greens function, as opposed to the Feynman propagator, which is the time-ordered two-point function). We can check: 1 1 (k 2 (1 )k k)classical = (k 2 (1 )k k) k 2 (1 )kk 1 k4 (9.87) (9.88) (9.89)

1 k k 1 = + (1 ) (1 ) + (1 )(1 ) 2 k = To work out the Feynman propagator, the steps are just like the scalar eld, and the answer is 0|T {A (x)A ( y )}|0 = = k 2 + i i d4k (2 )4 k k k2

(9.90) (9.91)

(1 )

Where the i for time ordering, the i comes from the contour integral going from d3k in A to d4k and the 1 indicates that it is the spacial Ai components which propagate like scalars, since i i i = (9.92) i i and the scalar propagator was S = k2 + i .

i

9.7.1 gauges

For any value of we get a dierent Lorentz-invariant gauge. Some useful gauges are: Feynman gauge = 1 = i Lorentz Gauge 0 = i 2 k + i (9.93)

k 2 k 2 + i

k k

(9.94)

We saw that 0 forces A = 0. Note that we couldnt set = 0 and then invert the kinetic term, but we can invert and then set = 0. This gauge isnt the most useful for calculations. Unitary gauge = . This gauge is useless for QED, since the propagator blows up. But it is extremely useful for the gauge theory of the weak interactions.

The nal answer for any Lorentz invariant quantity had better be gauge invariant. Since = i k k (1 ) 2 k 2 + i k (9.95)

81

This means that whatever we contract with had better give 0 if = k k . This is very similar to the requirement of the Ward identities, which says that the matrix elements vanish if the physical external polarization is replaced by k . It turns out the proof of the two requirements are very similar. In fact, if we can prove gauge invariance ( -independence) it will imply the Ward identity, since if the k part of the propagator always gives zero it will also give zero on an external state. Now, I dont know of a general diagrammatic proof of gauge invariance (again, I just mean -independence of Feynman diagrams by this its easy to prove that a Lagrangian is gauge invariant). We will do the proof for the special case of scalar QED (where the electron has no spin) and real QED (where the electron is a spinor). But if you have all kinds of crazy interactions like (D )10 , I think you would have to do the proof all over again. Thats a little unsatisfying. However, there is a way to show in general that if we start with 2 polarizations for the photon, we will never produce that unwanted third one (or the fourth), which was the whole point of gauge invariance to begin with. That proof uses something called BRST invariance, which we will get to eventually, and is completely non-perturbative. But we need a lot more sophistication to understand it, in particular we need the path integrals, so well have to wait.

The symmetry A A + (x) is known as a gauge symmetry, because it depends on a function of spacetime (x). (The word gauge means size, and the original symmetry of this type was conceived by Hermann Weyl as an invariance under scale transformations, now known as Weyl invariance). Another word for gauge symmetry is local symmetry. The alternative is global symmetry, for which is just a number. Any theory which has a gauge symmetry also has a global symmetry, since we can just take (x) = constant. And we saw that the global symmetry is all thats necessary to have a conserved current. Note that under a global symmetry, the gauge eld A is xed. So if we set A = 0, the rest of the Lagrangian will still have a global symmetry, since A doesnt transform. Moreover terms like m2A2 (9.96)

are invariant under the global symmetry, even though they violate gauge invariance. Also note that even if we choose a gauge, such as A = 0, the global symmetry is still present, but the gauge symmetry is broken (the gauge xing A = 0 is not invariant). But we know that we can always choose a gauge, and the physics is going to be exactly the same. So what does this mean? Whats the point of having a local symmetry if we can just choose a gauge (in fact, we have to choose a gauge to do any computations) and the physics is the same? There are two answers to this question. First, it is fair to say that gauge symmetries are a total fake. They are just redundancies of description and really do have no physically observable consequences. In contrast, global symmetries are real features of nature with observable consequences. For example, global symmetries imply the existence of conserved charges, which we can test. So the rst answer is that we technically dont need gauge symmetries at all. The second answer is that local symmetries make it much easier to do computations. You might wonder why we even bother introducing this eld A which has this huge redundancy to it. Instead, why not just quantize the electric and magnetic elds, that is F , itself? Well you could do that, but it turns out to be more of a pain than using A . To see that, rst note that F as a eld does not propagate with 1 2 . All the dynamics will be moved to the interactions. Moreover, if we include the Lagrangian L = 4 F A , interactions, either with a simple current A J or with a scalar eld A or with a fermion we see that they naturally involve A . If we want to write these in terms of F we have to solve for A in terms of F and we will get some crazy non-local thing like A = F . Then wed have to spend all our time showing that the theory is actually local and causal. It turns out to be much easier to deal with a little redundancy so that we dont have to check locality all the time. Another reason is that all of the physics of the electromagnetic eld is not entirely contained in F . In fact there are global properties of A that are not contained in F but that can be measured. This is the Aharanov-Bohm eect, that you might remember from quantum mechanics. Thus we are going to accept that using the eld A instead of F is a necessary complication.

82

Gauge Invariance

So theres no physics in gauge invariance but it makes it a lot easier to do eld theory. The physical content is what we saw in the previous section with the Lorentz transformation properties of spin 1 elds Massless spin 1 elds have 2 polarizations One implication of this is the Ward identity, which is related to gauge invariance. But Im sorry to tell you gauge invariance doesnt seem to be necessary. Here are two examples to illustrate why gauge invariance isnt as powerful as it seems. First, we saw that we could calculate the photon propagator from the Lagrangian 1 2 1 L = F + ( A )2 4 This Lagrangian breaks gauge invariance, but the photon still has only 2 polarizations. Second, consider the Lagrangian 1 2 L = F + m2(A + ) 4 (9.98) (9.97)

This has a gauge invariance under which A (x) A (x) + (x) and (x) (x) (x). However, I can use that symmetry to set = 0 everywhere. Then the Lagrangian reduces to that of a massive gauge boson. So the physics is that of 3 polarizations of a spin 1 eld, but there is an exact gauge invariance in the Lagrangian. I could do something even more crazy with this Lagrangian: integrate out . By setting equal to its equations of motion and substituting back into the Lagrangian, it becomes 1 2 m2 L = F + F F 4 (9.99)

This Lagrangian is also manifestly gauge invariant, but it is non-local. It looks like a massless spin 1 eld, but we know that its exactly the same as the massive spin-1 Lagrangian. It is not hard to see that any Lagrangian involving A can be made gauge invariant by adding in this way tracking information can provide resolution. without changing the physical content of the theory. So gauge invariance its tricky business indeed. Now that Ive convinced you that gauge invariance is misleading, let me unconvince you. It turns out that the gauge xing in Eq. (9.97) is very special. We can only get away with it because the gauge symmetry of QED we are using is particularly simple (technically, because it is Abelian). When we do path integrals, and study non-Abelian gauge invariance, you will see that you cant just drop a gauge xing term in the Lagrangian, but have to add it in a very controlled way. Doing it properly leaves a residual symmetry in the quantum theory called BRST invariance. In the classical theory you are ne, but in the quantum theory you have to be careful, or you violate unitarity (probabilities dont add up to 1). Ok, but then you can argue that it is not gauge invariance thats fundamental but BRST invariance. However, it turns out that sometimes you need to break BRST invariance. However, this has to be controlled, leading to something called the Bitalin-Vilkovisky formalism. Then you get Slavnov-Taylor identities, which are a type of generalized Ward identities. So it keeps getting more and more complicated, and I dont think anybody really understands whats going on. The bottom line, and the point of all this, is that gauge invariance (and BRST invariance), is a feature of the way we compute things in quantum eld theory. It is not a feature of our universe. The observable feature of our universe is that massless spin 1 elds have 2 physical polarizations .

10.1 Introduction

Now that we have Feynman rules and we know how to quantize the photon, we are very close to quantum electrodynamics. All we need is the electron, which is a spinor. Before we get into spinors, however, it is useful to explore a theory which is an approximation to QED in which the spin of the electron can be neglected. This is called scalar QED. The Lagrangian is 1 2 L = F |D |2 m2| |2 4 D = + ieA (10.1) (10.2)

There actually are charged scalar elds in the world which do have exactly this Lagrangian: the charged pions. But thats not really the point. Spinors are messy, so starting with this simplied Lagrangian will let us understand some elements of eld theory without the mess.

We saw that for a scalar eld to couple to A it has to be complex. This is because the charge is associated with a global symmetry under which ei (10.3) this can only happen for a complex eld we need the global symmetry so that there can be a local, gauge symmetry, which A will represent. The rst thing to notice is that the classical equations of motion for and are ( + m2) ieA = 0 ( + m2) + ieA = 0

(10.4) (10.5)

So that and couple to the electromagnetic eld with opposite charge but have the same mass. Thus in a relativistic theory with a gauge eld, we automatically get anti-particles! For a real scalar we had (x) = d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + a pe ipx 2 p (10.6)

For complex scalar the eld is no longer Hermetian. We can write in general (x) = Then, by complex conjugation (x) = d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx bp e + a pe i px 2 p 83 (10.8) d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + b pe ipx 2 p (10.7)

84

Scalar QED

Thus we can conclude that bp creates particles of the opposite charge and same mass to what a p creates, 2 2 we call these antiparticles. Note that in both cases p = p + m > 0. All we used was the fact that the eld was complex. Clearly a p bp as these operators create particles of opposite charge. So charge implies complex elds, which implies antiparticles. That is

Matter coupled to massless spin 1 particles automatically implies the existence of particles of the same mass and opposite charge.

Historically, it was the Dirac equation which led to antiparticles. In fact, in 1931 Dirac predicted there should be a particle like the electron but with opposite charge, a year before the positron was discovered by Anderson in 1932. Actually, Dirac had an interpretation of which sounds really funny in retrospect, but was much more logical to him for historical reasons. Suppose we had written (x) = d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ipx ap e + cp e 2 p (10.9)

where both a p and cp are creation operators. Then c p seems to be creating states of negative frequency, or equivalently negative energy. Dirac interpreted it as removing something of positive energy, and creating an energy hole. But an energy hole in what? His answer was that the universe is a sea full of positive energy states. Then bp creates a hole in this sea, which moves around like an independent excitation. Then why does the sea stay full, and not collapse to the lower energy conguration? Diracs explanation for this was to invoke the Fermi exclusion principle. The sea is like the orbitals of an atom, We can only see particle or hole excitations on that sea, like when our atom is ionized. So this is really confusing, since it should work only for Fermions, not our scalar eld which is a boson. Its much easier to write c p = bp, which cleans everything up immediately. You can use the sea language if you want, and then the proper answer for why it stays full is that there are no interactions in the theory to collapse it since creates particles and holes, you can never lower the energy. In any case, these days Physicists accept Diracs negative frequency excursion and the Dirac sea as historical curiosity, like the aether or phlogiston, and dont give it much thought, although it does come up from time to time.

Expanding out the scalar QED Lagrangian we nd 1 2 2 ( + m2) ieA [ ( ) ( ) ] + e2A2 L = F || 4 This thing that A couples to is just the conserved current for a complex scalar eld J = i[ ( ) ( ) ] On the (free) equations of motion for ( + m2) = 0 J is conserved. We also understood J as the Noether current for charge conservation. We can read o the Feynman rules from the Lagrangian. The scalar propagator is 0|T { (x) ( y )}|0 = d4k i ei k(x y) (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i (10.13) (10.12) (10.11) (10.10)

85

This propagates both and , that is both particles and antiparticles at the same time they cannot be disentangled! The vertex ieA [ ( ) ( ) ] (10.14) connects A with and . To see which momentum factors we get, look back at the quantized elds: (x) = (x) = d3 p (2 )3 d3 q (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + b pe ipx 2 p 1 i px bp e + a pe ipx 2 p (10.15) (10.16)

we see (x) in the interaction implies the creation of a particle with momentum p or the annihilation of a antiparticle with momentum p. implies the creation of an antiparticle with momentum p or the annihilation of an antiparticle with momentum p . Since the vertex has the form J = ie [ ( ) ( ) ] (10.17) it always has one and one . Also, if the derivative acts on the antiparticle, it gets a minus sign. In addition, each p comes with an i, and there is another i from the expansion of exp(iV ), so we always get an overall minus sign. There are 4 possibilities annihilate e and create e particle scattering ( p1 is on the left)

e e

e+ e+

e e

+

2 ie( p1 + p )

=

2 ie( p1 p )

e

First of all, we see that there are only 4 types of vertices. It is impossible for a vertex to create two es, annihilate two es, create two e+ s or annihilate two e+ s. So the Feynman rules guarantee that charge is conserved. Secondly, we done something that may seem bizarre we reversed the arrows on the e+ lines. This is actually really helpful to remind us that charge is conserved. Forget about the arrows for a moment and just think of physical momentum owing from left to right. Lets check the signs. For the rst diagram, the term ( ) gives a + p2 is created by and the ( ) gives a ( p1 because the e ) because an e is being destroyed by . For the second diagram, we nd ( ) annihilates the e+ giving 1 + p2 and ( ) creates an e giving ( + p ). The second two you can gure out on your own. Whats the pattern? If the arrow is going to the right, we get a + i e p, if the arrow is going to the left, we get a iep . So the arrow represents charge ow, not momentum ow. Then the rules are simple Arrows are charge ow = charge momentum

e

+

2 ie( p1 p )

2 ie( p1 p )

86

Scalar QED

Arrow to the right = iep; arrow to the left iep . Sum over the two lines in vertex.

One way to interpret these rules is that particle number owing forward in time is the same as anti-particle number owing backward in time. This is known as the Feynman-Stuckleberg interpretation, and is related to Diracs sea and the negative frequency hole states. Its kind of a cute observation and gives a funny picture of the universe with electrons ying around, bouncing o photons and going back in time, etc. You can have fun thinking about this. But to my knowledge. nothing practical has ever come out this language. You also see that the arrows on the lines are connected. This is particularly handy in loops. But keep in mind that for physical external anti-particles, the momentum is actually owing backwards to the direction of the arrow. Thats not hard to remember if your diagram represents a physical process, particle arrows should always point right and antiparticle lines should always point left. We cant forget that there is another 4-point vertex in scalar QED

Remember, this vertex comes from |D |2, so it is forced by gauge invariance. The 2 comes from the sym1 2 metry factor for the 2 A s. There would not have been a 2 if we had written 2 e2A2 | | , but this is not what the Lagrangian gives us. The i comes from the expansion of exp(i V ) which we always have for Feynman rules.

2 i =1

2 Lint = e2A2 | |

(10.18)

= 2 ie2 g

(10.19)

Now we know the propagators for the photon and the complex scalar eld. The only thing left is external states. For a scalar eld, this is easy we just get a factor 1. Thats because a complex scalar eld is just two real scalar elds, so we just take the real scalar eld result. For external lines, we really should rederive the LSZ theorem. However, its easier just to observe that the photon eld is A (x, t) = 1 d3k (2 )3 2k

ikx ikx (i + i ) (k )ak,ie (k )ak,ie

(10.20)

So as far as free states are concerned, which is all we need for LSZ, the photon is just a bunch of scalar elds integrated against some polarizations i (k ). Since we know k of the external states, by denition of the scattering amplitude, we get a factor of the photon polarization. So a diagram like this

p1 p3

iM =

1 The rst polarization (1 ) is the polarization of the photon labeled with p . It gets contracted with the momenta p2 + k which comes from the ie A [ ( ) ( ) ] vertex, we just substitute the free eld A instead of a propagating eld (its propagator is canceled by LSZ). The second polarization (4 ) is the polarization of the photon labeled with p4 .

p2

p4

= ( ie)1 ( p2 + k )

i 4 ( ie)( p 2 + k ) k 2 m2 + i (10.21)

k = p1 + p2

87

Now we have a real theory with photons and antiparticles and we can calculate something for real. Lets try ee ee scattering. There are two diagrams. In the t-channel diagram gives

p1 p3

iMt =

p2 p4

p1 p2

= ( ie)( p1 + p3 )

i[ g + (1 ) k2

k k ] k2

( ie)( p 2 + p4 )

k = p3 p1

(10.22) (10.23)

2 2 2 k ( p1 + p3 ) = ( p3 p1 )( p3 + p1 ) = p2 3 p1 = m m = 0

This of course had to happen, by gauge invariance. But also, we are just calculating exactly k J = 0. In any case, its important to do this kind of check to make sure our algebra is right. The u-channel gives

p3 p4

iMu =

where For this So

Mt = e2

( p1 + p3 )( p2 + p4 ) t

= ( ie)( p1 + p4 )

i[ g + (1 ) k2

kk ] k2 ( ie)( p 2

+ p 3 ),

p1 k = p4

(10.24) (10.25)

2 k ( p1 + p4 ) = p2 1 p4 = 0

Mu = e2

( p1 + p4 )( p2 + p3 ) u

e4 ( p1 + p3 )( p2 + p4 ) ( p1 + p4 )( p2 + p3 ) d (ee ee) = + 2 2 d t u 64 Ecm 2

(10.26)

You can simplify this further, if you want. For example, in the massless limit this becomes d (ee ee) 1 2 1 = e + d t u where e = 4 is the ne-structure constant.

e2 2

(10.27)

We saw in the previous example that the matrix elements for a particular amplitude in scalar QED were independent of the gauge parameter . Lets see if we can prove this in more generality. The photon propagator is k k i g + (1 ) k 2 = (10.28) 2 k

88

Scalar QED

2 In the previous example, we used that p2 1 = p3 which says that the mass of the incoming electron was the same as the mass of the outgoing electron. That must be true for particles, or for antiparticle. But suppose the photon connected not to an external line, which is on-shell, but to an o-shell internal line. These lines do not have to have p2 = m2, nor is the p2 of the line entering the vertex the same as the p2 of the line leaving the vertex. This does not mean the amplitudes with internal lines are not gauge invariant, because we have to sum over all the relevant diagrams to get the gauge invariant result. Imagine a general diagram with all kinds of lines sticking out, and all kinds of other things sticking out too, and lots of loops. We can even have lots of types of charged particles i with dierent masses mi. Now pick a particular which attaches to some photon. Now we can do something very convenient, we can trace the line around the diagram. Thats because charge is conserved, as we can see in our Feynman rules. Now we know that the nal amplitude will be the some of lots of diagrams. So we can swap our photon with a dierent photon in the diagram and we get another contribution to the same amplitude. We will have to sum over all possible contributions. Now pick a particular photon in that diagram, whose propagator has a k k factor. Call the particle that the photon connects to . Now we can do something very convenient, we can trace the line around the diagram. Thats because charge is conserved, as we can see in our Feynman rules. Now we know that the nal amplitude will be the some of lots of diagrams. So we can swap our photon with a dierent photon in the diagram and we get another contribution to the same amplitude. We will have to sum over all possible contributions. In each contribution, the momenta along the line segments are the same, so the propagator contributions will be the same. All that we care about is the factor from contracted with the vertex, as we move around to dierent vertices. Actually, the other end of the photon line also changes the diagram in a messy way, so Im going to just cheat and claim that all that stu doesnt matter. This is easy to see in the case where the other end of the photon connects to the line of a really heavy particle, much heavier than all the photon momentum. Then my relatively small momentum insertion makes little dierence to either the vertices or the propagators. Gauge invariance in scalar QED is true in general, but if I take this simplication, I can show the essential elements of the proof without the extra complication. The possible vertices are either from ee+ annihilation or from e e scattering. If the interaction is of the annihilation type,

we get

e e+

2 ie( p1 p ),

+1 i k = pi + p .

i +1 Mi = ( pi p ) M i +1 = ( pi p )k kM i +1 2 2 = [( pi ) ( p ) ]kM

where M is the rest of the diagram, which doesnt change when I move the photon around. k is xed too it is the momentum of the photon line, but its helpful to substitute the explicit expression in the rst term (the k term) to simplify things. If the interaction is of the scattering type, we get

2 ie( p1 + p ),

+1 i k = pi p

i +1 Mi = ( pi + p )k kM i +1 2 2 = [( pi ) ( p ) ]kM

(10.33) (10.34)

89

n

Mtot = ( k M )

i =1

2 ( p2 i +1 pi )

(10.35)

First, take the case that the connected charge current line which we are inserting the photon on to ends in external particles/antiparticles p1 and pn. Then

n

Mtot = ( k M )

i =1

2 2 2 ( p2 i +1 pi ) = ( k M )( pn p1)

(10.36)

Now, since p1 and pn are the external states which are on-shell and have the same mass (me = me+), we see that the result is always zero. Next, suppose the photon comes out of a loop. Then everything is the same, but we have to sum over the whole loop. The last insertion connects the beginning to the end of the loop so we get

n 2 ( k M ) p2 1 pn + i =1 2 ( p2 i pi +1) = 0

(10.37)

So it works no matter what. This is the way you prove gauge invariance diagrammatically for scalar QED.

There is a beautiful and direct connection between Lorentz invariance and charge conjugation that bypasses gauge invariance completely. This is due to Weinberg, and more details can be found in section 13.1 of his Quantum Field Theory text. The calculation is similar to what we used for gauge invariance, but well put back in the scalar propagators and take the limit that the photon momentum is soft (i.e. goes to zero). So imagine we have some diagram with lots of external legs and loops and things. Say the matrix element for this process is M0. Now I want to add tack one more incoming photon of momentum q onto an external leg. Let me stick it into leg i, which I take to be an incoming e.

pi + q

pi

pi

i pi + ( p + q ) ( pi + q )2 m2

(10.38)

The numerator is just the photon scalar vertex, and the denominator is the propagator for the new leg. Now, by soft we mean at least that q pi for all the external momenta pi. So this term reduces to ie

i pi 2 pi pi + ( p + q ) ie ( ie ) 2 2 2 2 2 ( pi + q ) m piq pi + 2 piq + q m

(10.39)

Of course, this modication also aects other parts of the diagram (inside the blob) because it contributes momentum to lots of lines. But if these lines are not close to being on-shell p2 m2 then ( p + q )2 m2 p2 m2, because the photon is soft. Theres certainly nothing diverging as q 0 like the medication we just found. So the dominant eect (and the only eect in the limit q 0) from the addition of a soft photon is from modifying the external legs, because they are on-shell.

90

Scalar QED

where the sign ip comes from the charge of the e+. If the leg is an outgoing, its a little dierent. The photon is still incoming, so we have

pi

( ie)

pi

pi q q

i pi pi + ( p q ) (ie) 2 2 ( pi q ) m pi q

(10.41)

Which is the same with an opposite sign. Similarly for an outgoing positron, we would get another sign ip and pi ( ie) (10.42) pi q In fact if we have a more general crazy theory with particles of any charge, ci, we will get similar formulas. Summing over all the particles we get M = M0 (charge)i

incom ing

pi M0 piq

(charge) j

outgoing

pj p jq

(10.43)

where (charge)i is the charge of particle i. Here comes the punchline. We can now use the fact that under a Lorentz transformations + q (10.44) which is the root of all the trouble with massless spin 1 particles. For the result to be gauge invariant we then must have (charge) j (10.45) (charge)i =

incoming outgoing

Which says that charge is conserved Massless spin 1 particles imply conservation of charge Whats the big deal?, you say, we knew that already. But in the previous derivation, we had to use gauge invariance, gauge x, work out the photon propagator, etc. Those are all artifacts of trying to write down nice simple Lagrangian. For this result we didnt need to talk about the photon propagator at all, or choose a gauge or anything. We just needed to use that a massless particle of spin 1 has 2 polarizations and take the soft limit. Note that you cant take a soft limit if the photon is not massless! So everything is interconnected. Its hard to emphasize enough how fantastic this result is. Its one of the coolest results in eld theory, in my opinion. If you dont buy it, let me show you one more example.

Theres another wonderful application of the same calculation, this time to a massless spin 2 eld. A massless spin 2 eld has 2 polarizations i which rotate into each other under Lorentz transformations, but also into q q : j i (10.46) cij () + q + q + f () q q

91

where these s have to do with the explicit way the Lorentz group acts, which we dont care about so much. Thus any theory involving a massless spin 2 eld should satisfy a Ward identity: if we replace even one index of the polarization tensor by k the matrix elements much vanish. What do the interactions look like? Well, we have to couple something to a tensor eld h . We will be emitting one h so it should be linear in h . By Lorentz invariance, we need two derivatives to ll up the h indices. We need 2 more elds to have an interaction, so we can have L = (charge)h 12 (10.47)

or with the two derivatives acting elsewhere. We could also have more derivatives, but then the charge would have a dierent dimension and we can consider those interactions separately. If there are any derivatives acting on h I can move the over to the s by integrating by parts. This is totally general, and works for any kinds of elds Going through the same argument as before, adding up diagrams for soft graviton emission, we nd M = M0 (charge)i

incoming

pi pi piq

(charge) j

outgoing

pj j p p jq

(10.48)

where these charges are the gravitational charges of the things. The extra factor of pi has to be there by Lorentz invariance. The only other thing it could have been is q , which could come from a derivative acting on the graviton, but we already moved those away by integration by parts. By Lorentz invariance, requiring a massless spin 2 eld, this should vanish if = q for any . So M0

incom ing

(charge)ipi

(10.49) (10.50)

(charge)ipi =

incom ing outgoing

This says that the sum of (charge)ipi is conserved. But we already know that the sum of pi is conserved momentum conservation. So, for example, we can solve for p1 in terms of the others. If we and another then there would be a dierent solution for p1 , which is impossible unless all the pi constraint on the pi are zero. The only way we can have non-trivial scattering is for all the charges to be the same

(charge)i = (charge) j But thats exactly what gravity does! All particles gravitate with the same strength versal Massless spin 2 particles imply gravity is universal We can keep going. For massless spin 3 we would need

i (charge)ipi p = incom ing outgoing j j (charge) jp p 1 . MP

(10.52)

2 (charge)iEi = incom ing outgoing 2 (charge) jE j

(10.53)

that is the sum of the squares of the energies times some charges are conserved. Thats way too constraining. The only way out is if all the charges are 0, which is a boring, non-interacting theory of free massless spin 3 eld. So, There are no interacting theories of masssless particles with spin>2

92

Scalar QED

And in fact, no massless particles with spin > 2 have ever been seen. Now you can see why Weinbergs theorem is so fantastic.q If we can nd a nice way to ignore them, then perhaps we will get something nite.

11.1 Introduction

From non-relativistic quantum mechanics, we already know that the electron has spin 2 . We usually write it as a doublet (11.1) | = You might also remember the Pauli matrices 1 = 0 1 1 0 , 2 = 0 i i 0 , 3 = 1 0 0 1 (11.2)

1

which simplify the treatment of spin. For example, the interaction of the electron with a magnetic eld appears in what is sometimes called the Schrodinger-Pauli equation: it = H =

e

p2 K L K 122 2 BB K + V (r ) BB K 2m

(11.3)

K =K x where B = 2m is the Bohr magneton (the size of the electrons orbital magnetic moment) and L e K = (1, 2, 3) to call attention to the fact p is the angular momentum operator. We have also written K K ) is that these is transform as the components of a vector, just like the magnetic eld Bi. Thus (K B rotationally invariant. This is non-trivial, and only works because

[i , j ] = 2iijkk (11.4) which are the same algebraic relations satised by innitesimal rotations (we will review this shortly). Keep in mind that i do not change under rotations they are always given by Eq. (2) in any frame. K ). is changing and Bi is changing, and these changes cancel when we write (K B We could also have written down a rotationally invariant equation of motion for 1 t ii = 0 (11.5)

Since i transforms like a 3-vector and so does i , this equation is rotationally invariant. It turns out it is Lorentz invariant too. In fact, this is just the Dirac equation! If we write Then it is = (12 2, 1, 2, 3) = 0 (11.6) (11.7)

which is nice and simple looking. Actually, this is the Dirac equation for a Weyl spinor, which is not exactly the same as the equation commonly called the Dirac equation. By the way, it does not follow that this equation is Lorentz invariant just because weve written it as . For example, ( + m) = 0 93 (11.8)

94

is not Lorentz invariant. To understand these enigmatic transformation properties, we have to know how to construct the Lorentz group out of the s and see how those act on . But instead of just guessing the answer (or looking it up), were going to do something a little more general, and motivate what kinds of transformation properties are possible.

We have already argued that particles in our world should transform under unitary representations of the Poincare group. These are characterized by mass m and spin j . We motivated this in our study of the spin 1 elds. Mass is Lorentz invariant, so it is an obvious quantum number. Momentum is also conserved, but it is Lorentz covariant. If choose a frame in which the momentum has some canonical form, for example p = (m, 0, 0, 0) for m > 0, then the particles are characterized by the group that holds this momentum xed. That is the little group, in this case the group of 3D rotations, SO(3). The group of 3D rotations provides the second quantum number, j . The way the polarizations transform under the full Lorentz group is then induced by the transformations under SO(3) and the way the momentum transforms under boosts. We also saw that to do eld theory, we have to write down Largrangians involving elds. These are things like V or or T which dont have to involve particles per se , although obviously in a physical theory they will. As we saw for spin 1, theres a lot a trouble that comes from having to embed particles of xed mass and spin into elds like V . For example, V has 4 degrees of freedom which describes spin 0 and spin 1, so the Lagrangian has to be carefully chosen to make sure the physical theory never excites the spin 0 component. In addition, when we want the particle to have m = 0 and spin 1, we needed to go further and make sure the longitudinal polarization is never produced. This led directly to charge conservation. The next logical step to make these embeddings a bit more systematic is to see what kinds of 1 Lorentz-invariant elds we can write down at all. This will reveal the existence of the spin 2 states, and help us characterize their embeddings into elds. A group is a set of elements { gi } and a rule gi gj gk which tells how each pair of elements is multiplied to get a third. The rule denes the group, independent of any particular way to write the group elements down as matrices. A representation is particular embedding of these gis into matrices. Often we talk about the vectors on which the matrices act as being the representation, but technically the matrix embedding is the representation. Any group has the trivial representations r : gi 1. But more generally we care about embeddings which are faithful , for which each element gets its own matrix. Recall that the Lorentz group is the set of rotations and boosts which preserve the Minkoswki metric T = Lorentz transformation can act on space-time 4-vectors as V V (11.10) (11.9)

Where is a combination of rotations and boosts. We saw that we could write a Lorentz transformation as the product of 3 rotations and 3 boosts: 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 cos xy sin xy 1 cos sin xz xz = 0 sin x y cosxy 0 cosxz sin xz 1 sin x z cos x z sin xz cosxz 0 0 0 1 cosh y sinh y cosh x sinh x cosh z sinh z sinh x cosh x 1 1 1 1 sinh y cosh y 1 sinh z cosh z 1

(11.11)

(11.12)

95

This is a particular representation. of the Lorentz group. That is, it is one embedding of the group into a set of matrices. The group itself is a mathematical object independent of any particular representation. To extract the group away from its representations, it is easiest to look at innitesimal transformations. We can always write these group elements as = exp(iii) = 1 + iii + (11.13) where i are 6 numbers, corresponding to the 6 angles x y , xz , y z , x y , xz , y z and i are called generators . For the regular, vector, representation above, the generators are 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 , 2 = V13 = i , 3 = V23 = i 1 = V12 = i 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 = V01 = i , 5 = V02 = i , 6 = V03 = i (11.14) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 The s and the V s are just dierent notations for the same objects. The generators satisfy: which means [V , V ] = i( V V V + V) [V01 , V12 ] = iV02 , [V12 , V23 ] = iV13 , (11.15) (11.16)

So now we can dene the Lorentz group as the set of transformations generated by these generators. Another representation or the Lorentz generators is given J = i(x x ) (11.17)

These are the classical generators of angular momentum generalized to include time. You can check that J satisfy the commutation relations of the Lorentz algebra. Technically, we say the generators make up the Lorentz Algebra so(1,3) which generates the Lorentz Group SO(1, 3). A common convention is to use lowercase letters for the names of algebras and uppercase letters for groups. As another technicality, we note that it is possible for two dierent groups to have the same algebra. For example, the Proper Orthonchronous Lorentz group and the Lorentz Group have the same algebra, but the Lorentz group has in addition the discrete symmetries time reversal and parity reversal. Its a small dierence, but its a dierence and the groups are not identical.

There is a very nice way to study the representations of the Lorentz group. Start with the rotation generators Ji and the boost generators K j . For example, you could take J1 = V23 , K1 = V01 , etc. as a particular representation of this basis. These satisfy [Ji , J j ] = iijkJk [Ji , K j ] = iijkKk [Ki , K j ] = iijkJk (11.18) (11.19) (11.20)

where ijk is dened by 123 = 1 and being antisymmetric in all of its indices (it is called the totally antisymmetric tensor .) As is probably clear to you already, [Ji , J j ] = ii jkJk is the algebra for rotations, so(3) so the Ji generate the subgroup of rotations in 3D.

96

Now take the linear combinations 1 Ji+ = (Ji + iKi) 2 1 Ji = (Ji iKi) 2 which satisfy

+ + [Ji+, J j ] = ii jkJk [Ji, J j ] = iijkJk [Ji+, J j ]=0

So we have found 2 commuting subgroups of the Lorentz group. The algebra of the J s is the 3D rotation algebra, so(3), more commonly called so(2). So we have shown that so(1, 3) = su(2) su(2) (11.26)

(technically, it should really be sl(2, R) = so(1, 1) not su(2), but these algebras are the same up to some is, and physicists usually just say su(2).). The names so(n) and su(n) stand for special orthogonal algebra and special unitary algebra. Orthogonal means it preserves a norm dened with transpose: V TV is invariant under SO(n). Unitary means it preserves a norm dened with adjoint V V is invariant under SU(n). Special means the determinant is 1, which just normalizes the elements and gets rid of phases. The decomposition so(3, 1) = su(2) su(2) makes studying the representations very easy. We already know what the representations are of su(2), since this is the algebra of Pauli matrices, which generates the 3D rotation group SO(3) (so(3) = su(2)). The representations are characterized by a quantum number j , and have 2 j + 1 elements, labeled by m = jz, So representations of the Lorentz group are characterized by two numbers A and B . The (A, B ) representation has (2A + 1)(2B + 1) degrees of freedom.

K =J K The regular rotation generators are J tion the fact that the spins must be added bottom line is that each (A, B ) representation For example, rep of su(2) su(2) (A, B ) = (0, 0) 1 (A, B ) = ( , 0) 2 1 (A, B ) = (0, ) 2 1 1 (A, B ) = ( , ) 2 2 (A, B ) = (1, 0) (A, B ) = (1, 1)

K , where I now use the vector superscript to call atten+J vectorially (remember Clebsch-Gordon coecients?). The contains particles of spin J = A + B, A + B 1, , |A B |.

(11.27)

So we see that the regular 4D vector representation A contains spins 1,0 so it corresponds to the ( 2 , 2 ) representation of the Lorentz group.

Representations of the Lorentz group are not always unitary . Unitarity means = 1, which is necessary to have Lorentz invariant matrix elements | | | (11.28)

11.4 Spin

1 2

representation

97

Since the group element is the exponential of the generator = ei, unitarity requires that = , that is, that be Hermetian. Looking back at our explicit 4D representation for the Lorentz generators, we see that the rotations 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 , J2 = i , J3 = i J1 = i 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 are Hermetian. While the boosts 0 1 1 0 , K1 = i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Are not. (They are anti-Hermetian = .) Non-unitary representations of the Lorentz group are ok for elds, but not for particles. Particles must transform under unitary representations of the Poincare group, so that we can construct physical amplitudes with them. As Wigner showed, and we discussed when we introduced gauge invariance, unitary representations and are characterized by mass and spin. This spin indicates a representation of the 3D rotation group, which is unitary. K = J K iK K are Hermetian. This is because Now, the generators for the su(2) su(2) decomposition J su(2) is the special unitary group, so of course it has unitary representations. But this doesnt mean that the corresponding representations of the Lorentz group are unitary. You have to be very careful about the factors of i and how these groups are dened. We said that a Lorentz group element is = exp(iiJi + iiKi) (11.30)

K2 = i

K3 = i

(11.29)

where the i are the rotation angles and i the boosts angles. These are real numbers. If we took the basis i = J , then the corresponding i s would have to be complex. So the representations of the Lorentz group are determined by the algebra su(2) su(2), but since the angles are real, the corresponding representations of the Lorentz group are not unitary.

11.3.2 summary

In summary, the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group are characterized by two spins (A, B ). Physical particles are characterized by mass, m and spin j . Fields generally describe particles of many spins, and one has to make sure that a physical theory only has causally propagating particles of the spins we want.

11.4 Spin

1 2

representation

Now that we know that the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group are characterized by two 1 1 spins, (A, B ), how do we nd the explicit representations? In particular, what do the ( 2 , 0) and (0, 2 ) representations look like? We need to nd 2x2 matrices that satisfy

+ + [Ji+, J j ] = ii jkJk [Ji, J j ] = iijkJk [Ji+, J j ]=0

98

But we already know such matrices: the Pauli matrices [i , j ] = 2iijkk rescaling we nd [ Another useful fact is that

i 1

i j , ] = iijk k 2 2 2

{i , j } = i j + ji = 2ij

Thus we can set Ji+ = 2 . This is the ( 2 , ). What about Ji? This should be the (, 0), so the obvious thing 1 to do is just take the trivial representation Ji = 0. So the ( 2 , 0) representation is 1 ( , 0): 2 Similarly, the (0, 2 ) representation is

1

Ji+ =

i , 2

Ji = 0

(11.37)

K =J K+ + J K and the What does this mean for actual Lorentz transformations? Well, the rotations are J K = i(J J+ ) so boosts are K 1 ( , 0): Ji = i , Ki = i i (11.39) 2 2 2

1 (0, ): 2 Ji = i , 2 Ki = i i 2 (11.40) Since the Pauli matrices are Hermetian i = i we see that the rotations are Hermetian but the boosts are anti-Hermetian. This is the same as what we found for the vector representation. Also notice that these two representations are complex conjugates of each other. In contrast, the vector representation was real . 1 Explicitly, if L is a ( 2 , 0) spinor, known also as a left-handed Weyl spinor, then under rotations angles i and boost angles i

1

1 (0, ): 2

Ji+ = 0,

Ji =

i 2

(11.38)

Similarly, Innitesimally,

L e 2

(iii + ii)

1 1 L = (1 + iii + ii + 2 2

) L ) R

Note again the angles i and i are real numbers. Although we mapped Ji or Ji+ to 0, we still have nontrivial action of all the Lorentz generators. So these are faithful irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. Similarly 1 i (11.45) L = ( ii + i) L 2 1 R = ( ii i) L i 2 (11.46)

Now the simplest thing to do would be to write down a Lagrangian with terms like ( L) L + m2( L) L (11.47)

11.4 Spin

1 2

representation

99

However, we can see from the above that this is not Lorentz invariant: 1 1 L L = ( L) [(ii + i)iL] + [( L) ( ii + i)i] L 2 2 i = LiL 0 2 (11.48) (11.49)

This is just the manifestation of the fact that the representation is not unitary because the boost genera tors are anti-Hermetian. If we allow ourselves two elds, L and R, we can write down terms like R L. Under innitesimal Lorentz transformations,

( R L) = R

(11.50)

Which is great. However, this term is not real. But then we can just add the Hermetian conjugate, so

m R L + L R

(11.51)

R L + L R

(11.52)

which is both Lorentz invariant and real. But this is actually not a very interesting Lagrangian. We can 1 , where 1 and 2 are just regular elds. Then we see always split up our eld into components L =

2

that this is just the Lagrangian for a couple of scalars. So its not enough to declare the Lorentz transformation properties of something, the Lagrangian has to force those transformation properties. In the same way, a vector eld is just 4 scalars until we contract it with in the Lagrangian. To proceed, lets look at

L jL

(11.53)

= iijkL kL + jL L

L = L

i iL 2 L

L jL = iijkL kL + jL L

Similarly,

R = R

i iL 2 L

R jR = iijkL kL + jL L

L This is just the transformation of the vector V = ( L L , L jL). Thus L tL + L j jL

(11.63)

100

= (1, K ),

= (1, K )

(11.64)

R + m R L + L R L = iL L + iR

(11.65)

I have added a factor of i on the kinetic terms for later convenience. Theres an even shorter-hand way to write this. If we write our spinor as a doublet = Then, dene = And using the 4x4 matrices = Our Lagrangian becomes (11.68) (11.69) L R

R L

(11.66) (11.67)

Expanding them out, the Dirac matrices are 0 = Or, 0 = 2 = 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 i = 0 i i 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 (11.70)

They satisfy

1 0 , 1 = 1 1 0 1 0 i 0 0 i 0 , 3 = 1 i 0 i 0 1 { , } = 2

(11.71)

1 0 0

(11.72)

(11.73)

In the same way that the algebra of the Lorentz group is more fundamental than any particular representation, the algebra of the s is more fundamental than any particular representation of them. We say the s form the Dirac algebra, which is a special case of a Cliord algebra. This particular form of the Dirac matrices is known as the Weyl representation. The Lorentz generators are i (11.74) S = [ , ] 4 They satisfy the Lorentz algebra for any s satisfying the Cliord algebra. That is, you can derive from { , } = 2 that [S , S ] = i( S S S + S)

(11.75)

11.6 Rotations

101

In the Weyl representation, the Lorentz generators are 1 Sij = ijk 2 1 k k , Ki = S0i = i 2 i i (11.76)

These are block diagonal. These are the same generators we used for the ( 2 , 0) and (0, 2 ) representations above. It makes it clear that the Dirac representation is reducible, it is the sum of a left-handed and a right-handed spinor representation. Another important representation is the Majorana representation 0 = 0 2 2 0 , 1 = i 3 0 0 i 3 , 2 = 0 2 2 0 3 = i 1 0 0 i 1 (11.79)

1 1

(11.77)

(11.78)

In this basis the s are purely imaginary. The Weyl spinors, L and R are more fundamental, because they correspond to irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. But the electron is a Dirac spinor. Thus to do QED, it is easiest just to stick to the s and to get used to manipulating them. Eventually, when you do supersymmetry, or study the weak interactions, you will need to use the L and R representations again.

11.6 Rotations

Now lets see what happens when we rotate by an angle in the xy plane. We use = exp(ix yV12 ) (11.80)

How do we exponentiate a matrix? The standard trick is to rst diagonalizing it with a unitary transformation, do the rotation, then transform back. This unitary transformation is like choosing a direction, except it is purely mathematical as the direction must be complex! First, for the vector representation 0 0 0 1 1 = U 1 U V12 = i (11.81) 1 0 1 0 0 So, 0 exp( ixy) U (x y) = exp(ix yV12 ) = U 1 (11.82) exp(ixy) 0 (2 ) = 1 (11.83) That is, we rotate 360 degrees and were back to where we started.

102

For the spinor representation s = exp(i S ) the 12 rotation is already diagonal: 1 S12 = 2 exp( 2 xy )

i

(11.84)

1 1 1 1 exp( 2 xy )

i

So,

(xy) = exp(ixyS12 ) =

(11.85)

exp( 2 xy )

exp( 2 xy ) 1 1 1 1

(11.86)

Thus a 2 rotation does not bring us back where we started! If we rotate by 4 it would. So we say 1 spinors are spin 2 . What does this mean physically? I have no idea. There are plenty of physical conse1 quences of spinors being spin 2 , but this business of rotating by 2 is not actually a physical thing you can do. As an aside, note that the factor of 2 is determined by the normalization of the matrices, which is set by the Lie Algebra. For each representation by itself, this would be arbitrary, but it is important for expressions which combine the representations to be invariant.

(2 ) =

(11.87)

The matrices themselves transform nicely under the Lorentz group.

1 s s = (V )

(11.88)

where the s are the Lorentz transformations acting on each individually, as a matrix, and the V is the vector representation which mixes up the Lorentz indices. That is, writing out the matrix indices , this means

1 (s ) (s) = (V )

(11.89)

where refers to which matrix, and and index the elements of that matrix. Then the equation really means And the equation Should really be written as

S =

{ , } = 2

= 2 +

i S = [ , ] 4 i 4

V V = V V = V { , }V

103

s (s )

(11.95)

1 For this to be invariant, we would need s = s , that is, for the representation of the Lorentz group to be unitary. The spinor representation, like any other representation is not unitary, because the boost generators are anti-Hermetian. It is useful to study the properties of the Lorentz generators from the Dirac algebra itself, without needing to choose a particular basis for the . First note that

{ , } = 2

2 0 = 1,

2 i =1

(11.96)

So the eigenvalues of 0 are 1 and the eigenvalues of i are i. Thus if we diagonalize 0, we would nd it Hermetian, and if we diagonalize 1 2 or 3 we would nd they are anti-Hermetian. This is true in general.

0 = 0,

Then,

(S ) =

i = i i i , = , 4 4

Which implies

i [ , ] 4

Sij = Si j

S0 i = S0i

Again, we see that the rotations are unitary and the boosts are not. You can see this from the explicit representations above. But because we showed it algebraically, it is true in ANY representation. Now, observe that one of the Dirac matrices is Hermetian, 0 ( 0 is the only Hermetian Dirac matrix because the metric signature is (1,-1,-1-,1)). Moreover 0 i0 = i = i,

0S 0 = 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 0

= 0 0

i i i , 0 = 0 0, 0 0 = [ , ] = S 4 4 4

Then, nally,

1 s = 0 0 s 0(s ) = 0s

which is Lorentz invariant. We have just been rederiving from the Dirac algebra point of view what we found by hand from the Weyl point of view. The conjugate of is not but 0

1 transforms according to s is Lorentz invariant. The point is that . Thus We can also construct objects like like

(11.105)

(11.106)

all transform nicely under the Lorentz group. Also (i m) L= is Lorentz invariant. We abbreviate this with (i m) L= (11.108) (11.107)

104

This is the Dirac Lagrangian. The Dirac equation follows from this Lagrangian by the equations of motion (i m) = 0

(i m ) = 0

(11.109) (11.110)

By multiplying on the right, we nd 1 1 0 = (i + m)(i m) = ( { , } [ , ] m2) 2 2 So satises the Klein-Gordon equation = ( 2 + m2 ) ( + m2) = 0 (11.111) (11.112)

(11.113)

It is in this sense that people sometimes say the Dirac equation is the square-root of the Klein-Gordon equation. : We can integrate the Lagrangian by parts to derive the equations of motion for (i m) = i ( m) L= m =0 i This on the right is a little annoying, so we often hide it by writing ( i m) = 0 (11.116) (11.114) (11.115)

So,

where the derivative acts to the left. This makes the conjugate equation look more like the original Dirac equation.

Under a gauge transform transforms just like a scalar, since the gauge invariance has nothing to do with spin. So, ei Then we use the same covariant derivative ieA as for a scalar. So Then the Dirac equation becomes D = ( ieA ) (i + e A m) = 0 Now we try to reproduce the Klein Gordon equation for a scalar eld coupled to A . Following the same route as before [(i + eA )2 m2 (11.120) (11.121) (11.122) (11.123) (11.118) (11.119) (11.117)

0 = (i + eA + m)(i + eA m) = (i + eA )(i + eA ) m2 = 1 1 {i + eA , i + eA }{ , } + [i + eA , i + eA ][ , ] m2 4 4

105

Before the antisymmetric combination dropped out, but now we nd 1 [i + eA , i + eA ] = e[i A iA ] = eiF 4 (i + eA )2 + ie F [ , ] m2 4 (11.124) (11.125)

So we get

Which contains an extra term compared to the Klein-Gordon equation. i What is this term? Well, recall that 4 [ , ] = S , our Lorentz generators. These have the form (in the Weyl representation) 1 Sij = ijk 2 k k F0i = Ei , We get ( ieA )2 + m2 e 2 , S0i = i 2 i i (11.126) (11.127)

And since

Fij = ij kBk

K +iE K )K (B

K iE K )K (B

=0

(11.128)

This corresponds to a magnetic dipole moment. This is pretty remarkable. For a free spinor, we reproduce the equation of motion of a scalar eld. But when the spinor is coupled to the photon, we nd an additional interaction corresponds to a magnetic 1 dipole moment. We can read o that the electron has spin 2 . Note: the coupling to the electric eld is not an electric dipole moment that would not have an i, but is simply the eect of a magnetic moment in a boosted frame.

Dirac spinors, what we have been using, are 4 component complex elds in the ( 2 , 0) (0, 2 ) representation of the Lorentz group. Lets return for a moment to thinking about the 2-component elds. In the Weyl basis, the matrices have the form = and Lorentz generators are block diagonal = (ii + i)i (ii i)i (11.130) 0 0 (11.129)

1 1

We can write our spinor as the left and right helicity parts = The Dirac equation is meaning L R L R (11.131) (11.132) (11.133) (11.134)

m i D i D m

(i + e A ) R = mL (i + e A ) L = mR So the electron mass mixes the left and right handed states.

106

So the left and right handed states are eigenstates of the operator K K p with opposite eigenvalue. This operator projects the spin on the momentum direction. We call spin projected on the direction of motion the helicity, so the left and right handed states have opposite helicity. Since the mass mixes left and right handed states, massive fermions are not eigenstates of helicity. This makes ssene in the electrons rest frame, there is no direction of motion so helicity is not well denedl in the massless limit, there is no rest frame, and a left-handed electron can never turn into a right-handed electron, and a right-handed electron can never turn into a left-handed electron, even in the presence of electromagnetic elds. The fact that projection of spin on the direction of momentum is a good quantum number for massless KK particles works for massless particles of any spin. For any spin, we will always nd (E sJ p )s = 0, where K K are the rotation generators of spin s. For spin 1/2, J K = 2 . For photons, the rotation generators are J listed in section 2. For example, Jz = V23 has eigenvalues 1 with eigenstates (0, i, 1, 0) and (0, i, 1, 0). These are the states of circularly polarized light in the z direction. They are helicity eigenstates. So massless particles always have two helicity states. It is true for spin 1/2 and spin 1, as we have seen, it is true for gravitons (spin 2), Rarita-Schwing elds (spin 3/2) and spins s > 2 (although, as we have seen, it is impossible to have interacting theories with massless elds of spin s > 2). We have seen that the L and R states do not mix under Lorentz Transformation L and R each have two components on which the s act. These are the two spin states of the electron both left and right handed spinors have 2 spin states. L and R have opposite helicity. = The Lagrangian becomes L R

Using 0 =

R L

(i + e A m) L=

L = iL D L + iR D R m( L R + R L)

Which is what we derived in the beginning. Note that L and R by themselves must be massless . To right down a mass term, we need both a L and a R. It is helpful to be able to project out the left or right handed Weyl spinors from a Dirac spinor. We can do that with the 5 matrix 5 = i 0 1 2 3 (11.140) in the Weyl representation 1 5 = , (11.141) 1 So PR = 1 + 5 = 2 0 1 , PL = 1 5 = 2 1 0 (11.142)

PR

L R

0 R

PL

L R

L 0

(11.143)

107

Recall that we couldnt write down a mass term L L for just a left handed spinor because

1 L = (ii + i)iL 2 1 L = ( ii + i) L i 2

L L = iL L

This just indicates that the boosts are not unitary transformations. To get something new, recall that for the Pauli matrices, 1 and 3 are real, and 2 is imaginary. 1 = We can see that 0 1 1 0 , 2 = 0 i i 0 , 3 =

3 = 3 T 3 = 3

1 0 0 1

1 = 1, T 1 = 1,

2 = 2, T 2 = 2,

(11.150) (11.151)

Then

1 1 T T T T i 2 = ( ii i) L 2 i ( L 2) = (ii + i) L 2 2

T L 2 L

T L 2 L =

1 2

This is true for any spinor components 1 and 2. So, 1 2 2 1 is Lorentz invariant (11.154)

This is an example of the spin-statistics theorem. I think its the simplest way to see the connection between anti-symmetrization and Lorentz invariance. You know it from quantum mechanics. Fermions come in anti-symmetric states. It may look more familiar if we use arrows for the 1 and 2 states: 1 | = (| | | | ) 2 (11.155)

We see that wavefunctions are antisymmetric to the exchange of particles. This is the Pauli exclusion principle. Here we see that it follows simply from Lorentz invariance. Obviously if the fermion components commute this is just zero. So fermion components cant be regular numbers, they must be anticommuting numbers. Such things are called Grassman numbers and satisfy a Grassman algebra. We will see that its easy to make the quantum elds anti-commute, by demanding that the creation and annihilation operators anti-commute , a p aq = aq a p,. And well rederive spin-statistics from properties of the S-matrix. But here we are seeing that if we are to make any sense of spinors classically, or in any way at all, they must anticommute.

108

If we allow fermions to be Grassman numbers, then we can write down a Lagrangian for a single Weyl spinor with a mass term m T L = iL L + i ( L 2 L L 2 L) (11.156) 2 These kinds of mass terms are called Majorana masses. Note that this mass term breaks the symmetry under ei , since T T i T e 2eiL = e2iL 2 L (11.157) L 2 L L So a particle with a Majorana mass cannot be charged. The equation of motion for the Majorana fermion is

L + m2 L =0

(11.158)

which follows from the Lagrangian above. If we have a Majorana fermion, we can still use the Dirac algebra to describe it, but we have to put it into a 4-component spinor L = (11.159) i2 L

This transforms like a Dirac spinor because 2 L transforms like R. Since (in the Weyl basis)

i2 = i

0 2 2 0

L R

i2 R i2 L

(11.160)

We call c the charge conjugate fermion. A Majorana fermion is its own charge conjugate. Since it is real, it is als its own antiparticle. Finally, note that in the Weyl basis 2 is imaginary and 0, 1 and 3 are real. Of course, we we could just as well have taken 3 imaginary and 2 real, but its conventional to pick out 2. We can also dene a 2 new representation of the matrices by = 2 2. This satises the Dirac Algebra because 2 = 1. Now dene c = i2 = i2 c (11.162) If we take the Dirac equation (i + e A m) = 0 and take the complex conjugate we get

( i + e A m) = 0

(11.163)

2( i + e A m) 2 c = 0

(i e A m) c = 0

So c has the oppisite charge from , which is another reason that Majorana fermions cant be charged.

11.11.1 summary

In summary, We have seen three types of spinors Dirac Spinors: massive, left AND right handed Weyl Spinors: massless, left OR right handed

109

We are not sure if the neutrino is a Majorana or a Dirac spinor. Weyl spinors play a very important role in supersymmetry, and in the theory of the Weak interactions. But for QED, we can just stick with Dirac spinors.

Lets take a break from the Dirac equation for a moment, and recall how we discovered antiparticles for complex scalar elds. The Lagrangian was 1 L = [( + ieA ) ][( ieA ) ] + m2 2 The equations of motion are L = ( + ieA )( ieA ) ] + m2 ( ieA )2 + m2 = 0 ( + ieA )2 + m2 = 0 (11.167) (11.168) (11.169) (11.170)

So we see that and have opposite charge, and we interpret them as particle and antiparticle. Recall that when we quantized the eld , it created a particle and destroyed and antiparticle, and vice-versa for . But at the classical level, we can just think of as particle and as antiparticle. How do we know if we have a particle or an antiparticle? There is an easy way to answer this. The free equations for and are the same: ( + m2) = ( + m2) = 0 These have plane wave solutions = peipx p2 0

2

(11.171) (11.172)

In the rest frame, = m , so p0 = m. The solution with p0 = m is confusing. It is a legitimate solution to the equation of motion, but it says that these particles are going backward in time! But note that = pei p0 t

ip0 t = pe

(11.173)

So we can just as easily interpret these solutions as anti-particles going forward in time. Obviously this interpretation is easier to swallow, but Feynman spent some time showing that there really is no physically distinguishable dierence. Now back to spinors. The Dirac equation is (i + e A m) = 0 is a particle with mass m and opposite charge to : the positron. So ( i eA m) = 0 (11.174) (11.175)

Lets expand the Dirac spinor in plane wave solutions p(x) = u ( p)eipx u and v are the polarizations. With this Ansatz, the Dirac equation becomes m p p m u ( p) = 0 (11.177) (11.176)

110

Since the spinor also satises ( + m2) = 0, it follows that p2 = m2. We already know that the negative frequency solutions p0 = m are not a problem since the antiparticles =u e ipx (11.178) have positive frequency. Still, it is somewhat convenient to keep talking about p0 < 0 for now. For p0 < 0 we call the polarizations v ( p). Then the solutions are p,s(x) = us( p)ei px , p,s(x) = vs( p)e ipx , p0 > 0 p0 < 0 (11.179) (11.180)

us and vs are the polarizations and s = 1, 2 labels the spin. In the rest frame, p = (m, 0, 0, 0), the equations of motion reduce to 1 1 1 1 So solutions are constants us = and vs = s s s s (11.182) (11.183)

1 0

us = 0

and

1 1 1 1

vs = 0

(11.181)

For any two-component spinors and . Thus for s = 1 we can take the basis spinor to be 1 = s = 2 may be 2 = 0 . 1

and

Now lets boost in the z -direction. Peskin and Schroeder do the actual boost. But well just solve the equations again in the boosted frame and match the normalization. If p = (E , 0, 0, pz ) then p = E pz 0 0 E + pz , p = E + pz 0 0 E pz (11.184)

Let x = E pz and y = E + pz , then m2 = (E pz)(E + pz)=xy . Then the Dirac equation is xy 0 x2 0 y2 0 xy 0 (i m) = u ( p) = 0 2 y 0 xy 0 0 x2 0 xy The solutions are x1 x 0 1 y2 0 y = 1 u s = u ( p) = y 0 m y1 m 0 x x2 Check xy + x2 y 2 = 0,

2 2

(11.185)

(11.186)

(11.187)

Note also that in the rest frame pz = 0 in the rest frame, x = y = m so we are back to the states. So the solutions in the pz frame are

0 E pz 0 E + pz 0 E + pz 0 E pz

us( p) =

s , s

vs( p) =

0 E pz 0 E + pz 0 E + pz 0 E pz

s s

(11.188)

111

Using p =

E pz 0 0 E pz p s p s

p =

E + pz 0 0 E pz

(11.189)

where the square root of a matrix means diagonalize it and then take the square root. In practice, we will always pick p along the z axis, so we dont really need to know how to make sense of these formulas. But they are useful because they are explicitly Lorentz covariant so we can manipulate them cleanly.

We have chosen a normalization here, which amounts to p s 0 1 = us ( p) 0us ( p) = 1 0 p s =2 E pz 0 0 E + pz E + pz 0 0 E pz p s p s

s s

(11.191)

(11.192) (11.193)

= 2 mss

s s = ss

We taken by convention. This is the normalization for the inner product . For m = 0 this way of writing the condition is not useful. Instead we can just set the normalization in the frame of the particle;s direction by normalizing

us us =

which has the same 2 E factors weve been using. We can also compute the outer product

2

p s p s

p s p s

= 2Es s = 2Ess

(11.194)

us( p)u s( p) = p + m

s =1

(11.195)

0 1

2 s =1 2

1 0

and =

vs( p)v s( p) = p m

2

usv s =

s =1 s =1

u svs = 0

(11.197)

You should try to verify these relations on your own. To keep straight the inner and outer products, it may be helpful to compare to spin 1 particles. In that case we had for massive spin 1

j ij [i ( p)] ( p) = 3 i =1 i [i ( p)] ( p) =

u s( p)us ( p) = 2 mss

2

(11.198) (11.199)

p p m2

us( p)u s( p) = p + m

s =1

112

So when we sum Lorentz indices or internal spinor indices, we use an inner product and get a number. When we sum over polarizations/spins, we get a matrix.

In the rest frame, us = s s , vs = s s (11.200)

where and are constants, for spin up and spin down. Let us see how the spin states transform under charge conjugation | c = | c = 1 0 0 1

c

= i2

c

1 0 0 1

=

c

0 i i 0 = 0 i i 0

1 0 0 1

= =

0 i i 0

= i | = i |

(11.201) (11.202)

= i2

c (us p) =

s s

(11.203)

12.1 Introduction

We have found the Lagrangian for QED: 1 2 D m L = F + i 4 In order to compute anything with it in the quantum theory, we rst have to quantize the spinors. (12.1)

For complex scalar the eld is we had (x) = (x) = d3 p (2 )3 d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + b pe ipx 2 p 1 ipx bp e + a pe i px 2 p (12.2) (12.3)

which impels that b p creates particles of the opposite charge and same mass, which we called antiparticles. For the Dirac equation the Lagrangian is

(iD m) L= (i + eA m) = 0 ( i eA m) = 0

The us are the positive frequency electrons, and the v s are negative frequency electrons, or equivalently, positive frequency positrons. 113

The free eld solutions can be labeled by constant two-component spinors and . The actual solutions depend on momenta in a funny way. Labelling them us and v s where s = 1, 2 is the spin, we have 0 0 p p p 0 0 2 p 1 2 1 u p = (12.7) , v = , u = , v = 0 p p 0 p p p p p 0 0

114

Quantum Electrodynamics

s

d3 p (2 )3 d3 p (2 )3

(12.8)

(x) =

s

(12.9)

Where as always the energy is always positive and determined by the 3-momentum p = K p 2 + m2 . gets u Note the convention that (x) gets both u and v and and v . It might have made sense to use u and v in , but since when we found the free states, v were the negative frequency solution, this is consistent. This is just a convention. way of assigning u and v to and

Next, lets calculate the propagator for a Dirac spinor. (x) ( y)}|0 0|T { Lets rst review what happens with a complex scalar we had (x) = (x) = Then 0| (x) (0)|0 = = d3 p (2 )3 d3 p (2 )3 d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + b pe ipx 2 p 1 i px bp e + a pe ipx 2 p 1 2 p 1 ipx 0| b p e + a pe ipx 2 q

s as p + b p)|0

(12.10)

(12.11) (12.12)

d3 q (2 )3

d3k 1 ikx e = (2 )3 2k

Then,

d3k 1 ikx e = (2 )3 2k

Then using We nd

e ik |t | = (2k)

d i ei t 2 (2 ) 2 k + i i d4k eikx (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i

0|T { (x) (0)}|0 = Which is the regular scalar propagator. For a fermion, we start the same way (x) =

s

d3 p (2 )3 d3 p (2 )3

(12.19)

(x) =

s

(12.20)

115

s s s 0 | as p u p + b pv p

d3 p (2 )3

d3 q (2 )3

1 2 p

1 2 q (12.21)

s,s

s ipx |0 bs qs ei px + as q e q v qu

d3 p (2 )3

d3 q (2 )3 =

1 2 p

1 2 q

s,s

s i px vs qs 0|bs pb q |0 e pv

d3k 1 (2 )3 2k

s s ikx vk v k e s

2 2

s =1 s =1

vs( p)v s( p) = p m

(12.22)

(x)|0 = 0| (0) d3 p (2 )3 = d3 q (2 )3 1 2 p

s s s as qu q + b q v q |0

Then,

|t | i d4k ikx t e ( 1) 2 (2 )4 2 k + i

Wait a minute this should have simplied. What happened? We really want that minus sign to be a plus. We can get that by dening the time ordered propagator as (x) (0)} = (x) (0)(t) (0) (x)( t) T { (12.29) Then, (x) (0)}|0 = ( i + m) 0|T { (x) (0)}|0 = 0|T { This is beautifully Lorentz invariant. i d4k eikx 2 (2 )4 2 k + i (12.30) (12.31)

d4k i(k + m) (2 )4 k 2 m2 + i

116

Quantum Electrodynamics

So we want to have the time-ordered product of spinors have an extra minus sign. But then for arbitrary spinors T { (x) ( y )} = (x) ( y )(x0 y0) ( y ) (x) ( y0 x0) = T { ( y ) (x)} Thus unless we want this to vanish, we must assume that ( y ) and (x) anticommute. { (x), ( y )} (x) ( y ) + ( y ) (x) = 0 Similarly, elds must anticommute with their anti-elds, up to a delta function This is equivalent to ( y) = 3(x y ) { (x),

s s = (2 )3 (3)( p q ) r s = br ar p , bq p , aq

(12.32)

(12.33)

(12.34) (12.35)

So we see that in order to have Lorentz invariant time-ordered products, fermions must anti-commute. Now consider what happens if we try to construct a state with two of the same eld in it:

ap a p |0 = a p a p |0 = 0

(12.36)

So we cant! This is the Fermi-exclusion principle, and it follows directly from the anticommutation relations. This is an example of the spin-statistics theorem. Lets trace back to what happened. We found 0| (x) (0)|0 = 0| (0) (x)|0 = (x) (0)|0 = 0| (x)|0 = 0| (0) d3k 1 ikx e (2 )3 2k d3k 1 i kx e (2 )3 2k d3k k ikx e (2 )3 2k d3k k ikx e (2 )3 2k (12.37) (12.38) (12.39) (12.40)

Now we can see that the problem is that k is odd under the rotation which takes k k , so that an extra 1 is generated when we try to combine the time-ordered sum for the Fermion. Rotating k k is a rotation by . We saw that this gives a factor of i in the fermion case. So here we have 2 fermions, and 1 we get a 1. So its directly related to the spin 2 . This will happen for any half integer spin, which gets an extra 1 in the rotation. Another way to look at it is that they k factor comes from the polarization sum, which in turn comes from the requirement that the free solutions satisfy kus(k ) = kvs(k ) = 0. In fact, we can now see directly 1 that the same problem will happen for any particle of half-integer spin. A particle of spin n + 2 for integer n will have a eld with n vector indices and a spinor index, 1 n . So polarization sum must have a factor of and the only thing around to contract with is its momentum k . Thus we always get a k , and the time-ordered product can never be Lorentz invariant unless the elds anticommute. These are fermions. They obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. In contrast for integer spin there can only be an even number of k 2 in the polarization sum (there had better be no k s since k 2 = 0!). So these elds must commute to have Lorentz invariant time ordered products. These are bosons. They obey Bose-Einstein statistics

We saw that to have a Lorentz invariant time-ordered product for fermions, we need them to antisymmetric. That is (x) ( y) = ( y ) (x) (12.41)

12.5 Causality

117

or equivalently

s = (2 )3 (3)( p q ) r s ar p , aq

(12.42)

Acting on the vacuum, this has that multiparticle states are antisymmetric on the exchange of two particles

s1 p1 s2 p2

as ( p1) as ( p2) |0 = 1 2

s2 p2 s1 p2

(12.43)

In general, we could ask what kinds of statistics are possible. (This discussion is taken from section 4.1 of Weinberg). Suppose we have a state with many identical particles. By identical, we mean that if we swap how the two particles are represented, we still have the same physical state. Only the normalization can change. So

s1 p1 s2 p2

s2 p2 s1 p2

(12.44)

where is a number. This is the denition of identical particles . If we chage back, we nd that

s1 p1 s2 p2

s2 p2 s1 p2

= 2

s1 p1 s2 p2

(12.45)

Thus 2 = 1. What could depend on? Since it is just a number, it cannot depend on the momenta p or the spins s, as there are no non-trivlial one-dimensional representations of the Lorentz group. Thus = 1. We call = 1 bosons and = 1 fermions. As we have shown above, by Lorentz invariance, integer spin particles must be bosons and half-integer spin particles must be fermions. There is one exception, the factor can depend on the way p1 and p2 are interchanged. For example, in the Aharonov-Bohm eect, you can pick up a phase by rotating a particle around a magnetic ux. This only works in 2 + 1 dimensions (2 space and one 1 dimension) where we can have things like uxes or vortices, and the state can remember how many times it has been rotated around it. Think of a string wrapping around a point in 2D. Then you can get to depend on the path, that is, the number of times it has gone around the point (the winding number) which leads to particles called anyons with parastatics . But in 3+1 dimensions, you cant wrap a string around a point you can always unwind such path-dependence. So only Fermi and Bose statistics are possible.

12.5 Causality

Lets go back to a real scalar eld, (x) = where we saw d3 q a eiqx + a qe iq x (2 )3 q d3 p 1 i p( x y) e (2 )3 2p (12.46) (12.47) (12.48)

(x) ( y ) = [ (x), ( y )] =

d3 p 1 e ip( x y) eip(x y) (2 )3 2p

Lets work in 2 dimensions, where causality is simple. Then for y x = (t, z ) we get [ (x), ( y )] = =

(12.49) (12.50)

dp 2

118

Quantum Electrodynamics

Now suppose the interval is spacelike, for example y x = (0, z ). Then [ (x), ( y )] = dp 2 i sin( pz ) = 0 p 2 + m2 (12.51)

Since sin( pz ) is an odd function of p, this integral vanishes. Next, take y x = (t, 0) = timelike. Then, [ (x), ( y )] =

dp 2

i sin( p2 m2 t) p 2 + m2

(12.52)

Now the integrand is an even function of p, so in general the integral will not vanish. Its not so easy to evaluate the integral, but the point is simply that it is not zero. Then we can use the fact that [ (x), ( y )] is Lorentz covariant. So we nd that in general commutators vanish at spacelike separations but not at timelike separation. = 0, x y spacelike (12.53) [ (x), ( y )] 0, x y timelike This is true in any number of dimensions. What does this commutator have to do with physics? Remember, we are just doing quantum mechanics here. So when to operators commute they are simultaneously observable. Another way to say that is that if the operators commute they are uncorrelated and cant inuence each other. So here we nd that if the we measure the eld (remember measures the eld) at x = 0 it doesnt inuence the measurement at x at the same time t = 0. But if we measure the eld at t = 0 it does aect the eld at t = t at the same position x. This is a clear statement of causality. If you try to do the same thing in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, it will fail. For example, the wavefunction is spread out in x but xed with respect to t. So if we collapse the wavefunction by measuring it at x = 0 at t = 0 it will immediately aect what we can see at x = x and t = 0. We can try to do the same calculation for spinors. We nd that it is the anticommutator which vanishes In fact, { (x), (0)} = 0 [ (x), (0)] 0 (12.54) (12.55)

What do we make of this? It implies if we could ever measure a fermionic wavefunction, we could violate causality. Thus fermions are not observable. Only bosons are observable. After all, all measurements in the end are numbers which are bosons. You would have to measure a Grassman number to see a Fermion. So causality implies that only fermion bilinears have (x) (x), ( y ) ( y )] [ (x) (x) is a boson. That is simply because = 0, x y spacelike 0, x y timelike (12.56)

Now we have everything we need for QED. The Lagrangian is 1 2 D m + i L = F 4 1 2 (i + e A m) = F + 4 (12.57) (12.58)

We will usually just choose Feynman gauge, in less we are explicitly checking gauge invariance. A fermion is a solid line with an arrow indicating particle ow (momentum ow times charge)

Here the blob means the rest of the diagram. External fermion lines get spinors, with us for electrons and vs for positrons.

= us( p)

=u s( p)

= v s ( p)

=v s( p)

119

i k k i (1 ) 2 = 2 (Feynman gauge) k k + i k 2 + i

\ = ( p) \ = ( p)

A V = e

Since there is no factor of momentum, the sign is the same no matter what is going on at the vertex

e+ e+

e

e

The on the will get contracted with the of the photon. This is either in the of the photon propagator, if the photon is internal, or the polarization tensor if the photon is external. The = as a matrix will also get sandwiched by the two fermion lines, such as

u u = u u

if its ee scattering or v v if its e+e annihilation. The barred spinor always goes on the left, since the interaction is A . If there is an internal fermion line between the ends, its propagator goes between the end spinors:

p1 p2 p3

In this example, the 3 matrices get multiplied and then sandwiched between the spinors. If the fermion is a closed loop, then the the spinor indices of the multiplied product get contracted with each other. If we closed the loop in the diagram above, it would be i( p 2 + m) 2 + i p2 m 2 = Tr

=

=

=

e

e+

(incoming) (outgoing)

(12.61)

e+

ie

(12.62)

= ( ie)2u ( p3)

i( p 2 + m) u( p1) 2 p2 2 m + i

(12.63)

i( p 2 + m) 2 + i p2 m 2

(12.64)

Often computing Feynman diagrams in QED will involve taking the trace of products of matrices.

120

Quantum Electrodynamics

Let us nally be careful about minus signs. A t-channel diagram will have, in terms of position space propogators

x1 x3 x

This corresponds to a particular contraction from the time-ordered product (x) (x) (x3) (x1) (x) (x) (x4)||0 = 0|T {A(x, y ) (x1) The u-channel diagram gives the same thing with x3 and x4 interchanged

x1 x

y x2

x4

which gives

(x) (x) (x4) (x1) (x) (x) (x3)}|0 = 0|T {A(x, y) (x1) This is supposed to correspond to a dierent contraction of the same time-ordered product. So, using the anti-commutation, we nd (x4) (x1) (x) (x) (x3) =

x2 y

x3 x4

So we get a minus sign in exchanging x3 and x4. This is just Fermi statistics. Thus we get an relative minus sign for exchanging two fermions. The overall sign is unimportant, as matrix elements will always be squared. For loops, we have something like (ignoring the photons)

x1 x y x2

To get the sign we need to compare it to the product without the loop, which contributes to the vacuum matrix element, but comes from the same time-ordered product

x1 x2

y x x

= D (x, x)D( y, y )

(12.66) (12.67)

So we get an over all minus sign for the loop. This will always happen for any loop with any number of fermions. Thus -1 for interchange of external fermions

121

12.6.1 Example

For example, lets write down a t-channel diagram for Moller scattering ee ee

p1 p3

iMt =

p2 p4

i[ g + (1 ) k2

kk ] k2 ( ie)u (p

4)

u( p2)

Mt = ( ie)2

13.1 Matrix identities

Before begging the QED calculations, lets derive some useful identities about matrices. We will often need to take traces of products of matrices. These can be done simply using the cyclic property of the trace Tr[AB C ] = Tr[B CA] We will often also use 5 = i0 1 2 3 which satises

2 5 = 1,

(13.1)

5 = 5

(13.2)

To keep the spinor indices straight, we will often write 1 for the identity on spinor indices. So then Also, { , } = 2 1 Tr[ 1] = Tr[1] = 4 The are just numbers for each and and pull out of the trace. Then Tr[ ] = Tr[ 5 5 ] = Tr[ 5 5] = Tr[ 5 5 ] = Tr[ ] And Tr[ ] = 0 Tr[ ] = Tr[ + 2 ] = Tr[ ] + 8 In a similar way, you can show Tr[ ] = 4 Tr[ ] = 0 Tr[ ] = 4( + ) (13.5) (13.6) (13.7) (13.8) (13.9) (13.10) (13.3) (13.4)

you will use this last one a lot! You can remember the signs because adjacent indices give + and the other one gives .

13.2 e+e +

The simplest tree level scattering process in QED is e+e + .

p1 p3

iM =

p2

p4

i[ g + (1 ) ( p1 + p2)2

123

124

Tree-level QED

Each of these spinors has a spin, such as us( p1) but we are leaving the spin implicit. In Lorentz gauge, this is e2 M= v ( p2) u( p1)u ( p3) v ( p4) (13.11) s To calculate |M|2 we need the conjugate amplitude. To get this, we rst recall that

0 = 0

and

0 = 0

(13.12) (13.13)

So, 1 2) = ( 0 2) = 1 = 0 1 = 2 1 ( 0 2 1 2 instead of is useful. Then, This nice transformation property is another reason using M = |M|2 = e2 v ( p4) u( p3)u ( p1) v ( p2) s (13.14) (13.15)

Thus,

I have grouped things in brackets to emphasize that each term is just a number for each and each set of spins. Then |M|2 is a product of these numbers. For example, we could also have written |M|2 = e4 ( p2) u( p1)][u ( p1) v ( p2)][u ( p3) v ( p4)][v ( p4) u( p3)] [v s2 (13.16)

Which makes it clear that this is the product of two tensors, one depending on the initial state, and the other depending on the nal state.

The easiest things to calculate from this is the cross section for scattering assuming you are insensitive to spin. First, lets sum over the + spins, using vs( p4)v s( p4) = p4 m (13.17)

s

(13.18)

s

(13.19)

s

(13.20)

We can also assume that we dont have sensitivity to the spins of our initial states. Thus if we do the measurement many times, we will get the average over each possibility. This leads to contractions and traces of the electron terms. Then we have 1 4 |M|2 = e4 Tr[(p1 + me) (p2 me) ]Tr[(p3 + m ) (p4 m ) ] 4 s2 (13.21)

spins

13.2 e+e +

125

2 Tr[(p3 + m ) (p4 m ) ] = p 3 p4 Tr[ ] m Tr[ ] = 4( p3 p4 + p4 p3 ( p3 p4) ) 4m2

So, 1 4

spins

|M|2 =

2 s = ( p1 + p2)2 = ( p3 + p4)2 = 2m2 e + 2 p12 = 2m + 2 p34

with pij = pi pj . Now we can simplify this with Mandlestam variables (13.26) (13.27) (13.28) (13.29)

2 2 2 t = ( p1 p3)2 = ( p2 p4)2 = m2 e + m 2 p13 = me + m 2 p24 2 2 2 u = ( p1 p4)2 = ( p2 p3)2 = m2 e + m 2 p14 = me + m 2 p23

Thus,

p12 =

s m2 e, 2

p34 =

s m2 2

So, 1 4

spins

1 + m2 p13 = p24 = (m2 t) 2 e 1 p14 = p23 = (m2 + m2 u) 2 e |M|2 = 2 e4 2 2 4 2 2 4 t + u2 + 4s(m2 e + m ) 2(me + 4mem + m ) s2

(13.30)

(13.31)

Since the particles are not all of the same mass, we have to use the more general formula for the dierential cross section |pf | 1 d = |M|2 (13.32) 2 d C M 64 2EC M | pi | In the center of mass frame, there are only two degrees of freedom: energy and angle. We can take

K ), p1 = (E , k

p3 = ( E , K p) Then,

K ), p2 = (E , k

p4 = (E , K p ),

K |= |k

|K p |=

E 2 m2 e E 2 m2

And so

2 2 K +K Kp u = (k p ) 2 = m2 e + m 2E 2 k K

2 2 Kp t = ( p1 p3)2 = m2 e + m 2E + 2 k K

2 s = 4E 2 = EC M

2 m2 2 |K p| em 2 K K E 4 + (k p )2 + E 2(m2 e + m ) 6 K| 16E |k 2

(13.39)

126

Tree-level QED

So,

K K K K p = |k p |cos k

(13.40)

(13.41) (13.42)

K |= |k

E 2 m2 e,

|K p |=

E 2 m2

Which is the general result for the e+e + rate in the center of mass frame. K | = E and this reduces to Taking me = 0 for simplicity, gives |k 2 d = 2 d 4 ECM 1 m2 m2 m2 cos2 1 + + 1 E2 E2 E2 (13.43)

If in addition we take m = 0, which is the ultra high energy limit, we nd d 2 1 + cos2 = 2 d 4ECM (13.44)

which is the same thing we had from the naive sum over spin sates. Recall that scattering with spins transverse the plane gave M = 1 and scattering with spins in the plane gave M = cos2, so this agrees with our previous analysis. You can check explicitly by choosing explicit spinors that our intuition with spin scattering agrees with QED even for the polarized cross-section.

Now lets go back to the problem we considered long ago, scattering of an electron by a Coulomb potential. Recall the classical Rutherford scattering formula

4 m2 d ee = d 4k 4sin4 2

(13.45)

K is the electron momentum. This is elastic scattering, so |k Ki | = |k K f | |k K |. In Quantum Mechanics, where k we learned that this is reproduced in the Born approximation, by Fourier transforming the Coulomb e2 potential V (r ) = r :

d d

2 2 = m2 e V ( q ) = me born

d3xe iqx

e2 r

Ki kKf is the momentum transfer (which we have learned to think of as the virtual photon where K q =k momentum). In eld theory, we observed that this is given by a simple t-channel diagram.

d d =

QFT

K |4sin4 2 |k

4 m2 ee

(13.46)

(13.47)

2 where the 2m2 e and 2m p factors are just the non-relativistic normalization of the electron and proton 2 K sin 2 states. Since t = q where q = p3 p1 is the photon momentum. Then |K q|=k and EC M = m p so we reproduce the Rutherford formula again. Now lets do it again, properly, in QED.

127

As far as QED is concerned, a proton and a muon are the same thing, up to the charge, which gets squared anyway. So lets start with e e . The amplitude is given by a t-channel diagram

p1 p3

iMt =

which simplies to

p2 p4

Mt =

(13.48)

The spin averaged answer is is 1 4 |M|2 = e4 Tr[(p1 + me) (p3 + me) ]Tr[(p4 + m ) (p2 + m ) ] 4 t2 (13.49)

spins

spins

|M|2 =

(13.50)

In fact, the two are identical if we take the e+e + formula and replace p1 p1 (13.51) (13.52) (13.53) (13.54) p2 p3 p3 p4 p4 p2 There are two sign ips which cancel. Also, these changes sent s t, or more generally s = ( p1 + p2)2 ( p1 p3)2 = t t = ( p1 p3)2 ( p1 p4)2 = u u = ( p1 p4)2 ( p1 + p2)2 = s (13.55) (13.56) (13.57)

These momenta replacement are not physical, since p2 p3 produces a momentum with negative energy, which cannot be an external particle. Its just an algebraic trick, called a crossing symmetry which lets us just use the same algebra to write down the answer. You can prove crossing symmetries in general, even for polarized cross sections with particular spins. But changing the spin of an electron to that of a positron is confusing, because the bases are dierent. So it is easier just to write down the amplitude that you want and inspect it to nd the right transformation. The point of crossing symmetries is not to memorize the formula for how to transform your answer, but to know that they are there, which can save you a lot of work. So now we can just skip to the nal answer. For e+e + we had 1 4 |M|2 = 8e4 2 2 2 p13 p24 + p14 p23 + m2 p12 + me p34 + me m s2 (13.58)

spins

(13.59)

128

Tree-level QED

spins

|M|2 =

(13.60)

2 e4 2 2 4 2 2 4 u + s 2 + 4 t( m 2 e + m p) 2(me 4mem p + m p) t2

(13.61)

Now lets take the limit m p me to get the Rutherford answer, but including relativistic corrections. This means we can treat the proton mass as innite, but have to treat the electron mass as nite to go from the non-relativistic to the relativistic limit. Then the center of mass frame is roughly the protons rest frame, so

Ki), p1 = (E , k

Kf ) p3 = (E , k

(13.62) (13.63)

p2 = (m p , 0),

p4 (m p , 0)

where p4 cant be exactly at rest, but we discard the corrections. The scattering angle is dened by where

Ki k K f = k2cos = v 2E 2cos k

v=

(13.64)

K| |k = E

m2 e E2

(13.65)

is the electrons relativistic velocity. Then, p13 = E 2(1 v 2cos ) p12 = p23 = p34 = p14 = Em p p24 = m2 p (13.66) (13.67) (13.68) (13.69) (13.70)

Then,

1 4

spins

|M|2 =

2 2 2 2 2 E 2 m2 p + E m pv cos + mem p

4v 4E 4(1 cos)2 =

v 4E 2sin4 2

Since the COM frame is essentially the lab frame, the dierential cross section is 1 1 d = 2 4 d 64 2ECM |M|2 (13.74)

spins

e4 d 1 v 2sin2 = 2 d 64 2v 2k 2sin4

2

(13.75)

129

This is known as the Mott formula for relativistic Rutherford scattering. Note that the proton mass has k dropped out. For slow velocities v 1 and k E me so v m . Thus,

e

d e = d 64 2k 4sin4

m2 e

(13.76)

which is the Rutherford formula. In particular, note that the normalization factors m2 e worked out correctly.

The next process worth studying is the QED prediction for Compton scattering e e. By simple relativistic kinematics, Compton was able to predict the shift in wavelength of the scattered light as a function of angle 1 (13.77) = (1 cos) m But he could not predict the intensity of radiation at each angle. In the classical limit, for scattering soft radiation against electrons, JJ Thompson had derived the formula 2 d 2 = re 1 + cos2 = 2 (1 + cos2 ) (13.78) m dcos re is the classical electron radius re = m . The 1 comes from radiation polarized in the plane of scattering and the cos from polarization out of the plane. From QED we should be able to reproduce this formula, plus the radiative corrections.

There are two diagrams:

iMs =

iMt =

So the sum is

p1 p2

p3

p4

= ( ie)2in out u ( p3 )

p3

p1

p2

p4

p1 + p2 + m p2 p4 + m + u( p2) s m2 t m2

(13.79)

130

Tree-level QED

To square this and sum over polarizations, we need to use a trick for the photon polarization sum. There is no way to write the sum over transverse modes in a Lorentz invariant way. But if we sum over any old random basis of 4-vectors, we would have

4 i i = i =1

(13.80)

The two unphysical polarizations can be taken to be forward and backwards with respect to the photons momentum k :

K f = k = (E , k )

(13.81) (13.82)

Then,

2 i =1

K) = (E , k b =k

i i = +

1 + k k k k 2E 2

(13.83)

Its easy to check this relation by choosing explicit transverse modes. So suppose we have an amplitude M = i M

p ols

(13.84) (13.85)

M2 = MM = MM +

1 + k MMk k M Mk E2

2 i =1 i i =

(13.86)

We want to calculate M2, which includes the 4 terms, from the t-channel and u-channel diagrams squared and their cross term. Lets just evaluate one piece, in the high energy limit, to see whats involved. Take Mt = e2 in out u ( p3) (p2 p4) u( p2) t e4 Tr[p3 (p2 p4) p2 (p2 p4) ] t2 p = 2p To get

q = p2 p4 = p3 p1

(13.87) (13.88)

Now use

spins /p ols

M2 t=

M2 t =4 = 16

e4 Tr[p3qp2q ] t2

131

1 t2

but simply t .

Including all the terms

out M = e2in ( p3) u

p1 + p2 + m p2 p4 + m u( p2) + s m2 t m2

(13.94)

Then summing/averaging over spins and polarizations 1 4 M2 = e4Tr (p3 + m) (p2 + m) p1 + p2 + m p2 p4 + m + s m2 t m2 (13.95)

p ols

p1 + p2 + m p2 p4 + m + s m2 t m2

(13.96)

This is a huge mess. But it can be evaluated. The result is rather simple 1 4 M2 = 2 e4 p24 p12 1 1 + + 2 m2 p12 p24 p12 p24 + m4 1 1 p12 p24

2

(13.97)

p ols

Lets start with the low energy limit, where it makes sense to work in the lab frame. Then p1 = (, 0, 0, ) p3 = (E , K p ) Note that these relations imply and 1 1 1 = (1 cos) m = 1+

(1 cos ) m

p2 = (m, 0, 0, 0)

(13.98) (13.99)

p4 = ( , sin, 0, cos )

(13.100) (13.101)

which is the formula for the shifted frequency as a function of angle. There is no QED in this relation it is just momentum conservation but it is still a very important formula! Then p12 = m p24 = m Thus we get a simple formula for M 1 4

pols 2

(13.102) (13.103)

M2 = 2e4

(13.104) (13.105)

132

Tree-level QED

In the lab frame, we have to go back to our general formula d = 1 |M|2d LIPS (2E1)(2E2)|K v1 K v2| = Now we need dLIPS = d3 p3 1 (2 )3 2E 1 |M|2d LIPS 4m d 3 p4 1 (2 )4 (4)( p1 + p2 p3 p4 ) (2 )3 2 1 ( E E) (13.106) (13.107)

(13.108)

The delta function xes the 3-momenta when we integrate over d3 p4, leaving the energy constraint dLIPS = = 1 4(2 )2 dd ( E

2

E)

(13.109) (13.110)

1 8

dcosd

Now we want to integrate over to enforce the energy constraint E + = m + . But we have to be a little careful because E and are already constrained by the electrons on-shell condition E = m2 + p 2 = m2 + ( sin )2 + ( cos )2 = m2 + 2 + 2 2 cos E Thus dLIPS = 1 8 = = 1 8 1 8 dE = cos d

2

dcosd dcos

( + E ( ) m ) E

dE 1 (1 + ) E d

1

dcos = 1 8

cos 1+ E E dcos ( )2 m

And so

2

+ sin2

(13.119)

This is the Klein-Nishina formula. This is rst calculated by Klein and Nishina in 1929 and was one of the rst tests of QCD. In other variables, d 2 2 1 = 2 1 + cos2 (1 + cos2)(1 cos) + O ( 2 ) dcos m m m Note that in the limit m 2 d = 2 1 + cos2 dcos m (13.120)

(13.121)

This is the Thompson scattering cross sections for classical electromagnetic radiation by a free electron. We have calculated the full relativistic corrections.

133

Now lets consider the opposite limit, m. Then the COM frame makes the most sense. In this case p1 = (, 0, 0, ), p2 = ( E , 0 , 0 , ) p4 = (, sin, 0, cos) (13.122) (13.123) (13.124) (13.125) (13.126) (13.127) (13.128) (13.129) p3 = (E , sin, 0, cos)

p12 = (E + ) p24 = (E + cos ) For me, s 4 2, 1 4 E m t 2 p24 = 2 2(1 + cos ) t s p24 p12 = 2 e4 + + s t p12 p24 1 1 + cos

Then,

pols

M2 = 2e4

= 2e4 1 + cos +

This has a singularity at = . That is where the photon and electron bounce o each other and go backwards. The mass of the electron cuts o the singularity, but still the scattering amplitude gets very large as . The cross section is which blows up at = . The obvious place to expect the pole at = is from the t-channel diagram. This is easy to see because t = 2(1 + cos ) (13.131) Since the t-channel matrix element is Mt = e2 in out u ( p3) (p2 p4) u( p2) t

1

(13.130)

(13.132)

we should naively expect a worse divergence, as t2 . In fact this would happen in a scalar eld theory, such as one with interaction g3 g2 g4 Mt = , M2 = 2 (13.133) t t 2 which has a strong t pole. In QED, we calculated the t-channel diagram in the massless limit Mt = 1 4

1

and found

(13.134)

(13.135)

This gives the entire t pole, so we dont have to worry about interference for the purpose of understanding the singularity. Where did the other factor of t come from to cancel the pole? For = with 0, the momenta become p1 = (, 0, 0, ), p2 = (, 0, 0, ) p3 = (, , 0, ) p4 = (, , 0, )

(13.136)

(13.137) (13.138)

t = 2 2

134

Tree-level QED

1 , 2

but

1 t2

goes like

1 . 4

But notice the momentu factor in te matrix element also fank = (0, 1, 0, 0) (13.139)

p2 p4 = k,

(13.140)

Thus one factor of is canceling. This factor came from the spinors, and is an eect of spin conservation. To evaluate this product, observe that it has 3 gamma matrices, so it preserves helicity. We can see this by inserting factors of 1 5, and using (1 5) = (1 5) (1 + 5)uL = 0 So, u L(1 5) = 0 (13.141) (13.142) (13.143) (13.144) (13.145) (13.146)

= LuR + RL = L L + R R = L L + R L = L L + R R Thus Mt = e2 u L( p3)in kout uL( p2) + u R( p3)in kout uR( p2)

(13.147)

out =

This was obvious anyway since in QED for massless electrons, theres not coupling between right and left handed states. Thus u( p2) and u ( p3) are either both right handed or both left handed. So say right handed. Since p2 is in the z -direction, this means its spin is up u( p2) = | . Then out u( p2) = 0 unless . That is,

1 2

photon and the outgoing photon are both right handed. This has an important physical implication. Consider shooting a laser beam at an high energy beam of electrons. Since the laser is polarized, it will dominantly scatter backwards only certain electron helicities. This can be a useful way to polarize your electrons.

We have seen that in 3 theory, the matrix element does have a M2 t= g4 t2

1 t2

pole (13.148)

but in QED the singularity is only The cancellation of the leading divergence is a consequence of gauge invariance. We will see this again and again. It is easier to explore this in scalar QED. First of all, we expect that Compton scattering in scalar QED should be simple. The intermediate scalar cannot carry angular information, so the matrix elements should be totally isotropic. There certainly should be no singularity. Lets see how this comes out of the calculation. The t-channel amplitude is Mt = e2 in out (2 p3 p1 ) (2 p 2 p4 ) t (13.149)

1 . t

135

which is not zero. While M2 t looks like it should have a singularity, in fact M2 t= e4 e4 (2 p3 p1)2(2 p2 p4)2 = 16 2 p2 p2 = 4e4 2 t 13 24 t (13.150)

So this is not vanishing, even though we know the intermediate particle is a scalar so it should vanish. To be precise, it should vanish as the intermediate particle goes on shell, which it does as the propogator approaches the singularity. Even though the M2 t diagram was totally regular, there can still be a singularity from the cross terms between Mt and the s-channel and the 4-point vertex: Ms = But we nd Ms Mt = = e2 in out ( p + 2 p2 ) ( p4 + 2 p 3) s 1

out M4 = 2e2in

And M4Mt = 2

4 M2 s = 4e 4 M2 4 = 16e

So these cancel too. In fact, working out the rest of the amplitudes (13.158) (13.159) (13.160) (13.161) (13.162)

We nd

M2 = 8e4

So there is no pole, and no angular information, as expected. Actually, this process in scalar QED is a great place to learn an important lesson about polarization sums. When we replace by , we are assuming the Ward identity. The Ward identity does not hold for each individual diagram, but only for the sum of all diagrams for the same physical process. Thus doing the replacement in the t-channel does not tell us anything physical about the contribution of the tchannel diagram. In fact, there is no way at all to talk about the contribution of a single diagram to the amplitude. To get closer to the physics, we can try to sum over the physical transverse modes, instead of doing the sum where we replace by g . For transverse modes, the amplitudes simplify to Mt = 4 e2 in ( p3)(out p2 ) t e2 in ( p2)(out p3) s (13.163) (13.164) (13.165)

Ms = 4

out M4 = 2e2in

136

Tree-level QED

We are not using the Ward identity, just the fact that our polarizations are transverse. In the high energy frame we had p1 = (, 0, 0, ), p2 = (, 0, 0, ) p4 = (, sin, 0, cos) 2 in = (0, 0, 1, 0) 2 out = (0, 0, 1, 0) u = 22(1 cos) (13.166) (13.167) (13.168) (13.169) (13.170)

p3 = (, sin, 0, cos) So the polarizations are 1 in = (0, 1, 0, 0), Also, 1 out = (0, cos, 0, sin ), s = 4 2,

t = 2 2(1 + cos),

Now lets see what vanishes. The s-channel is easy, since the particles are back to back, Ms = 0 for every polarization.

21 12 22 M11 s = Ms = Ms = Ms = 0 1 For the t-channel the only non-vanishing amplitude has 1 in and out giving

(13.171)

M11 t =4

12 22 M21 t = Mt = Mt = 0

(13.172) (13.173)

12 M21 4 = M4 = 0 2 M22 4 = 2e

(13.174) (13.175)

So there is no pole at all in the t-channel anywhere. In fact the scattering amplitudes for each transverse polarization are separately nite 1 1: So the total cross section is just

11 2 4 (M11 t + M4 ) = 4 e 2 4 (M22 4 ) = 4e

2 2:

which is what we found by the spin sums above. 4 But note the dierence. When we used the spin sum relation with the Ward identity, we got M2 t = 4e t 2 2 4 but summing over transverse modes by had got Mt = 16e (1 + s ) .

M2 = 8e4

If we only consider 2 2 scattering and can choose from electrons, positrons, muons, anti-muons and photons, we get the following tree-level QED processes. e+e e+e: Bhabha scattering (1936). First calculated by Homi Jehengir Bhabha (Indian, 1909-1966). The positron was not discovered until 1932, so it would be a while before the dierential cross section that Bhabha predicted could be measured in the lab. However, the total cross section for e+e e+e was important for cosmic ray physics from the 30s onward. e+e + : Electron-positron annihilation into muons.

137

ee ee: Moller Scattering (1931). First calculated in the ultralativistic regime by Christian Moller (Danish, 1904-1980). In the non-relativistic regime it is called Coulomb scattering or Rutherford scattering. Moller calculated the cross section based on some guesses and consistency requirements, not using QED. The cross section was calculated in QED only a few years later by Bethe and Fermi. Moller scattering was not measured until 1950 (by a Canadian, Lorne Albert Page). This is partly because people didnt consider it interesting until renormalization was understood and radiative corrections could be measured. e e : Electron-muon scattering, the same as Rutherford scattering. Crossing of electronpositron annihilation into muons. e e: Compton Scattering. Observed in 1923 by Arthur Holly Compton. The dierential scattering formula is called the Klein-Nishina formula (Oskar Klein and Yoshio Nioshina, 1929). This was one of the rst results obtained from QED. Before this, all that was known was the classical Thomson scattering formula, which was already in disagreement with experiment by the early 1920s. ee+ : Pair annihilation into photons. Crossing of Compton scattering : Halpern Scattering (1933) Otto Halpern. Also known as light-by-light scattering. No treelevel contribution. Begins at 1-loop. ee : forbidden in QED. In the standard model, electron number and muon number are separately conserved. e+e: Photon annihilation into e+e.

14.1 Introduction

We have learned quantum eld theory using the canonical quantization approach, which is based on creation and annihilation operators. There is a completely dierent way to do QFT called the Path Integral formulation. It says 0|T { (x1) (xn)}|0 = D(x1) (xn)eiS [] (14.1)

The left-hand side is exactly the kind of time-ordered product we use to calculate S -matrix elements. The D on the right-hand side means integrate over all possible classical eld congurations (x, t) with a phase given by the classical action evaluated in that eld conguration. The intuition for the path integral comes from a simple thought experiment you can do in quantum mechanics. Recall the double slit experiment: the amplitude for eld to propagate from a source through a screen with two slits to a detector is the sum of the amplitudes to propagate through each slit separately. We add up the two amplitudes separate and then square to get the probability. Now try three slits, you get the sum of 3 paths. Now, keep slitting until the screen is gone. The nal answer is that the amplitude is the sum of all possible dierent paths. Thats all the path integral is calculating. Theres something very similar classically, that you might remember from your E&M class, called Huygenss principle. It says that to calculate the propagation of electromagnetic waves, you can treat each point in the wavefront as the center of a fresh disturbance and a new source for the weaves. This is useful, for example, in thinking about diraction, where you can propagate the plane wave along to the slits, and then start the waves propagating anew from each slit. Its totally intuitive and works for any waves. Just think of a pond with some sticks in it where you can really see the waves moving along. If the wave goes through a hole, a new wave starts from the hole and keeps going. So the path integral is doing just this kind of wave-propagation analysis, but for quantum-mechanical particle-waves, rather than classical waves. There are a number of amazing things about path integrals. For example, they imply that by dealing with only classical eld congurations you get the quantum amplitude. This is really crazy if you think about it these classical elds all commute, so you are also getting the non-commutativity for free somehow. Time ordering also just seems to drop out. And where are the particles? What happened to second quantization? In some ways, path integrals take the wave nature of matter to be primary, while the canonical method starts with particles. Path integrals are in many ways simpler and more beautiful the canonical quantization, but they obscure some of the physics. Nowadays, people often just start with the path integral, using it to dene the theory (even though, the integral over eld congurations D is not exactly well-dened mathematically). The canonical procedure, where we start with free elds and add interactions, is inherently perturbative. Path integrals on the other hand, dont mention free elds at all, so they can be used to study non-perturbative things, like lattice QCD, instantons, black holes, etc. Thus path integrals are more general, but they are equivalent to canonical quantization for perturbative calculations, and provide drastically dierent physical intuition. To begin, well derive equation 1, then well re-derive the Feynman rules and continue discussing who to interpret the path integral. 139

140

Path Integrals

Before we begin, lets review how to compute the Gaussian integral I= I=

J 2 ap2 + Jp

1

dpe

(14.2)

J2

dpe

2 a( p a )2 + 2 a

(14.3)

J2

2 p2 2

1

I = e2a ] = dx dye

dpe

1

2 a p2

2 x2 2 y 2

1

1 J2 = e2a a

0

dpe

1

2 p2

(14.4)

0

1

= 2

rdre

2 r2

dr 2e

2 r2

= 2

(14.5)

dpe

2 ap2 + Jp

J2 2 2 e a a

(14.6)

K , with A a matrix. If we diagonalize We can also generalize it for many pi, so that ap2 = piaijpj = K pAp A then the integral is just a product of integrals over the pi, so we just get the product of all the factors above. That is, 1 KK K A1J K (2 )n 1 pAp K +J p J K (14.7) dK pe 2 = e2 det A

This formula is really useful for path integrals.

The easiest way to derive the path integral is to start with non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian is H (x, t) = p2 + V (x, t) 2m (14.8)

Suppose our initial state |i is a particle at xi at time ti and we want to project it onto the nal state | f at x f and time t f . We nd f |i = x ft f |xiti x f ei H (tf ti) xi (14.9)

This is only heuristic because H (t) and H (t ) dont commute, so we cant just solve the Schrodinger equation in this simple way with an exponential. However, we can solve it this way for innitesimal time intervals. So lets break this down into small time intervals t with times tj = ti + jt and tn = t f . f |i = dxn dx1 x f e iH (xf ,tf )t |xn xn | |x2 x2|e iH (x2,t2)t |x1 x1|e iH (x1,t1)t xi (14.10)

141

to give x j +1 e iHt x j =

i dp x j +1| p p |e 2

p2 +V 2m

(x j ,t j ) t

|x j

(14.11) (14.12)

= ei V (xj ,tj )t

p2 dp i 2 t e m e ip[xj +1 xj ] 2

dpe

2 a p2 + Jp

2 2 J e 2a a

(14.13)

iHt

x j = Ne

1

iV (x,t)t i

(x x )2 m t j +1 2 j 2 (t)

= Ne

2 V (x,t)]t i[ 2 mx

)t = Nei L(x,x

where N is the normalization, which well ignore. All that happened here is that the Gaussian integral performed the Legendre transform for us, to go from H (x, p) L(x, x ). So, f |i = N and taking the limit t 0 we get

n)t 1)t dxn dx1 ei L(xn ,x ei L(x1,x

(14.17)

f |i = N

(14.18)

dtL.

The eld theory derivation in eld theory, is very similar, but the set of intermediate states is more complicated. Lets start with just the vacuum matrix element 0, t f |0, ti 0 e iH (tf ti) 0 (14.19)

In QM we broke this down into integrals over |x x | for intermediate times. The states |x are eigenstates (x), where, in case youve forgotten, of the x operator. In eld theory, the equivalent of x is (K x) = d3k i k KK Kx (a e x + ak e i k K ) (2 )3 k (14.20)

This is an innite number of operators, one at each point x. We put the hat on to remind you that its an operator. Then the equivalent of |x x | is a complete set of eigenstates of The eigenvalues are functions of space (K x ). Of course, (K x ) will have to satisfy some kind of normalization condition, so that it has a xed number of particles, but we will worry about that later. Now our basis is over states | . So our matrix element can be chopped up into 0, t f |0, ti = D 1(x) Dn(x) 0 e iH (tn)t |n 2|e iH (t2)t |1 1|e i H (t1)t |0 (K x )| = (K x )| (14.21)

142

Path Integrals

]t d3xL[,

(14.22) (14.23)

4

where S [] = d xL. So the path integral tells us to integrate over all classical eld congurations . Note that is not just the one-particle states, it can have 2-particle states, etc. We can remember this by drawing pictures for the paths including disconnected bubbles. Actually, we really sum over all kinds of discontinuous, disconnected random uctuations, but the ones that dominate the path integral will have a nice physical interpretation as we can see.

D(x, t)eiS []

Lets put back for a moment. Since has dimensions of action, it is simply

i D(x, t)e h

0, t f |0, ti =

S []

(14.24)

Lets forget about the i for a moment and suppose we need to calculate D (x, t)e

1 h

S []

(14.25)

In this case, the integral would clearly be dominated by 0 which is where S [] has a minimum everything else would give a bigger S [] and be innitely more suppressed as 0. Now, when we put the i back in, the same thing happens, not because the non-minimal terms are zero, but because away from the minimum you have to sum over phases swirling around innitely fast. When you sum innitely swirling phases, you also get something which goes to zero. Theres a theorem that says this happens, related to the method of stationary descent or sometimes method of steepest descent . Another way to see it is to use the more intuitive case with e S []/ . Since we expect the answer to be well dened, it should be an analytic function of 0. So we can take 0 in the imaginary direction, showing that the integral is still dominated by S [0]. In any case, the classical limit is dominated by a eld conguration which minimizes the action. This is the classical path that a particle would take. So the path integral has a nice intuitive classical correspondence.

Suppose we insert a eld at xed x and t into the path integral I= D (x, t)eiS [](x j , t j ) (14.26)

What does this represent? Going back through our derivation, we have I=

2|ei H (t2)t |1

1|eiH (t1)t |0 j (x j )

since the subscript on is just its point in time, we know which is these correspond to. Lets take the part with just j (x j ) D j (x) eiH (tn)t | j j (x j ) j | = D j (x)| j j | (14.27)

143

(x j ) stuck in at the time t j . Then we can collapse up all the So we get to replace (x j ) by the operator integrals to give (K D (x, t)eiS [](K xj , tj ) = 0 xj , tj ) 0 (14.28) If you nd the collapsing-up-the-integrals confusing, just think about the derivation backwards. An inser(K tion of x j , t j ) will end up by | j j |, and then pull out a factor of (x j , t j ). Now say we insert two elds D (K x , t)eiS [](K x1, t1)(x K 2, t2) (14.29)

The elds will get inserted in the appropriate matrix element. But if you check, you will see that the earlier eld will always come out on the right of the later eld. So we get (x1) (x2) D (x)eiS [](x1)(x2) = 0 T We get time ordering for free in the path integral. In general (x1) (xn) D (x)ei S [](x1) (xn) = 0 T 0 (14.31) 0 (14.30)

Why does this work? There are a few cross checks you can do. As an easy one, suppose the answer were (x1) (x2) 0 (14.32) D (x)eiS [](x1)(x2) = 0 Well, the left hand side doesnt care whether I write (x1)(x2) or (x2)(x1), since these are classical elds. So what would determine what order I write the elds on the right? We see it must be something that makes the elds eectively commute, like the time-ordering operator. Well do another check once we get a little more experience playing with the path integral. From now on, well just use (x) instead of (x), for the classical elds.

Theres a great way to calculate path integrals using currents. Lets add a source term to our action. So dene Z [J ] = Then, Next, observe that So, And thus Similarly, i d dJ (x1) dZ = dJ (x1) D exp iS [ ] + i Z [0] = Dei

d4xL[ ]

Dexp iS [ ] + i

dZ |J =0 = dJ (x1)

( i) n

144

Path Integrals

First, lets look at the free theory. Then Z0[J ] = D exp i 1 L = ( + m2) 2 d4x 1 ( + m2) + J (x) (x) 2 (14.39) (14.40)

Now we can solve this exactly, since we already have our relation

dK pe

KK 2K pAp K +J p

1

K A 1J K (2 )n 1 J e2 det A

(14.41)

The path integral is just an innite number of pi components. This is exactly what we have, with A = ( + m2). We have already studied the inverse of ( + m2), ( + m2) (x) = J (x) where is the Greens function satisfying ( Explicitly, (x y ) = up to boundary conditions. Thus Z0[J ] = N exp i And so, 0|T { (x) ( y )}|0 = ( i)2

x+m 2

(x) =

d4x (x y )J ( y )

(14.42)

)(x y ) = (x y ) d4 p 1 eip (x y) (2 )4 p2 m2

(14.43) (14.44)

d4x

1 d4 y J (x)(x y )J ( y ) 2 i d4 p eip (x y) (2 )4 p2 m2

(14.45)

d2Z |J =0 = i (x y ) = dJ (x)dJ ( y )

(14.46)

What happened to the time-ordering? The standard answer is that we need to put a convergence factor in the path integral Z0[J ] = D exp i = d4x 1 ( + m2) + J (x) (x) exp 2 m2 + i) + J (x) (x) d4x2) (14.47) (14.48) (14.49)

D exp i = exp 1 2

1 d4x ( 2 d4x

d4 yJ (x)DF (x y )J ( y )

Where DF (x y ) is the Feynman propagator 0|T { (x) ( y )}|0 = ( i)2 d2Z0 |J =0 = dJ (x)dJ ( y ) i d4 p eip (x y) = DF (x y) (2 )4 p2 m2 + i (14.50)

Im not sure how legitimate this is. Its really hard to dene the path integral mathematically, but at least this convergence factor sounds believable. In any case, we knew we had to get the time-ordered product out, so this is the correct answer.

14.8 Interactions

145

So, for for the free eld case we have solved the free path integral exactly . We get the same thing as just using the classical equations of motion and plugging back in. That is what we have been calling integrating out a eld. But note that we are not integrating out the eld when we do the Gaussian integral, we are actually computing the path integral. This only works for free elds, where we can solve it exactly. So there is no dierence between a classical and quantum system of free elds. If there are interactions, we can approximate the integral by expanding around the minimum and then integrating out the eld. This works if the quantum corrections are small, or the interactions are weak.

We can also compute higher order products (x1) (x2) (x3) (x4) |0 = ( i)4 0|T { = =

1 d4 e 2 dJ (x1) dJ (x4)

d4x d4 y J (x)DF (x y )J ( y )

|J =0

J =0

(14.51) (14.52)

d4zDF (x4 z )J (z ) e

2 d4x d4 y J (x)DF (x y )J ( y )

|J =0

(14.53)

Before we continue, lets simplify the notation Let us abbreviate this as 0|T { 1 2 3 4}|0 = = = =

1 d4 J D J e 2 x xy y dJ1dJ2dJ3dJ4

|J =0

(14.54) (14.55)

1 d3 J D J ( JzDz 4) e 2 x x y y dJ1dJ2dJ3

|J =0 |J =0 |J =0

DF (x3 x4)DF (x1 x2) + DF (x2 x3)DF (x1 x3) + DF (x1 x3)DF (x2 x4)

These are the 3 possible contractions. This is exactly what we found from time-dependent perturbation theory.

14.8 Interactions

Now suppose we have interactions Then, we can write Z [J ] = = 1 L = ( + m2) + 4 2

i d4x

1 2

De

( m2 + i) + J (x) (x)+ 4

De

146

Path Integrals

= Then

De

1 + i

d4z4(z ) +

(i)2 2!

d4z

d4w4(z ) 4(w ) +

I (z )4 d4z

I have added the I subscript to remind us that these are elds in the free theory, evolving with the free Hamiltonian (what we called the interaction picture before). So we have reproduced exactly the expression for the perturbation expansion the generated the Feynman rules. That is, have reproduced the Feynman rules from the path integral. Another occasionally useful notation is Z [J ] = e

i d4xV [ d J (x) ]

d

De

d

2 d4x d4 yJ (x)DF (x y )J ( y)

(14.65) (14.66)

=e

i d4xV [ d J (x) ]

Z0[J ]

This emphasizes that everything is determined by Z0. Finally, remember that what we were interested in for S -matrix elements was 0|T { (x1) (xn)ei 0|ei

I (z )4 d4z

|J =0

|T { (x1) (xn)}| = =

I (z )4 d4z

|0

(14.67)

|0 (14.68)

1 dnZ [J ] Z [J ] dJ n

|J =0

Since the same Z appears in the numerator and the denominator, the normalization of Z drops out, which is why we have been able to ignore it so far.

One of the key things that makes path integrals useful is that we can do eld redenitions. For example, say we have the path integral for some gauge theory 1 2 L[A , i] = F + |D i |2 m2| i |2 + 4 Z [0] = It is just the integral over all the elds. Now suppose we change variables

A = A (x) + V (x) i = i (x) + i(x) i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i]

(14.69) (14.70)

(14.71) (14.72)

Since we are integrating over all elds, the path integral is automatically invariant, for any V (x) and any i(x).

i Di Di DA e

d4xL[A , i ]

i DiD i DA e

d4xL[A,i]

(14.73)

147

This is not very impressive. Now consider a change of variables which is a gauge transformation

A (x) = A (x) + (x) i(x) = ei(x) i

(14.74) (14.75)

For some function (x). Then we can make stronger statements. The Lagrangian by itself is invariant, because this is a gauge transformation. ei

d4xL[A , i ]

= ei

d4xL[A,i]

(14.76)

The measure DA is invariant because this is just a linear shift. The measure Di changes by a factor i(x) ei(x) but D and these two factors cancel. Since for every eld we need to integrate i changes by e over it and its conjugate, the cancellation will always occur. So

Di Di DA =

Still not very impressive. But now consider the correlation function of something involving an A eld 0|A (x1)|0 =

i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i]

DiD i DA

(14.77)

A (x1)

(14.78)

Now make the same replacement. Then any change of variables will not aect the path integral,

i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i]

A (x1) =

i DA e Di Di

d4xL[A , i ]

A (x)

(14.79)

But also, since the measure and action are separately invariant, this simplies to = which means

i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i]

(14.80) (14.81)

i DiD i DA e

d4xL[A,i]

This is an example of the Ward identity. It follows more generally as well. Suppose we add in some more elds 0|A (x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 = =

i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i] i DiD i DA e d4xL[A,i]

(14.82) (14.83)

These phase factors are just numbers, which dont matter. For example, just taking the absolute value, we nd | 0|A (x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 | = | 0|A (x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 + 0| (x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 | This implies that 0| (x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 = 0 which is the ward identity with one A . Explicitly, if we write 0|A(x1) i(x2) j (xn)|0 = d4k (k )M (k, x2, (2 )4 xn)eikx1 (14.84)

we have shown

xn)eikx1 = 0

(14.85) (14.86)

xn) = 0

148

Path Integrals

which is the Ward identity in momentum space. Finally, suppose there are lots of A s. We nd 0|A (x1) A (xn) |0 = 0|(A (x1) + (x1)) (A (xn) + (xn) |0 For innitesimal, this implies 0| (x1) A (xn)|0 + 0|A (x1) (x2) |0 + 0|A (xn) |0 = 0 (14.88) (14.87)

which is the statement that we have to sum over all possible ways that a photon can be replaced with a k . Because the photons are identical particles, we would have to sum over all these graphs to get the amplitude for the polarization = k , so this is exactly what we would calculate. Thus, the path integral makes the derivation of the Ward identity easy. It is also completely non-perturbative.

Another thing thats easy to do with path integrals is to prove gauge invariance, meaning dependence of the amplitudes. Recall that vector eld Lagrangian is 1 1 L = F = A ( k 2 + k k )A + J A 2 4 And the equations of motion are ( k 2 + k k )A = J (14.89)

(14.90)

which is not invertible because this matrix has 0 determinant (it has an eigenvector k with eigenvalue 0). The physical reason its not invertible is because we cant uniquely solve for A in terms of J because of gauge invariance: A A + (x) (14.91)

That is, many currents correspond to the same vector eld. Our previous solution was to gauge x by 1 adding the term ( A )2 to the Lagrangian. Now we will justify that prescription, and prove gauge invariance in general, through the Fadyeev-Popov procedure. With a general set of elds i and interactions we are interested in computing ZO = DA Diei

d4xL[A, i]

(14.92)

where O refers to whatever were taking the correlation function of (for example, O = (x) ( y )) |T {O}| = ZO Z1 (14.93)

Recall that under a gauge transformation A = . Since we can always go to a gauge where 1 A = 0, this means we can nd a function = A . Now consider the following function f () = De

i d4x ( )2

1

(14.94)

This is just some function of , probably innite. Now lets shift (x) (x) (x) = (x) 1 A (14.95)

149

i d4x ( A )2

1

(14.96)

This is still just the same function of , which despite appearances, is independent of A . So, ZO = 1 f () DDA Die

i d4xL[A,i]+ ( A )2

1

(14.97)

Now lets do the gauge transformation shift, with (x) as our gauge parameter.

A = A + i = eii

(14.98) (14.99)

Again the measure DDA Di and the action L[A, i] dont change. O may change. For example, if its O = A (x1) A (xn) i(xn +1) j (xm) The A transform to A + k and the k parts vanish by the Ward identity. The elds i will give phases ei(xi), which dont dont depend on . Then we get Dei(xn+1) ei(xm) = D (14.100)

where (x) = ei(xn+1) ei(xm) (x). So this factor is actually independent of all the x s. Therefore, overall, we get some constant normalization times the gauge-xed path integral ZO = N

1

DA Die

i d4xL[A,i]+ ( A )2

(14.101)

The N drops out. The point is that ZO only depends on through its normalization. Thus the timeordered products are independent. Thus all S -matrix elements of gauge invariant operators are guaranteed to be independent of , which is the statement of gauge invariance. This proof is completely non-perturbative.

For a path integral over fermions, its basically the same, but we have to allow for the fact that the fermions anticommute. In the quantum theory, we saw that the quantum elds must anticommute to have a Lorentz-invariant S -matrix. But even classically, a Lorentz invariant spinor inner product must be antisymmetric. For example, the only Lorentz invariant constructed from a single Weyl spinor is

T L 2 L =

1 2

i i

1 2

= i( 1 2 2 1) = | | | |

(14.103)

From this we concluded that { 1, 2} = 0 which means (x) is valued in the anti-commuting Grassman algebra. The Grassman numbers is simply a set of objects which add commutatively and can by multiplied by real numbers. Consider a general function f () of Grassman numbers . Since 2 = , } = 0, the Taylor expansion of f () around = 0 stops at rst order f () = a + b (14.104)

150

Path Integrals

The basic thing we want to do with these functions is integrate them over all Grassman numbers to get a real number out. Since were making up the rules for Grassman numbers as we go along, lets just dene d (a + b ) = b That is, d = 0, d = 1 (14.106) (14.105)

We also need a convention for multiple integrals, so we say d1d221 = Thus, d2d121 = 1 (14.108) d11 = 1 (14.107)

And so on. These rules are internally consistent, and have some proper mathematical justication, which is totally uninteresting. Now, lets try our Gaussian integral

1

I=

de 2

a 2

d = 0

(14.109)

Since 2 = 0. Lets try with two s. Let = (1 2)T and consider TA . Then TA = (A12 A21 )12 = det(A)12 (14.110)

Where we have taken A antisymmetric to write it as a determinant. The symmetric part of A simply doesnt contribute. Then this is d1d2e

T

(14.111)

K A K eK d = det(A)

This is very dierent from the bosonic integral dK pe

2K pA K p

1

(14.112)

(14.113)

But thats what it is. This det factor comes up from time to time, but mostly it is just the innite normalization of the path integral, which we can ignore in taking ratios. To calculate the generating functional Z [J ] we need a fermionic source . Lets just take 2 elds and , and complete the square Then A + = ( + + A 1)A( + A 1 ) A 1

A + + A 1 e dd = e A = e

1

(14.114)

+ A 1)A( + A 1 ) e( dd

A A 1 e dd = det(A) e A = Ne

1

151

In particular the two point function is (0) (x)}|0 = 0|T { For a free Dirac eld, Z [] = ei DD

(i m + i) + + d4x[

d2 d (0)d (x)

A + + e DD

| =0 = NA1

(14.118)

(14.119)

where again, the i comes in to make the path integral converge. Then A = i m + i and we have d2Z [ ] (0) (x)}|0 = 1 0|T { (x) Z [ ] d (0)d =

| =0 = i(i m + i)1

(14.120) (14.121)

d4 p i eipx (2 )4 p m + i

This simplies using (p m)(p + m) = p2 m2, which implies So p+m 1 = p m + i p2 m2 + i (14.122) d4 p i(p + m) ipx e (2 )4 p2 m2 + i (14.123)

which is the Dirac propagator. So Fermionic path integrals seem like they would be really hard and confusing, but in the end they are quite simple and you can mostly just forget about the fact that there this a lot of weird mathematics going into them.

An important feature of the path integral is that it tells us how the classical equations of motion are modied in the quantum theory. These are known as Schwinger-Dyson equations. (x1) (x2): Consider the correlation function of Z12 = exp i DA DD 1 2 (i + eA + m) + d4x F 4 ei (x) (x) (x) (x) + i (x) (x) (x) (x1) (x2) e i( x1)ei (x2) (x1) (x2) eiS DA DD (x1) (x2) (14.124)

Under a eld redenition, (14.125) the measure is invariant. The Lagrangian is not invariant, since we have not transformed A . Instead, (14.126) (14.127)

But since we are integrating over all , the path integral is invariant. Thus, expanding to rst order in 0= (14.128) (14.129)

(x) (x) (x1) (x2) i (x1) (x1) (x2) + i(x2) (x1) (x2) d4x i (x) d4x (x x1)(x). Also, we dene

(14.130)

152

Path Integrals

and integrate the j term by parts. Then, 0= eiS DA DD (x1) (x2) d4x (x)[ j (x) (x x1) + (x x2)] (14.131)

Dividing by Z [0], this implies (x1) (x2)} = (x x1) 0|T { (x1) (x2)} (x x2) 0|T { (x1) (x2)} 0|T { j (x) This is known as a Schwinger-Dyson equation.

Recall that classically, j = 0. So this says that that equation still holds within correlation functions, up to contact interactions where x x j , where x j is another point appearing in the correlation function. Note that this equation is exact. We derived it by expanding to rst order in , but that just means we take innitesimal transformations, which is not the same as calculating the correlation function to rst order in e. While this equation looks messy, it is actually just a generalization of the Ward identity. To see that, Fourier transform (x1) (x2)} = 0|T { j (x) (x1) (x2)} = 0|T { d4 p d4 q1 d4 q2 ipx iq1x1 iq2x2 e e e M ( p, q1, q2) (2 )4 (2 )4 (2 )4 d4 q2 d4 q2 iq1x1 iq2x2 M0( q1, q2) e e (2 )4 (2 )4 (14.132) (14.133) (14.134)

So,

(x1) (x2)} = M0( q1 + p, q2) d4xd4x1d4x2eipxeiq1x2eiq2x2 (x x1) 0|T { Then we have p M ( p, q1, q2) = M0( q1 + p, q2) M0( q1, q2 + p)

(14.135)

This is known as a generalized Ward-Takahashi identity. This equation actaully implies the Ward identity. To see it, rst, observe that M0( q, q ) is just the two point function for an electron propogator with incoming momentum q and outgoing momentum q . By momentum conservation, it will vanish unless q = q . Thus M0( q, q ) = M0( q ). The Ward identity, with q = q1 incoming is then p M ( p, q ) = M0( q + p) M0( q ) (14.136)

Now if the put the electron on shell, as we must for S-matrix elements by LSZ, then q = m and M0( q + p) = M0( q ), since neither depend on the momentum factors. So we nd p M = 0. The function M is directly related to matrix elements of photons. Indeed, the interac (x1) (x2) term is the matrix element of (x1) (x2) in the presence of an external current. tion j (x) The current interacts through the photon, so j can be thought of as a place holder for the photon polarization. So, ( q1) ( q2)} = M ( p, q1, q2) = M ( p, q ) 0|T {A ( p) (14.137) So p M is the regular Ward identity for S-matrix elements we have been using all along. This is another way to prove it. The more general Ward-Takahashi identity is especially useful for proving non-perturbative statements M0( q + p). One example is the nonabout matrix elements when the electron is not on-shell: M0( q ) renormalization of electric charge, which we will discuss shortly.

153

There is a beautiful symmetry called BRST invariance, which is a residual exact symmetry of the Lagrangian even after gauge xing. It is particularly useful for studying more complicated gauge theories, but it is a little easier to understand in the QED case. Notice that the gauge xing term ( A )2 is invariant under gauge transformations A A + for = 0. So this is a residual symmetry of the entire Lagrangian. As we have already seen, it is awkward to deal with constrained theories, and constraints on symmetries are no dierent. So consider adding to the Lagrangian two new free elds c and d 1 L = L[A, i] + ( A )2 d c DcDbDA Die

i d4xL[A,i]+ ( A )2 d c

1

(14.138)

(14.139) c=

The elds d and c are free, so their path integral can be solved exactly. The equations of motion are d = 0. This path integral has an unconstrained global symmetry, parametrized by , for which i = ci A = c(x) d = 2 ( A ) 2

All we did was replace the constrained transformation with = 0 with an unconstrained one. But it is the same, since c = 0 is exact because c is a free eld. So we have isolated a residual symmetry in the gauge xed Lagrangian. It is called BRST invariance. Actually, for technical reasons, BRST requires that be an anti-commuting Grassman number. You can check that if and b and c are fermionic, then the transformation is nilpotent 2 = 0. But none of this is relevant for QED. To see why BRST is powerful, consider free solutions A (x) =

i

ai

c(x) = ac d(x) = ad

So the free solutions are characterized by 6 numbers. For the A eld, there are two physical transverse 1, 2 ,2 modes 1 which are normalizable and transverse k = 0. The two unphysical modes are the backwards b polarized mode b 0, and the forward polarized mode f , which is not transverse k = 1 = k , which is not normalizable. So we can think of free particles as being characterized by one big 6-component multiplet (a1, a2, a f , ab , ac , ad) (14.148)

154

Path Integrals

Under BRST transformations, A = k c = ac f so a f = ac. Since d = 2 k A = 2 2 ab. Thus 2 (a1, a2, a f , ab , ac , ad) (a1, a2, a f + ac , ab , ac , ad + 2 ab)

2 2

so ad = (14.149)

The point is that the only elds involved in this transformation of the unphysical polarizations and the ghost elds a and b. Since the global symmetry corresponds to a conserved current, by Noethers theorem, only the unphysical particles are charged under the symmetry. So if we start with a state with no unphysical particles, by charge conservation, we will end up in a state with no unphysical particles. This means that the S-matrix restricted to physical states is unitary. We knew this already, since QED has a Ward identity, but for more complicated gauge theories, the extra symmetry is an important tool.

15.1 Introduction

Now we come to the real heart of quantum eld theory: loops. Loops generically are innite. For example, the vacuum polarization diagram in scalar QED is

pk k p p

This is the same quadratically divergent integral Oppenheimer found when he tried to calculate the Lamb shift. So what are we supposed to do about it? The basic answer is very simple: this loop is not by itself measurable. As long as we are always computing physical measurable quantities, the answer will come out nite. However, in practice the way it works is a bit more complicated. Instead of computing a physical thing all along, we regulate the innite to get something nite in the intermediate steps. Then when all the pieces are put together, the answer for the observable turns out to be independent of the regulator. This is the program of renormalization. Why its called renormalization will become clear soon enough.

H=

= ( ie)2

2k p 2k + p d4k 4 (2 ) ( p k )2 m2 k 2 m2

(15.1)

Lets start with the most obvious divergence, that in the Hamiltonian. Remember that d3k 1 k ak ak + (2 )3 2 (15.3)

where k = k . So the contribution to the vacuum energy of the photon zero modes is E = 0|H|0 = 1 d3k k 2 (2 )3 2 4 k 3dk = (15.4)

Is this a totally meaningless quantity? Well, rst of all, we expect that zero point energy is meaningless. For example, with potential energy, only energy dierences matter and the absolute energy is irrelevant. What about here, can we use this zero-point energy to calculate an energy dierence? We can! Consider asking what is the zero-point energy in a box of size a. If the energy changes with a then we dE can calculate F = da which will be a force on the walls of the box. In this case, we have a natural infrared 1 (low energy) cuto on k : k > a . Of course, this doesnt cut o the ultraviolet (high energy) divergence at large k , but if were careful there will be a nite residual dependence on a. To be careful, we realize immediately that if we change a then the energy inside and outside the box will change, which messes things up. So lets put in a third wall on our box far away, at L a. Then the energy completely outside the box is independent of r , so we can immediately drop it. 155

156

Well work with a one dimensional box for simplicity, and use a scalar eld instead of the photon. In one dimension of size r the frequencies are just n = r n so this integral becomes a sum E (r ) =

n

n , 2

n = n r

(15.5)

still innite, of course. The total energy is the sum of the energy on the right side r = (L a) plus the energy on the left side, d = a: 1 1 n (15.6) Etot (a) = E (a) + E (L a) = + a La 2

n =1

We dont expect the total energy to be nite, but we do hope to nd a nite value for the force: F ( a) = dEtot = da 1 1 a2 (L a)2 2

n =1

(15.7)

So the plates are innitely repulsive. Thats obviously wrong. What are we missing? Physics! These boundaries at 0, r, L are forcing the electromagnetic waves to be quantized. That is from an interaction of the photons with the boundary plates. These plates are made of atoms. Now think about these superhigh energy radiation modes, with supersmall wavelengths. They are are going to just plow through the walls of the box. Since we are only interested in the modes which are aected by the walls, these ultrahigh frequency modes should be irrelevant.

Say we put in a high frequency cuto, < . We can think of as to limit high-frequency light from contributing. Then nm ax (r ) = r So, 1 E (r ) = r2 Then

nm a x 1 , atom ic size

dE

n=

n =1

to t So we get some innite constant, but one which is independent of a. Thus F (a) = da = 0. Now the force is no longer innite, but vanishes. Is that the right answer? Yes, to leading order. But we were a little two quick with this calculation. The hard cuto means a mode is either included or not. Thus even though we change r continuously, nmax = r can only change by discrete amounts. We can write this mathematically with a oor function

nm ax (r ) = r E (r ) = r (r + 1) 4r

(15.13) (15.14)

L a (L a + 1) a (a + 1) + La a 4

(15.15)

157

Above we found that if we remove the oors, Etot is constant but now theres clearly some a dependence. We can always write r = r x with 0 < x < 1. Then E (r ) = 1 2 r + 2 x x(1 x) 4r 4 (15.16)

For simplicity, we can assume L is an integer, so L = L . Then Etot (a) simplies to 1 1 x(1 x) Etot (a) = L2 + 4 4 a La

(15.17)

Note that for x = 0, we nd Etot = 4 L4, which is innite as , but not the same innity as without the oor functions, Etot = 4 (L4 + 2). This can be traced to the fact that y y = 0 but y + y = 1. It is of no consequence physically, because the innity is not physical. Now we can take L giving Etot (a) L2 x(1 x) (15.18) 4 4a Since x = a a , then we should nd a periodic function of period multiply by a: 2 1 f (a) = a Etot (a) 2L = x(1 x) 4 2

1 L

We can check by plotting f (a) (with the exact Etot (a) ), we can see the periodicity explicitly

0.10 0.05 0.00 fa 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

4 a

10

Figure 15.1. Casimir energy function f (a) = a Eto t (a) 4 2L for a hard cuto 1, with L = 1000. The line is

Thus the total energy is not smooth! We can smooth it out by averaging the energy over x between 0 1 and 1, using x(1 x) = 6 so, (15.20) Etot (a) L2 24a 4 Then we get a non-trivial result for the force: F (a) = Putting back in the dEtot = da 24a2 (15.21)

158

This is an attractive force. We can see that the force is purely quantum mechanical because it is proportional to . In 3 dimensions, with the 2 photon polarizations, the answer is F (a) = 2 c A 240 a4 (15.23)

where A is the area of the walls of the box. The Casimir force has been observed (only conclusively in 1997!).

I hope you nd this calculation of the Casimir eect incredibly disconcerting. We found the force to be independent of . But the calculation seemed to be very sensitive to what type of cuto we actually used. What if we took a dierent model besides the hard cuto for regulating the UV modes? It turns out you will get the same answer no matter what. Thats a pretty amazing fact, so lets try a couple more regulators.

Another reasonable physical assumption besides a hard cuto would be that there is some penetration depth of the modes into the walls, with high frequency modes getting further. This means that the contribution of high frequency modes to the relevant energy sum is exponentially suppressed. Thus we can try E (r ) = This is called heat kernel regularization. Expanding with n = r n E (r ) = Now we can calculate

n =1

1 2

nen/()

n

(15.24)

1 r2

n =1

ne n/(r) =

1 r2

nm a x

ne n ,

n =1

1 1 r

(15.25)

ne n =

n =1 1

e n =

e 1 1 2 1 = = 2 + + 2 (1 e ) 12 240 1e

(15.26)

Already, we see the factor 12 appearing. So 1 2 2 1 1 E (r ) = r = r 2 + + r2 12 r 22 2 24 r Then, d 2 1 d 1 F (a) = [E (L a) + E (a)] = L + da 2 da 24 L a a = Now take L and we get which is the same thing. 1 1 2 2 24 (L a) a F (a) = c 24 a2 +

159

What else can we try? We can use a Gaussian regulator E (r ) = Or a zeta-function regulator E (r ) = 1 2 1 2 ne

n

n 2 ( )

(15.31)

n

n

(15.32)

where we take s 0 instead of max and have added an arbitrary scale to keep the dimensions correct. does not have to be large it should drop out for any . Lets work out the zeta-function case. Substituting in for n we get E (r ) = 1 2 r

1s

s

n

n1 s

(15.33)

This sum is the denition of the Riemann zeta-function: n1 s = (s 1) = E (r ) = 1 0.165 s + 12 (15.34) (15.35)

So we get

1 1 1 + O ( s) [ (s 1)] = 12 r2 r2

the same constant from this approach as before. Note also that, we dont get the divergent piece at all. The energy comes out as 1 1 E (r ) = + (15.36) r2 12 This is the same as what the heat-kernel regularization gave, but with a dierent divergent term. In this case, the divergent term is just 0. Thats ok, because the divergent term is not physical, but it is reas1 suring that the physical term, the 12 comes out the same. All four of the regulators agree: E (r ) = 1 2 n ( n) ne

n

n

(hard cuto)

E (r ) = E (r ) = 1 2

1 2 1 2

ne

n

n 2 ( )

E (r ) =

n

n

(15.40)

That these regulators all agree is reasuring, but seems somewhat mysterious.

Actaully, Casimir himself showed in his original paper a way to calculate this sum in a regulator independent way. n n f( ) (15.41) E (a) = a a 2 n Then n n f (15.42) E (L a) = (L a)2 (L a)2 (L a) 2

160

we can take the continuum limit with x = (L a) . Then E (L a) = L2 2 xdxf (x) a2 2 xdxf (x) (15.43)

n

xdxf (x)

(15.44)

n

n ) a

ndnf (

n ) a

(15.45)

The dierence between an innite sum and an innite integral is given by a Euler-McClaurin series

N 0 N

F (n)dn

F (n) =

n =1

F (0) + F (N ) F (N ) F (0) + + 12 2

1

+ Bj

F ( j +1)(N ) F ( j +1)(0) j!

where B j are the Bernoulli numbers. B2 = 6 . n In our case, F (n) = nf ( a ). So, assuming that then

x

lim xf (x) = 0

(15.46) (15.47)

1 Etot = 2L +O 2 2 24a a

(15.48)

The important point is that this only depends on f (0), that is, the propertires of the energy spectrum near 0, i.e. in the infrared. So, The Casimir force is an infrared eect Of course, we knew this should be true, becuase only modes of size transmit the force. The regulator must only satisfy f (0) = 1 and

x 1 a

1

lim xf (x) = 0

meaning that f (x) does not aect the energies as E 0 and that f (x) dies faster than x at high energy. You can see that all 4 of the regulators satisfy these requirements. The hard cuto is a mess because it is not dierentiable.

A funny way to write what we have done is to replace 2r n = 24r 1 12 (15.50) (15.51)

So that we take

1+2+3+

161

This relation has an important use in string theory. In string theory, the mass of particles is determined by the string tension : 1 m2 = n + E0 (15.52) where c is the constant Casimir energy and n is the excitation number. So there is a whole tower of particles with dierent masses. In d dimensions, E0 =

1

1 2d 2

1 12

(15.53)

where the 12 comes from the same series we have just summed. Now, you can show in string theory that the n = 1 excitations have two polarizations. So they must be massless. Then solving for m = 0 you nd d = 26. Thats why string theory takes place in 26 dimensions. If you do the same calculation for the superstring, you nd d = 10.

15.5 Counterterms

In the above analysis, we not only took max but also L . Why did we need this third boundary at r = L at all? Lets suppose we didnt have it, but just calculated the energy inside the box of size r . Then we would get + (15.54) E ( r ) = r 2 24 r 2 This rst term is linear in the volume. It can be interpreted as saying there is some nite energy density E = r = 2 2. Thus suppose instead of just the free eld we were using to calculate the ground state energy, we took L= + c (15.55) where c is constant. This new term gives an innite contribution from dxc in the action. Now if we choose c = 2 2 it exactly cancels the 2 r 2 term. c is just some other unmeasurable zero-point energy. We see it is convenient to choose it to be something to cancel the nite term. In the zeta-function regulator, where no divergent terms come out of the calculation, we could take c = 0. So what we choose for c will depend on what regulator we want. c is called a counterterm. Counterterms give purely innite contributions to intermediate steps in calculations, but when we compute physical quantities they drop out.

Before we do any physical calculation, lets get an overview of the way things are going to work out. Its easiest to do this in a scalar eld theory. So, start with 4 theory 1 L = + 4 4! 2 (15.56)

The reason we use a 4 interaction, instead of g3 is because is dimensionless, while g has dimensions of mass. Thus dealing with renormalization is slightly simpler because there are fewer mass scales to deal with, but we could have done 3 instead. We have also set the mass of to zero, for simplicity. Then at tree-level, scattering is given by the simple cross diagram

p1 p3

i M1 =

p2 p4

= i

(15.57)

162

The leading correction comes from loops, such as this s-channel one

p1 p3

iM2 =

There is also a t and u channel diagram, but lets forget about them (for example, if we had 3 elds with a 2 2 2 ( 2 1 2 + 2 3) interaction, there would only be an s-channel contribution to 1 1 3 3). 2! Let p = p1 + p2 = p3 + p4, then k1 + k2 = p so we can set k1 = k and k2 = p k and integrate over k . The diagram becomes i d4k i (15.59) iM2 = (i)2 (2 )4 k 2 ( p k )2 Now change variables to k = 2 ( q + p) so k p = 2 ( q p). Then this simplies to iM2 = 2 d4 q 1 (2 )4 ( q 2 s)2

d4 q q4 1 1

k1 k2 p2 p4

(15.58)

Here we see the divergence: at large q this becomes terize the divergence, lets take a derivative d iM2 = 2 ds

d4 q 2 (2 )4 ( q 2 s)3

(15.61)

Its not too hard to work out this integral, since its convergent. By dimensional analysis, the result has 1 mass dimension 2 and since s is the only scale in the integral, the answer must be c s for some number c. The exact integral is not too hard to do, but we will just quote the answer i d iM2 = 2 16 2s ds (15.62)

Every QFT textbook will have formulas and derivations for integrals of this type, which are totally standard. This means that 2 M2 = log(s) + c (15.63) 16 2 where c is an integration constant. Since the integral is divergent, c is going to be innity. Also, since s has dimension of mass squared, its nice to write the constant as c = log 2 where has dimension of mass. Then we have s 2 log( 2 ) (15.64) M2 = 16 2 So the total matrix element is s 2 log( 2 ) (15.65) M(s) = 16 2 Now we must renormalize.

15.6.1 renormalizion of

First of all, notice that while M(s) is innite, the dierence between M(s1) and M(s0) at two dierent scales is nite: 2 s M(s1) M(s2) = 2 log( 2 ) (15.66) s1 Should we also expect that M(s) itself be nite? After all, M2 is supposed to be a physical cross section.

163

To answer this, lets think more about . should be measuring the strength of the 4 interaction. So to measure we would simple measure the cross section for scattering, or equivalently, M. But this matrix element is not just proportional to but also has the 2 correction above. Thus, it is impossible to simply extract from this scattering process. Instead, let us just dene a renormalized as the value of the matrix element at a particular s = s0. So 2 s R M(s0) = log( 0 )+ (15.67) 16 2 2 This equation relates the parameter of the Lagrangian to the value of the observed scatting amplitude R at a particular center-of-mass energy s0. We can also conclude that R is nite, while must be innite, to cancel the innity from log2. Next, solve for in terms of R: R = + a2 + = R a2 = R a2 R+ (15.68)

Note that to invert this equation, we work order by order in , which is only a formal perturbation expansion, as = , but it equivalent to a perturbation expansion in , since counts the loop factors. So, = R + 2 s R ) + log( 0 16 2 2 2 s log( 2 ) 2 16 (15.69)

Now, suppose we measure the cross section at a dierent center-of-mass energy s. Then M ( s) = = R + (15.70) (15.71) (15.72)

This equation now gives us a general expression for M which is nite order-by-order in perturbation theory.

Another way of getting the same result is to add a counterterm to the Larganian. That means adding another interaction just like the rst, but innite. So we take as our Lagrangian 1 L = + R 4 + c t 4 2 4! 4! (15.73)

2 where the counterterm ct is innite, but formally of order 2 R. Then, working to order R, the amplitude is s 2 (15.74) M(s) = R + c t R2 log( 2 ) 16

Now we can choose ct to be whatever we want. If we take it to be ct = Then, 2 s R log( 0 ) 2 16 2 2 s R log( ) s0 16 2 (15.75) (15.76)

M(s) = R

which is nite. In particular, this choice of ct makes M(s0) = R, which was our denition of R above.

164

Doing things this way, with counterterms but as a perturbative expansion in the physical coupling R is known as renormalized perturbation theory . The previous way, where we compute physical quantities like M(s1) M(s2) directly is sometimes called physical pertrubation theory . The two are equivalent. But for complicated calculations, renormalized perturbation theory is much easier.

16.1 Feynman Parameters

One of the best tricks is the Feynman Parameter trick. Heres a bunch of integrals that we will need (see Peskin and Schroeder for the derivations) 1 = AB

1

dx

0

1 = [A + (B A)x]2

1 0

1 0

dxdy (x + y 1)

1 [xA + yB ]2

1 = AB n 1 = ABC

1 0

dxdy (x + y 1)

ny n 1 [xA + yB ]n +1 2 [xA + yB + zC ]3

dxdydz (x + y + z 1)

The reason these are useful is that they let us complete the square in the denominator.

A nice way to do Minkowski integrals, like the ones above, is to observe that once the i factors are put in, they look like 1 d4k (16.4) (2 )4 (k 2 + i)3

2 2

K + i and k0 = k K + + i. After all, the location of these poles Which has poles at k0 = k comes from time ordering, which was the whole reason we use i to begin with. So, the poles are in the top left and bottom right quadrants of the k0 complex plane for. Thus, we can rotate the contour of integration counterclockwise from the real line to the imaginary line. That is, the substitution k0 i k0 is 2 2 2 2 K 2 = kE K 2 is the Euclidean momentum. , where kE = k0 +k allowed. Then k 2 k0 k 2 The volume of a 3D Euclidean sphere is 2 , so

d4kE 1 2 f (kE )= 2 (2 )4 8 This makes the integral much easier d4k 1 =i (2 )4 (k 2 )3 = ( 1)3 i 8 2 =

0 0 3 2 kE dkEf (kE )

(16.5)

1 d4kE 2 (2 )4 ( kE )3 dkE

3 kE 2 (kE + )3

i 1 8 2 4 165

166

So, d4k 1 i = (2 )4 (k 2 )3 32 2 Other formulas following from Wick rotations are d4k k2 i 1 = 4 2 (2 ) (k )4 48 2 d4k 1 ( 1)r 1 1 =i r 4 2 (2 ) (k ) (4 )2 (r 1)(r 2) r 2 k2 ( 1)r 1 2 1 d4k = i (4 )2 (r 1)(r 2)(r 3) (r 3) (2 )4 (k 2 )r (16.10) (16.11) (16.12) (16.9)

and so on. These formulas are all derived in section 6.3 of Peskin and Schroeder. The Wick rotation can only be justied if the integral is convergent. Well, if its not convergent, it is useless to Wick rotate anyway, since you will still get innity. But the technical problem is the divergence can indicate the presence of new poles that invalidate the contour rotation. Keep in mind that the Wick rotation is just a trick to do these integrals. There is nothing physical about it.

We have already seen that the quadratic integral is logarithmically divergent I () = 1 d4k = (2 )4 (k 2 + i)2 2 i d4k = 16 2 (2 )4 (k 2 + i)3 I () = i log 16 2 2 (16.13)

But if we take the derivative, the integral can be done d I () = d (16.14) (16.15)

So

where is some parameter. This trick is not a real regulator. Since is just a constant of integration, we wouldnt know how to use the same regulator with a dierent integral, which will be necessary to cancel divergences in more complicated problems. But with any proper regulator, the integral is nite and this trick is totally valid, thus the result will always be of this form.

One useful regulator was invented by Pauli and Villars. A normal propagator looks like m = i p2 m2 + i 1 p2 M 2 + i (16.16)

They add a particle with very large mass, but whose propagator lacks the factor of i M = (16.17)

Keep in mind that the sign of the residue of the propagator is dictated by unitarity a real particle with this sign would have negative norm, and violate conservation of probability. So this particle is purely ctitious, we call it a ghost .

167

An amplitude will sum over the real particle, with mass m and the ghost particle, with xed large mass M m. Without the i, we get a relative minus sign in the loop. So, we get something like I= 1 d4k 1 (2 )4 (k 2 m2 + i)2 (k 2 M 2 + i)2

1

(16.18)

You can now see that for k M m these terms are both k4 and so they cancel. To do this integral, since it is convergent, we can Wick rotate. Then we get I= i ( 1)2 8 2

0

dkE

i M2 m2 k 2 m2 2 + log 2 2 2 2 2 16 k M k m k M2 = i m2 log 16 2 M 2

This is the same answer we got from the derivative trick above. A useful trick in Pauli villars is to note that 1 1 = k 2 m2 k 2 M 2

M2 m2

1 dz (k 2 z )2

(16.22)

which allows us to simply square the propagator and add another Feynmanlike paramter z . This can be a useful trick for computing PV regulated integrals in pracice. Also note that dm2 d 1 = 2 2 dm k m2 dm2 (k 2 m2)2 1 (16.23)

So in fact PV is fancy, but systematic, way of implementing the derivatie trick. Pauli-Villars is occasionally useful. But for complicated multiloop diagrams, you need to introduce many ctitious particles (one for each real particle will not do it), and it quickly becomes impractical. You also cant give the photon a ghost partner with a large mass because this mass breaks gauge invariance (actually a PV photon does work in QED but it will not it more general gauge theories).

The most important regulator you will encounter is dimensional regularization, invented by t Hooft. The basic idea is that an integral like 1 ddk (16.24) 2 d (2 ) (k + i)2 is divergent only if d > 4, when there are more powers of k upstairs than downstairs. But if d < 4, then it will converge. If its convergent we can Wick rotate, and the answer comes from just analytically continuing all our formulas above to d dimensions. The volume of a sphere in various dimensions is d 2 = 2 (circle), The general formula is d d = 2 d/2 (d/2) (16.26) d 3 = 4 (sphere), d 4 = 2 3 (3 sphere) (16.25)

where (x) is the Gamma function. (x) comes up a lot. It is the analytic continuation of the factorial: (x + 1) = x!, and (1) = (2) = 1. (z ) has simple poles at 0 and all the negative integers.

168

2 2

d

dkE

d 1 kE 2 (kE + )2

(16.27)

(16.28)

So here we see the function emerging again. We will often need to expand (x) around the pole at x = 0: 1 E + O () + (16.29) Here, E is the Euler-Mascheroni constant E 0.577. The pole comes from going back to d = 4, so we will often write d = 4 [note: sometimes people use d = 4 2, so if youre ever o by a factor of 2 in comparing to the literature, check this.] Finally, we like to have our matrix elements in d dimensions have the same mass dimension as our matrix elements in d = 4. Thus we analytically continue our integral as () = d4k 1 = lim 4 d (2 )4 (k 2 + i)2 d 4 ddk 1 (2 )d (k 2 + i)2 (16.30)

is some regulator dependant constant with dimension of mass . In contrast to the other regulators (like M in Pauli-Villars, or in general), is not a large mass scale. That is, dim reg agrees with our original integral not when but when d 4. It is very important to keep this in mind as we go along. Then we have, I = 4 d ddk 1 i 4d 1 = 4 d ( ) 2 (2 )d (k 2 + i)2 (4 )d/2 1 2 + ( E + log4 + log 2 log) + O () 16 2 = 4e E2 1 2 + log + O ( ) 2 m2 16

ddk 1 (2 )d 2 2

d

(16.31)

Now letting d = 4 we expand this around = 0 and get I= (16.32) (16.33) and the comes from (16.34) (16.35)

The E comes from the integral , the 4 comes from the phase space k4 d E 2 the . This combination 4e comes up a lot, so we give it a name 2 = 4e E2 Thus I (m) = 2 2 i + log 2 + O() 2 m 16

Sometimes people omit the twiddle and just write for . Note that there is still a divergence in this expression as 0. There are two unphysical ingredients in dim reg, factors of and factors of . Both must drop out in physical quantities, for example I (m1) I (m2) is independent of and . An important feature of dimensional regularization is that it helps characterize the degree to which integrals diverge. For example, an integral like d4k 1 k4 (16.36)

is logarithmically divergent. In d dimensions, it has a simple pole at d = 4, and no other poles for d < 4. 4d You can see this from the ( 2 ) term in Eq. (16.28).

16.7 Summary

169

1 k2

d4k

(16.37)

2 which is quadratically divergent. has a strong singularity at k = . With a cuto, it goes like k2 However, in d dimensions, it is not divergent at all, it just has a funny dependence on d. If d = 2, the integral would be logarithmically divergent, so there is a corresponding pole in the dim reg amplitude at d = 2. 2d This shows up in a ( 2 ) term, which has poles at d = 2 and d = 4, but no poles for d < 2. So dim reg translates the degree of divergence into the singularity structure of the amplitudes in d dimensions. This can be really helpful for seeing the singularity structure of more complicated integrals. Some generally useful dim-reg formula are given in Appendix A of P&S.

16.6 k integrals

If we have an integral with factors of momenta, such as k k in the numerator: k k d4k 2 4 (2 ) (k )4 (16.38)

we have another trick for simplifying them. Since the denominator only depends on the scalar p2, it is impossible for the integral to produce a piece proportional to p or p anymore. Thus the k k term must give something proportional to g . That is, we must get the same thing as having replaced k k by 1 1 ck 2 g for some number c. Contracting with g , we see that c = 4 or more generally c = d . ddk k k = (k 2 )4 ddk

1 k k d (k 2 )4

(16.39)

Then the integrand is antisymmetric under k k . Since we are integrating over all k , the integral therefore vanishes. So we will only need to keep terms with even powers of k in the numerator.

16.7 Summary

The main advantage of dimensional regularization is that it preserves gauge invariance, since we can have gauge elds in any dimension. Note that Pauli-Villars breaks gauge invariance because a massive gauge boson, ghost or not, cannot be gauge invariant. On the other hand, Pauli-Villars works nicely for fermions, while fermions in d dimensions can be messy because we have to analytically continue the matrix algebra. When you have fermions and gauge bosons in the loop, people generally use dimensional regularization. In fact, dim reg is practically the only regulator used for serious computations these days. You will also encounter other regulators from time to time, such as Hard cuto kE < . This breaks translation invariance, and usually every symmetry in the theory. But it is perhaps the most intuitive regularization procedure. Point splitting (Dirac 1934). Divergences at k correspond to two elds approaching each other x1 x2. Point splitting puts a lower bound on this x1 x2 > . This also breaks translation invariance and is impractical for gauge theories, but is useful in theories with composite operators (x) (x)). (such as a current j (x) = Lattice regularization. Breaks translation invariance and Lorentz invariance. But it is possible to construct a lattice such that translation and Lorentz invariance are restored at large distances Analytic regularization. Change propagator from (k 2 m2) 1 (k 2 m2) . This also breaks Gauge invariance, but is often easy to use.

17.1 Introduction

A one-loop correction to this comes from a e+e loop inside the photon line

pk k p p

This will give us a correction to V (r) proportional to e4. We will show that the charge e is innite, but it can be replaced by a renormalized charge, order by order in perturbation theory. And this has a physical eect: a correction to Coulombs law, predicted by quantum eld theory. We want to work out that prediction and compare to experiment. You can think of the graph as the creation of virtual e+e pairs, that is, a virtual dipole. In the same way that a dielectric material such as water, would get polarized if we put it in a electric eld, this graph tells us how the vacuum itself gets polarized when it interacts with electromagnetic radiation. So this loop graph is called the vacuum polarization amplitude. The loop is a mess because it involves photons and spinors. So lets build it up in pieces, starting with 3 theory, then scalar QED, then nally real QED. Even this loop is a mess, but we can do it with some tricks and a lot of hard work!

As a warm-up for the vacuum polarization calculation in QED, we will start with scalar 3 theory with Lagrangian g 1 (17.4) L = ( + m2) + 3 3! 2 So now we want to compute iM =

pk k p p

which will tell us the virtual correction to the Yukawa potential. We will allow the initial and nal line to i be o-shell: p2 m2, since we are calculating the correction to the initial propagator p2 m2 which also must have p2 m2 to make any sense. For example, in a t-channel scattering process, we would have t = p2 so p2 characterizes the scattering angle. 171

e2 r

is given by the exchange of a single photon e \=p 2

2

(17.1)

2 d3 p e2 i K K =e e px 2 3 r (2 ) p

(17.2)

(17.3)

1 = (ig )2 2

d4k i i 4 2 2 2 (2 ) ( p k ) m + i k m2 + i

(17.5)

172

Vacuum Polarization

1

dx

0

1 [A + (B A)x]2

(17.6)

with A = ( p k )2 m2 + i and B = k 2 m2 + i, A + [B A]x = ( p k )2 m2 + i + k 2 ( p k )2 x = k 2 2 kp (1 x) + p2 p2x m2 + i So, = (k p(1 x))2 + p2x(1 x) m2 + i 1 1 d4k (2 )4 ( p k )2 m2 + i k 2 m2 + i = d4k (2 )4

1

dx

0

1

(17.10)

Now shift k k + p(1 x) in the integral. The measure is unchanged, and we get iM = g2 2 d4k (2 )4 dx

0

(17.11)

At this point, we can use our formulas above (say from Pauli-Villars with regulator mass ): d4k 1 i = log (2 )4 (k 2 + i)2 16 2 2 So, with = p2x(1 x) m2 , we get iM = ig 2 32 2

1

(17.12)

dx log

0

m2 + tx(1 x) , 2

t = p2

(17.13)

We have replaced p2 by t to emphasize the fact that the momentum of a virtual scalar, for example, in t channel exchange will be spacelike, so t = p2 > 0. This integral can be done the integrand is perfectly well behaved between x = 0 and x = 1. You get some ugly arctan functions. But lets just take m = 0. Then we get M= g2 t 2 log 2 32 2 (17.14)

The 2 cannot be physical, because we can remove it by redening 2 2e 2. But we cant remove the t dependence because M is just a number. So, how is this logarithmically divergent quantity related to anything physical?

17.2.1 interpretation

The diagram we computed is a correction to the tree level propagator. To see this, observe that the propagator is essentially the same as the t-channel scattering diagram

p1 p3

i M0 t=

p p2 p4

= (ig )2

i g2 =i 2 p t

(17.15)

p1 p3 p

i M1 t=

So that

p p2 p4

173

= (ig )2

g2 1 i i 1 t i M 2 = ig2 2 log 2 2 2 32 2 p p p M p

(17.16)

iMt = i

1 g2 g2 t 1 log 2 t 32 2 t M

(17.17)

If this expression looks a little funny, keep in mind that g is not a number in 3 theory but has dimen sions of mass . This actually makes 3 a little more confusing than QED, but not insurmountably so. Lets just simplify things by writing the whole thing in terms a new t-dependent variable g 2 dimensionless. Then 1 4 t 2 g log 2 Mt = g 32 2 M

g2 t

which is (17.18)

Well come back to this t dependent scaling of the coupling when we discuss renormalizable vs non-renormalizable theories, but for now, lets just make this substitution and press on so we can get to vacuum polarization in QED. Then we can dene a renormalized coupling g R at some xed scale t0 by

2 M g R t0

(17.19)

This is called a renormalization condition . It is a denition, and by denition, it holds to all orders in perturbation theory. It follows that

2 =M = g 2 g R t0 2 + g 2 = g R

1 g 4 t log 02 2 M 32 t0

(17.20)

4 1 g R t log 02 M 32 2 t0

(17.21)

Thus we can measure M at one t and then make a nontrivial prediction at another value of t.

Now lets move on to the next simplest example, scalar QED We found that in 3 theory, iM 3 =

pk k p p

= ig 2 16 2

Mt = g 2 +

2+ =g R

1 4 t g log 2 32 2 M

(17.22) (17.23)

1 4 t g log 32 2 R t0

= (ig )2

1

d4k i i (2 )4 ( p k )2 m2 + i k 2 m2 + i m2 + tx(1 x) M2

(17.24)

dx log

0

(17.25)

174

pk k p p

This looks basically the same, except for the numerator factors. In scalar QED there is also another diagram

p p

= ( ie)2

iM = e2 iM = e2 iM = e2 d4k (2 )4

1

Vacuum Polarization

= 2ie2 g

d4k i (2 )4 k 2 m2

(17.26)

(17.27)

We can simplify things by anticipating the answer. By Lorentz invariance, the only 4-vector not integrated over is p , so M = 1( p2, m2) p2 g + 2( p2, m2) p p (17.28) The reason we want to do this calculation is that it provides a correction to the Coulomb potential, or equivalently the photon propagator. At leading order, this propagator is 0 ( p) = i g + (1 ) p2

p p p2

(17.29)

0 ( p) = 0 ( p)M ( p) =

i p p g + 2 2 1 p p2 p2 (1 + 1) g + 2 p2 + i

p p p2

(17.30)

1 ( p) = 0 ( p) + ( p) = i

(17.31)

So once we calculate 1 and 2 we can just use instead of 0 in our QED calculations, to include the loop eect. But the 2 term is just a change of gauge, and we have already proved with the path integral that QED is gauge invariant no matter what, so we really only need to compute 1. This means extracting the term proportional to g in M . Looking at our amplitude d4k 4k k + 2 p k + 2 pk p p + 2 g (( p k )2 m2) (2 )4 [( p k )2 m2 + i][k 2 m2 + i] (17.32)

we see that it is the sum of a bunch of terms. The p p term we can pull out of the integral, and will give us only a contribution to 2, so we can drop it. For the p k term, we can pull p out of the integral, so whatever the k integral gives, it must provide a p by Lorentz invariance. So these terms can be dropped too. The k k term is important it may give a p p piece, but may also give a g piece, which is what were looking for. So we only need to consider d4k 4k k + 2 g (( p k )2 m2) (2 )4 [( p k )2 m2 + i][k 2 m2 + i] 4k k + 2 g (( p k )2 m2) [(k p(1 x))2 + p2x(1 x) m2 + i]2 (17.33)

The denominator can be manipulated using Feynman parameters just as with the 3 theory dx

0

(17.34)

175

However, now when we shift k k + p (1 x) we get a correction to the numerator. We get iM = e2 d4k (2 )4

1

dx

0

(17.35)

As we have said, we dont care about pp pieces, or pieces linear in p . Also, pieces like p k are odd under k k , for which the rest of the integral, including the measure is invariant. So these terms must give zero by symmetry. Thus we have only iM = 2e2 d4k (2 )4

1

dx

0

(17.36)

It looks like this integral is much more badly divergent than the 3 theory it is now quadratically instead of logarithmically divergent. That is, if we cut o at k = we will get something proportional to 2. This is not a problem the same thing happened for the Casimir energy, where we saw we could regulate with a heat-kernel regulator or a zeta-function regulator. Instead, we will use dimension regularization, which shows nicely why the integral isnt as badly divergent as it seems. 1 In d dimensions (using k k d k 2 g ), the integral becomes iM = 2e2 4 dg Using the formulas (A.46 of P&S)

1

dx

0

(17.37)

d 1 0 d

1 2

(17.38)

d

1 2

(17.39)

2 2

(17.40)

ie g 4 d (4 )d/2

d

Note that (2 2 ) = (1 2 )(1 2 ), so this simplies to 1 2 ie d 1 iM = 2 dx p2x(2x 1)(2 ) g 4 d d/2 2 (4 ) 0 Now expanding as d = 4 we get iM = The

1

d d 1 dx (1 )(1 ) 2 2

1 2

d 1 + (x2 p2 m2)(2 ) 2

2 2

2 2

ie2 2 p g 8 2

1 0

dxx(2x 1)

1 4e E2 + log( 2 ) + O () m p2x(1 x)

gives the innite constant that we will subtract o. For small m and t = p2, we nd M =

1

2 2 p g (log + C ) 12 t

2 = 4e E2 as before. where C + const and Before we interpret this, lets just do the QED calculation, as its almost exactly the same.

176

pk k

Now lets do the real deal, QED. In this case, the loop is

p p

where the 1 in front comes from the fermion loop. Note that there is only 1 diagram in this case. Using our trace theorems, we nd Tr[ (p k + m) (k + m)] = 4[( p k )k + k ( p k ) g ( pk k 2 m2)] = 4[ p k + k p 2k k + g (k 2 pk + m2)] d4k 4k k + 2 g (k 2 pk m2) (2 )4 [( p k )2 m2 + i][k 2 m2 + i] (17.41) (17.42)

iM = 4 e2 iM = 2( p2) = = \

Vacuum Polarization

= ( ie)2

Recall that in scalar QED we had the same thing but the g term was 2 g (k p)2. After going to Feynman parameters and changing k k + p (1 x) we now nd d4k (2 )4

1

dx

0

(17.44)

This integral is almost exactly the same as the one for scalar QED, with only a slight change in the numerator, from x2 to x(1 x). The result, in dim reg, is then ie2 2 p g 4 2

1 0

dxx(1 x)

4e E2 1 + log( 2 ) + O () m p2x(1 x)

which is the same as in scalar QED except for x(1 x) instead of x(2x 1) in the integrand. The change can be traced to x(1 x) p2 m2 = 2 p2(1 x)x instead of + x2 p2 m2 = p2x(2x 1). So we nd for large t = p2 m2 2 M = p2 g (log + C ) t 3 Thus an electron loop gives the same thing as a scalar loop multiplied by a factor of 4.

with 1 4 2

p

=i

M = e2 p2 g 2( p2) dxx(1 x)

1

pk k p

(17.45) (17.46)

2 1 + log( 2 ) 2 m p x(1 x) g i i + 2 i M 2 + 2 p p p

=i

(1 + e2 ( p2)) g + p p terms p2

(17.47)

177

2 2 ( p) = e 2 1 + e ( p ) V p2

(17.48)

We could dene the renormalized electric change by saying that the force between two particles goes like e2 R at some xed r . Equivalently, at xed p = p0. So, r

2 2 2 4 p2 0V ( p0) = eR = e + e ( p0) 4 2 e2 = e2 R eR ( p0)

(17.49) (17.50)

4 2 2 = e2 R + eR( ( p ) ( p0))

(17.51) (17.52)

Which is nite. It is conventional to take p0 = 0, corresponding to r = . This is a reasonable scale at which to expect the quantum corrections to Coulombs law are nite. Then ( p2) (0) = 1 4 2

1 0 1 0

Thus

p2 x(1 x) m2 p2 x(1 x) m2

(17.53) (17.54)

2 4 ( p) = eR + e R 1 V p2 p2 4 2

First, lets look at the small-momentum, large distance limit. For p m

1

Thus,

dxx(1 x)log 1

p2 x(1 x) m2

1 0

dxx(1 x)

p2 p2 x(1 x) = 2 m 30m2

(17.55) (17.56)

2 4 ( p) = e R e R V 2 p 30 2m2

This is known as the Uehling term. How do we see the eect of this extra term? One way is to plug this into the Schrodinger equation and see the eect on the states of the hydrogen atom. Only the s-waves have support at r = 0 and so this shifts them. The energy is negative, so the energy is lowered. This is a contribution to the Lamb shift, the hyperne structure of the Hydrogen atom (this gives a 27 MHz which is a measurable contribution to the 1028 MHz Lamb shift). More carefully, the eective potential at 1-loop is (see P&S section 7.5) V (r ) = e2 2e2 1+ 4r 12

1 0 1

dxe 2m r x

2x2 + 1 2 x 1 2x4

(17.58)

This is known as the Uehling potential (1935). For r m , V (r ) = 1 1+ e2 m r , r 4 (mr )3/2 r 1 m (17.59)

178

Vacuum Polarization

You can see that the nite correction has extent 1/me = re, the Compton radius of the electron. This is much smaller than the Bohr radius, re = a0, so it basically only eects the l = 0 modes, and the function approximation is valid. 1 For r m 2 1 5 1 V (r ) = 1+ log E , r (17.60) r 3 mr 6 m Thus at small distances there is a logarithmic dependence on the electron mass. The Uehling potential doesnt give the only contribution to the Lamb shift. The Uehling potential applies only in the limit that we can talk about a potential at all the non-relativistic limit. Otherwise, the Born approximation is not useful. Even when the electron is non-relativistic there are still important relativistic corrections, such as the spin-orbit coupling. To study the radiative corrections in the relativistic limit, we need to look at the large momentum region of the amplitude.

The opposite limit, p m corresponds to short distances. Then

1

Then,

dxx(1 x)log 1

p2 p2 x (1 x ) log ( ) m2 m2

1 0

1 p2 dxx(1 x) = log( 2 ) 6 m

(17.61) (17.62)

2 2 2 ( p) = eR 1 + eR log p V m2 12 2 p2

The p2 is ok, since Coulomb scattering corresponds to t-channel exchange with t < 0. If we compare the potential at two scales p1 and p2 which are both m, then

2 p2 1V ( p1) p2V ( p2) =

p2 e4 1 R log 12 2 p2 2

(17.63)

which is independent of m. Note however, that we could not have simply take m = 0 at the beginning, because the loop would have been divergent. This kind of divergence is known as a mass singularity or infrared divergence. We will discuss them more in a few days. So this says that there is an eective charge to the electron at short distances which goes like

2 2 e2 e ( p ) = eR 1 +

e2 p2 R log 2 2 12 m

(17.64)

Note that the sign of the correction is very important the correction is positive and the eective charge gets larger at short distances. At large distances, the bare charge is screened by the virtual electronpositron dipole pairs. At smaller distances, there is less room for the screening and the eective charge increases. Note that the charge only gets large very slowly. In fact taking R = Thus 1 e2 R = 4 137 eR = 0.303 (17.65) (17.66)

e =

One would have to measure down to exponentially small energies in order to see the eect of this correction. Nevertheless, there is an extremely important qualitative point about this calculation: perturbation theory breaks down. True, it is only at extraordinarily high energies p 10270 eV, but it means that QED is not a complete theory. This is known as a Landau Pole. QED has a Landau Pole: perturbation theory breaks down at short distances

We can actually include higher order corrections to the eective electric charge without much more work. We now know the result of the whole series =\ +

pk k p p

This gives ( p) = V e2 R p2

1+

2 e2 e ( p ) =

179

12 2 m2

(17.67)

(17.68)

e2 R 1 12 2 log

e2 R p2 m2

eR e(me)

(17.69)

Note that we moved the reference value of the charge from p = 0 to p = me. This is natural, because the simple log dependence in this formula comes from the limit p me, so near p = me we should match on to the exact formula with the p/me corrections. In any case, the dierence between the eective charge at p = me and p = 0 is very small, they are both e = 4 0.3 up to 2 corrections. We will eventually rederive this formula for the eective charge using the renormalization group, which is a more general method. But the Landau pole singularity is unavoidable in QED.

What about the other contributions to the Coulomb potential? It seems that diagrams like

a)

should all contribute. It actually turns out that the contribution of graphs b, c, d to the electric charge cancel. This is intuitively obvious. The electric charge measures the interactions of the photons, independently of what the photon is interacting with. We can see this explicitly if we rescale the QED Lagrangian 1 2 (i + eA + m) L = F + 4 by A e A . Then it becomes L= 1 2 (i + A + m) F + 4e2 (17.71)

1

b)

c) d)

= ig e2 p2

(17.70)

180

Vacuum Polarization

The easiest way to see physically that only graph a is relevant is to consider the Coulomb force between two very heavy charged sources. Then the electron propagator is very nearly on shell and very insensitive to changes in p going through the photon line. If we no longer care about the dynmaics of the electron, we can write the Lagrangian as L= 1 2 F + J A 4e2 (17.73)

where J is the non-dynamical source current. Then there are no graphs b c and d to compute! Thats not a proof, its just an argument. Keep in mind also that the Coulomb force and Coulomb potential are only dened in the non-relativistic approximation. More generally, we will need some more invariant notion of what we mean by the electric charge, which we will come to when we deal with renormalization in general. Then we will calculate graphs b, c and d as well, and show that their contributions to the renormalization of the electric charge all cancel. That will be the proof.

Chapter 18 g -2

18.1 Introduction

We saw that when you take the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation in the presence of a magnetic eld, you get p2 K (L K + geS K ), ge = 2 H= + V (r) + BB (18.1) 2m

K = 2K where B = 2m is the Bohr magneton and S . We found that ge = 2 exactly in the Dirac equation, and this was a prediction of Diracs theory. Now we would like to calculate radiative corrections to ge. First of all, we should ask what can the correction depend on? It can depend on the electron mass, but then by dimensional analysis there must be another scale in the problem. This could be the momentum of K S K . Thus the only the virtual photon, but then this correction would be more complicated than just B possibility is that we get a nite numerical correction to ge. Lets work backwards. The non-relativistic Hamiltonian came from acting on the Dirac equation with the conjugate operator e (18.2) 0 = (i + eA + m)(i + eA m) = (i + eA )2 + F m2 2

e 1

K +iE K )S K (B

KS K ieE KS K ) = (e B

K iE K )S K (B

(18.3) (18.4)

So we can get a non-relativistic interaction energy from the F term which looks like e F ] = e B KS K Re[ 2 (18.5)

e

KS K = 2m geB KS K . Thus, we can read ge o as 2m In the non-relativistic normalization, this should be BgeB e times the coecient of this 2 F coupling. Now suppose we add additional term to the Lagrangian of the form

L= + c1 1 e 1 e F + c2 3 F + m2 m 2 = + 1 e F2( 2 )F m2 m (18.6) (18.7)

coupling and additional derivatives acting on F . The factors of me are These are terms with the added by dimensional analysis. In the last step, we have combined them into a general function of , called a form factor. This form factor also gives a coupling to the magnetic eld in the Hamiltonian H= + 2 eF2( p2 K K )BS m2 181 (18.8)

182

g -2

In particular, the mange tic moment, measured a large distance ( p 0) would get a correction proportional to F2(0). Comparing to the non-relativistic normalization, we nd a correction to ge which is 2m 1 times m F2(0) or ge = 2 + 2F2(0) (18.9) We could add this form-factor term directly to the Lagrangian, but let us suppose it is not there and we just have the QED Lagrangian. Then this term can be generated, in a predictive way, from radiative corrections, as we will now see.

The correction to the magnetic moment must come from graphs involving the photon and the electron. The leading graph is simply the vertex

p

a)

We dont want to assume that the photon is on-shell, because the magnetic eld interaction comes from an external current. We know we need one index to contract with the photon polarization

Mtot = u ( q2)[ f1 + f2 p + f3 q1 + f4 q2 ]u( q1)

= ieu ( q2) u( q1)

q1 q2

(18.10)

b)

c)

d)

(18.11)

q1 , we can set f2 = 0 and remove the p dependence. These f s Using momentum conservation, p = q2 might involve spinors, but only if these are contracted with vectors. If there are factors of q1 or q2 in the f s, they can be removed by hitting the u or u and replacing them with masses. E.g

q u( q1) = me u( q1)

1

(18.12)

so we can safely assume the fi are real valued functions, not spinors. Moreover, they can only depend on p2 = 2m2 e 2 q1 q2 and on me, and we can x the relative dependence by dimensional analysis. Next, using the ward identity,

pf1 + f3 pq1 + f4 p q2 =0

(18.13)

So we can eliminate f4. We actually need more than the Ward identity, because the photon is not onshell, but gauge invariance guarantees this eective Ward identity anyway. Then we can use the Gordon identity

( q2) u( q1) u ( q2)i pu( q1) u ( q2)( q1 + q2 )u( q1) = (2me)u

to write the matrix element as Mtot = M iM = ( ie)u ( q2) F1( p2 i p2 2 ) + 2 m pF2( 2 ) u( q1) me me e

183

Which is our nal form. F1 and F2 are called form factors. This parametrization holds to all orders in perturbation theory. We will often write iM = ( ie)u ( q2) u( q1) ( p) = F1( The leading graph gives F1 = 1, F2 = 0 (18.19) Which of these two form factors could give an electron magnetic moment? First, F1 can only modify the coupling. This renormalizes the electric charge, as we saw from the vacuum polarization original eA diagram. In fact, the entire eect of these terms are to renormalize the electric charge, so no new eect, like a magnetic moment, can come from this. F2, on the other hand, has precisely the structure of a magnetic moment (which is why we put it in this form with the Gordon identity to begin with). The interaction with the electric eld comes from replacing the polarization vector with the gauge eld. Then the term becomes 1 ( q2) u( q1) ipA ( p)u ( q2) u( q1) = F u 2 (18.20) p2 i p2 ) + p F ( ) 2 2 me m2 m2 e e (18.17) (18.18)

Where we have used antisymmetry of to antisymmetrize pA . This is exactly the form we are looking for for the magnetic moment. Then we can read o the correction as ge = 2 + 2F2(0) (18.21)

In summary, if we can nd the term that looks like u ( q2)( q1 + q2 )u( q1), we can pluck o the form factor as the coecient in e iM = F2( p2)[u ( q2)( q1 + q2 (18.22) )u( q1)] + 2 me

The rst 3 loop graphs a)

can only give terms proportional to . This is easy to see because these graphs just correct the propagators for the corresponding particles. Thus the only graph we have to consider is

p

b)

c)

k p+k q2 q1 k q1

184

g -2

This is iM = ( ie)3 i(p + k + m) i(k + m) d4k i u ( q2) 2 u( q1) (2 )4 (k q1)2 k m2 ( p + k )2 m2 (p + k + m) (k + m) d4k u( q1) (2 )4 (k q1)2[( p + k )2 m2][k 2 m2] (18.23) (18.24)

= ie3u ( q2)

Lets start with the denominator. It has 3 terms, so we need to use the ABC Feynman parameters with 1 1 2 = dxdydz (x + y + z 1) (18.25) ABC [ xA + yB + zC ]3 0 Setting A = (k q1)2 + i B = ( p + k )2 m2 + i We get C = k 2 m2 + i D = xA + yB + zC Completing the square = k 2 + 2 k ( yp zq1) +

2 yp2 + zq1 (x +

2 D = (k + yp zq1 ) + i

= xyp2 + (1 z )2m2

k = l yp + zq1

Now the numerator is: N=u ( q2) (p + k + m) (k + m) u( q1) = 2u ( q2) k p + k k + m2 2 m(2k + p )]u( q1) Pulling the transformation on k gives 1 ( q2) l yp + z q1 p + l yp + z q1 l yp + z q1 N=u 2 =u ( q2) m2 2 m(2l 2 yp + 2zq1 + p )]u( q1) After a bunch of algebra, and using l l = because its easier to read)

1 2 l , 4

(18.34) (18.35)

u( q1)

(18.36) (18.37)

+ mz (z 1)u ( q2)( q1 + q2 )u( q1) + m(z 2)(x y )u ( q2) p u( q1)

(18.38) (18.39)

1 0

dxdydz (x + y + z 1)

d4k N ( q, p) (2 )4 (k 2 )3

(18.40)

Now the p term should vanish by the Ward identity. This is easy to see because and the integral measure are symmetric in x y but the p term is antisymmetric. And we dont care about the term for the magnetic moment, F2.

185

iM = u ( q2)( q1 + q2 )u( q1) 4e3 1 0

dxdydz (x + y + z 1)

d4k mz (z 1) (2 )4 (k 2 )3

(18.41)

Recalling that F2( p2) was dened as the coecient of this operator, normalized to e F2( p2)u ( q2)( q1 + q2 M = )u( q1) + 2me Thus, we can just pluck o the form factor F2( p2) = i Now we use To get F2( p2) = 2 m

1 0 1 0

(18.42)

2m 3 4e e

d4k mz (z 1) (2 )4 (k 2 )3

z (z 1) (1 z )2m2 xyp2 z (1 z )

1 1 1

dz

0 0

dy

0 1

dx (x + y + z 1)

1z

dz

0 0

dy

= Thus ge = 2 +

z (1 z )

= 2.00232

This result was rst obtained by Julian Schwinger in 1948. This calculation was critically important historically for convincing people that the loops in QED had physical consequences. At the time of Schwingers calculation, the best measurement was ge = 2.00236 0.00006 which is in remarkable agreement with Schwingers answer.

19.1 Measuring Correlation Functions

In QED there are basically only three independent 1-loop Feynman diagrams

a)

Graph a) represents the polarization of the vacuum. We saw that this lead to the running (scale-depen dent) electric charge. Graph b) contributed to the magnetic moment of the electron. We found ge = 2 + which agrees almost perfectly with experiment. There was also a part of graph b) proportional to that we didnt address. And then theres graph c). Graph c) is a very similar to graph a), but instead of the loop correction the photon propagator, it corrects the electron propagator. So we might naturally attempt to interpret it the same way, however, there is a complication. In general, this graph will give some function of the electron momentum and its mass

k

This is called the electron self-energy graph. In the same way that the photon self-energy (vacuum polarization) corrected the Coulomb potential, this graph will correct the potential generated by the exchange of an electron. For example, for Compton scattering. However, in order to use the interpretation of a potential, we need to be able to talk about the classical limit. For the Coulomb potential, this makes sense, as at large distances, V ( q ) has a noticeable 1 momentum dependence at small momentum transverse q : at small q it leads to Coulombs law V (r ) = r . However, the classical limit of electron exchange is Thompson scattering. But in Thompson scattering, you are not at all sensitive to the momentum transfer. This is simply because for q me, the electron 1 propagator is just m and there is no q dependence. Thus, trying to think of a simple physical observable, e like V ( p1) V ( p2) for photon exchange, is not so easy. We might imagine it makes more sense to think about short distance eects of the self-energy diagram, keeping in the relativistic regime. For example, Compton scattering at high energy. There we could imagine the relevant energies are q me. So we could try to evaluate 2(q ) at q = me and compare to a dierent value of (q ) to get a physical eect. This works in principle, but it practice, it is really a pain. The problem is that me is not well dened in perturbation theory. For example, including the self-energy graph, the eective electron propagator is

k

(q ) =

b)

q qk q

c)

(19.1)

= i2(q, me)

qk

1 1 1 + 2(q ) q me q me q me

(19.2)

187

188

Systematic Renormalization

Since, in general, 2(me) 0, this correction will have a double pole at q = me instead of a simple pole. However, a single electron state is associated with a simple pole in the propagator (we used this in the LSZ theorem). In fact, one way to dene the physical electron mass is as the location of the pole. That interpretation is immediately suspect when there is a double pole present. (Its actually worse than that the self-energy graph generates a cut in the complex plane starting at q = me). So this 2 correction does more than just correct Compton scattering, it also forces us to be more specic about our denition of the electron mass. To disentangle these two eects it is helpful to have a more general framework for discussing renormalization. A more general understanding of renormalization will also help us understand how predictive our theory actually is. That is, it will let us count the number of free parameters and number of experiments we have to do to x them. It will allow us to calculate matrix elements as a perturbation series in the nite small renormalized electric charge eR, instead of the innite bare electric charge e we have been using. And it will let us not have to worry about what is observable all the time we will renormalize parameters in the Lagrangian, and the observables will automatically come out nite. So there are lots of reasons to be systematic about renormalization! The rst step is to generalize our discussion of observables from things we can actually measure to things we could in principle measure. Observables in quantum eld theory are time-ordered correlation functions of elds at dierent space time points, also known as Greens functions: G(x1, , xn) = 0|T { 1(x1) n(xn)}|0 (19.3)

where can be any elds (e.g. A or of or something else). We often are interested in S-matrix elements, which are computed from Greens functions in momentum space, with the external lines removed by LSZ

2 2 2 p f | S | pi = ( p2 f m ) ( pi m )G( pi ,

, pf )

(19.4)

It may be dicult, but in principle all of these things can be measured, and so we should have a prescription to make sure they come out nite. Studying general features of these Greens functions is therefore the key to a systematic understanding of renormalization in QED.

19.2 Tadpoles

Lets start with the simplest Greens functions 0| ( p)|0 (19.5)

It is the expectation value of a eld in the vacuum, also known as the vacuum expectation value (vev). This correlation function is 0 at tree-level, since there are no 1-point interactions in the Lagrangian. If there were a 1-point interaction in the Lagrangian, so L = c + ( + m2) + , then we should really c complete the square 2m2 to remove the tadpole. These shifted elds would be our real propagating degrees of freedom. This procedure will be discussed in the future, in the discussion of spontaneous symmetry breaking. At 1-loop, a function like 0|A |0 it would get a correction from

this is called a tadpole . A nonzero expectation value for a vector eld 0|A |0 would break Lorentz invariance. This certainly happens, for example, if we cool down a ferromagnet below its Curie temperature, at some point the lowest energy conguration has the spins aligned. This picks out a particular direction, breaking Lorentz and rotational invariance. This eect can be understood by calculating tadpoles for the photon. It signals spontaneous symmetry breaking.

(19.6)

189

Even for a charged scalar, if 0| |0 0, some symmetry is broken. In this case invariance under ei. This was the symmetry which QED gauged, so this breaks gauge invariance. Thus the photon does not have to remain massless. In fact, one way to understand type II superconductors is through the condensation of cooper pairs which are bosonic bound states of electrons (x) = e(x)e(x). The binding forces are transmitted via phonons. When gets a vev, the photon picks up a mass proportional to this vev m ee

1

0

1

(19.7)

Then the Coulomb force goes from long range r to Yukawa r e mr. That explains why magnetic elds cant penetrate superconductors the Meissner eect. All of this is very beautiful stu, known as the BCS theory of superconductivity, and I hope you will get to study it in detail anyway. The point here is just that tadpoles are very important in general, but they are not so relevant right now for our systematic study of renormalization in QED. The mass of the W and Z bosons are non-zero. Can these masses be seen as coming from some kind of tadpole diagrams? The answer seems to be yes, but we dont yet know what exactly it is that we are computing the tadpoles for. The Cooper pairs are called the Higgs, but we dont know what the Cooper pairs are made of. What is the equivalent of the electrons that are being bound? And what is the equivalent of the phonons that bind them? That is the biggest mystery in high energy physics! We will study tadpoles and spontaneous symmetry breaking in great detail later in the course. But it is a distraction from our current task of understanding renormalization. There are no non-vanishing tadpoles in QED, as you will see immediately if you try to compute one.

Next, let us look at the two point functions. Starting with fermions, we have G2( p1, p2)(2 )4 4( p1 + p2) = (x) ( y )||0 d4 yei (p1x + p2 y) 0|T {

Because we know that all these delta function factors and phase space integrals drop out, we will just abbreviate this as |0 G2( q ) = 0|T (19.9) At tree level, this is just the fermion propagator G2( q ) = 0(q ) = i qm (19.10)

k

where the i is just a convention. This is the equivalent of the photon self-energy graph, which we called vacuum polarization .

The expression for the loop is

i2(q ) = (ie)2

q qk q

d4x

(19.8)

(19.11)

190

Systematic Renormalization

Here we are seeing a new feature the integrand vanishes when k = 0. This is known as an infrared divergence. We didnt get such a feature in the vacuum polarization graph because only the electron was going around the loop. Whenever you have massless particles in a loop, you get infrared divergences. Infrared divergences can be regulated just like UV divergences, and the regulator drops out of physical calculations. In fact, if you remember the expression for the Coulomb potential was

2 2 2 ( p) = eR 1 + eR log p V m2 p2 12 2

(19.12)

but that for two scale p1, p2 m the dierence between the potentials doesnt depend on m

2 p2 1V ( p1) p2V ( p2) =

p2 e2 R log 1 2 12 p2 2

(19.13)

The same thing will happen for the self energy graph. So let us regulate the self energy by giving the photon a mass m . 1 1 2 k2 k m2 (19.14)

For now, dont worry about the photon mass dropping out of calculations think of it as really being physical. We want to deal with one problem at a time, and now it is how to remove the UV divergences. To regulate the UV divergence, we have to choose a regularization scheme. It turns out that dimensional regularization also removes infrared divergences. This is great for doing calculations, but not so useful if you want to see whats going on. So we will use Pauli-Villars. It is enough to add only a ghost photon. You have to be very careful doing this, since it breaks gauge invariance, but in this case it turns out its ok. So we will replace 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 k k m k m k 2 Thus our self-energy graph becomes i2(q ) = e

2 2 2 m2

(k 2 z )2

(19.15)

dz

m2

(19.16)

Now we can introduce Feynman parameters, Wick rotate, and evaluate the integral, giving (see PS section 7.1) 1 e2 x 2 dx(4me 2xq )log 2(q ) = (19.17) 2 2 16 0 (1 x)m2 e + xm x (1 x) q There are 4 scales here: , me , q and m . Well deal with them one at a time.

First we want to get rid of . So take me = 0 but still assume the photon has mass m . Then 2(q ) = q e2 8

1

dxx log

0

2 2 m2 (1 x) q

(19.18)

We would like to take q 0 here, to put the electron on shell for its propagator. This gives 2(q ) = q 2 log 2 + O ( q 2) 4 m (19.19)

As expected we have found an innite correction to the two point function |0 = G2( q ) = 0|T { 2 i 1 log 2 4 m q (19.22)

k q qk q

191

i i i i2(q ) + q q q

(19.20)

2 i 1 log 2 4 m q

(19.21)

What are we to do about this innity? For the Coulomb potential, we were able to absorb the innity into the electric charge. But here, the leading order expression doesnt seem to have any parameters into which we can absorb the innity. In fact, there is a parameter: the normalization of the fermion wavefunction. Nobody ever told us what the wavefunctions were supposed to be! Say we had dened 1 (x) = Z2 d3 p (2 )3 1 ipx ap e + a pe ipx 2 p

1 0. Z2

for some number Z2. This is the eponymous renormalization : R = physical quantities, and 0 for innite bare quantities. Sticking a bunch of these Z factors in the Lagrangian, it becomes

(19.24)

What kind of observables would this change? Well, we are in the process of cataloging all the observables, so we are bound to nd out. The tadpoles vanish no matter what, and we are working on the two point function. 1 For the two-point function, the tree level piece gets a Z . For the loop:

2

(19.25) (19.26)

(19.27)

We know already that Z2 = 1 to leading order. If we take Z2 = 1 + 2 with 2 = G2( q ) = 2 log 2 4 m (19.28) (19.29)

then

i 1 + O (2) q

which renormalizes the propagator back to what we started with. There is no physical prediction in this calculation, because, as we said, it is hard to come up with observables. The important point is that we have gotten rid of the UV divergence in the 2-point function.

192

The fact that only one factor of Z2 comes through the expression is because the only thing that actu . ally depends on Z are the external states in the Greens function G2 =

Now lets put the electron mass back in. Then the two point function becomes

k

G2(q ) =

1 0

We expect that this to be zero when q = me, to cancel one of the poles in the expansion of G2. However, 3 m2 e (19.32) 2(me) = me 1 2log 2 8 which is not zero. So that means that G2(q ) has a double pole at q = me. What is the physical interpretation of that? Perhaps we could remove it with the wave function renormalization. Putting in the Z factor, and writing Z 2 = 1 + 2 with 2 = O (e ), the only eect is from the leading propagator: Then we get i i i i 1 = + i2(q me) q me Z 2 q m e q me q me (q ) = 2(q ) 2 q me (19.34) (19.35)

2

q qk q

Systematic Renormalization

i i i + [ i2(q )] q me q m e q me

(19.30)

x 2

2 (1 x)m2 e x (1 x) q

(19.31)

(19.33)

And we can see that there is no way to choose a number 2 so that (me) = 0. The resolution is that the electron mass in the Lagrangian is not necessarily the physical electron mass (the location of the pole). So let us treat the Lagrangian mass as a free parameter and use its renormalization to remove the double pole. We write me = 1 (mR + m) Z2 (19.36)

where me is taken to be innite, but mR is the physical nite, renormalized electron mass. Then i 1 i 1 = Z2 q me 1 + 2 q mR + 2mR m = 1 i i 2(q mR) mR2 + m + q me q me q me = i i i + i( 2q + m) q me q me q m e

Note that the mR2 pieces have canceled, which is why we dened me with a factor of Z2. So, (q ) = 2(q ) 2q + m (19.40)

193

Now there is a value of 2 and m for which (mR) = 0. We can use this to enforce that there is only a single pole in the propagator. Let us press on a bit before setting the other condition to determine m and 2.

We only included one particular self-energy correction in the series we summed to correct the electron propagator. There are lots more graphs, and the full non-perturbative propagator, should properly be dened as the sum of all these graphs. To make sure we are not counting anything twice, we must only include graphs which cannot be cut in two by cutting a single propagator. Those would form a dierent series, which we could also sum. So anything which cannot be cut that connects one incoming electron to one outgoing electron are called one-particle irreducible graphs. Then we dene (q ) =

1P I

Each 1PI insertion will give a contribution to the Greens function G2(q ) = = +

1P I

i i i + [ i(q )] + qm qm qm (q ) qm

2

(q ) i 1+ + qm qm

+ = = i q m (q ) (mR) = 0 2(mR) = mR2 m

= 2(q ) +

(19.41)

(19.42) (19.43)

i 1 q m 1 (q )

(19.44) (19.45)

qm

For the full non-perturbative propagator. We found that if we shift the bare mass me and add a renormalization factor to , then (q ) = 2(q ) 2q + m + O (e4) (19.46)

At this point, there appears a natural condition which we can impose to x the m and 2: we can demand that the pole in the propagator remain at q = mR. Recall that to use (or really, to interpret) the LSZ theorem, we needed to project out the 1-particle states by multiplying by terms like p m. Since the physical one particle states have poles at their physical masses, this should be projecting out p mR. This gives zero unless there is a pole in the corresponding matrix element, so it is critical that the pole remain there. So the renormalized Greens function had better have a pole at p = mR. So we can dene the renormalized mass by (19.47) (19.48) This implies to order e2 R that

194

Systematic Renormalization

Another reasonable requirement we might impose is that the residue of the pole of the propagator be 1 (or i). In some sense this is just a convention for what we multiply by in LSZ, but we have to be consistent with that convention! So, q mR 1 1 = lim = lim (19.50) q mR q mR (q ) q mR 1 d (q )

dq

where we have used LHospitals rule. This implies d (q ) dq 2 = Recalling 2(q ) = This leads to 2 = d (q ) dq 4

0 1

e2 R

|q =m

=0

d 2(q ) dq

|q =m

2 (1 x)m2 e + xm

x (1 x) q 2

log2 + (19.55) 4 Note that the divergent log2 part is the same as we found for a massless electron, which makes sense as the UV divergences shouldnt be sensitive to any nite mass. And = m = me 4

1 0

|q =m

dx x log

(PV)

(19.54)

dx(4 2x)log

x2 2 (1 x)2m2 e + xm

(PV)

(19.56)

If we repeat the calculation in dimensional regularization, we would nd 2(q ) = So, 2 = d (q ) dq e2 d R 4 d(2 ) d/2 2 (4 )

R

dx

0

(4 )mR (2 )xq

(DR)

(19.57)

|q =m

2 e2 4 R 1 log 2 + 4 2 16 mR

dx

(DR)

(19.58) (19.59)

2 4 3 e2 R mR + + 3 log 2 , 2 16 2 mR

In summary, the two conditions (mR) = 0 d (q ) dq (19.60) =0 (19.61)

|q =m

allow us to uniquely x the counterterms 2 and m. These are known as renormalization conditions. The conditions we have chosen force the physical electron mass mR and the residue of the propagator to be constant to all orders in perturbation theory. The values of the counterterms depend on the UV regularization scheme and can depend on an infrared regularization scheme (e.g. photon mass) as well. The counterterms are formally innite.

19.4 Amputation

195

By the way, notice that in this scheme we cannot ask about radiative corrections to the electron mass. That question has no meaning in this pole-mass scheme, which denes mass as the location of the pole in the propagator. There are other ways to dene mass, such as the MS mass, for which you can ask about radiative corrections, which we discuss below, or the Pythia mass, which is related to a particular Monte Carlo event generator. In those cases, radiative corrections to masses do have meaning. If you nd this confusing, think about how you could measure the radiative correction to a mass. Not so easy!

19.4 Amputation

The two point function constructed out of renormalized elds is

R R GR |0 = 2 (p) = 0|T {

Z2 R it is

i + regular at p = mR p mR i i = p mR p mR (p)

(19.62)

(19.63)

where includes counterterm corrections from the expansion of Z2. Recall that the LSZ theorem projected out the physical one-particle asymptotic states in the S matrix by multiplying by factors of p2 m2 e: f |S |i = (p f me) (pi me) 0|T { 0 0}|0 (original LSZ) (19.64) Which mass should this be? At tree level it doesnt matter, but including the loop eects, we had better make sure we are projecting out the physical electron mass, by adding factors of p2 m2 R with mR being the location of the pole. So f |S |i = (p f mR) (pi mR) 0|T { 0 0}|0 (renormalized LSZ) (19.65)

Note that this is still expressed in terms of time ordered products of the bare elds. Now, if we are to use this exact propagator, we must also truncate external lines. That is, we should compute the 1PI bubbles on external lines separately, then add them to the diagrams without 1PI bubbles. This is also known as amputation . Also, not a big deal. It actually makes things easier. For example, consider

(19.66)

This graph just sets the counterterms 2 and m but doesnt change the physical electron mass eR or the residue of the electron propagator. Thus as long as we use the physical electron mass and canonically normalized interaction in Coulombs law, we can ignore this graph. Another way to see it, is that the external electron here is on shell. So q = mR and then (q ) = 0 by the renormalization condition. The result is that the external lines in the graph would give factors of 0|T { 0 0 |0 = Z2 i p mR (19.67)

am putated

So it is these poles with factors of Z2 that get canceled by LSZ. Then if we look at amputated diagrams, LSZ simplies

n 0|T { 0 0}|0 f |S |i = Z2

= 0|T { R R }|0

amputated

(19.68)

So to compute S-matrix elements, we can just use the renormalized propagators, and drop all corrections to external lines.

196

Systematic Renormalization

S -matrix elements can be thought of as Greens functions in which the external particles are on-shell. Since they are on shell, there are poles, and these poles must be removed to make sense of the answer. The point of amputation is To remove the poles so the external lines can be taken on-shell Since the external lines are on-shell, they are always evaluated at the renormalization point there is never any additional measurable eect of the renormalization of external lines.

There are more general Greens functions we can calculate, with o-shell external particles. Usually, these can be extracted from on-shell states. For example, the Greens function for an o-shell photon with momentum p ( p2 0) can be calculated from the Greens function for an on-shell e+e whose center of mass energy is p2 .

The idea behind renormalization is that for every innity, there should be a free parameter to absorb it. We started by absorbing innities into a constant vacuum energy density (the Casimir force), and then into the electric charge (renormalized Coulomb potential). Now we have begun a systematic study of correlation functions and found we had two new parameters, the electron mass and the normalization of the electron eld which we could also use. Are we always going to get a new parameter for every calculation? Looking at the QED path integral Z= exp i DA DD 1 2 (i + eA + m) + + d4x F 4 (19.69)

it seems that there are only three parameters m, e, and the vacuum energy density . However, the path integral will give the same answer for correlation functions if we rescale the elds. That is, the normalization of the path integral drops out of any physical calculation. Let us add a 0 to the elds to denote their bare (unrenormalized) values: 1 2 0 0 0(i + e0 A0 + L = F + m ) + 4 We saw that Greens functions of these bare elds are ambiguous up to normalization 0|T { 0 0}|0 = 0 = iZ2 q mR (19.71) (19.72) (19.73) (19.74) (19.70)

(19.75)

So we see that QED has 5 terms in its Lagrangian and 5 parameters: m0, e0, Z2, Z3 and . All of these are formally innite, and we can absorb additional innities into any of them as required. The vacuum energy is largely external to QED, so we will just drop it from now on. The important point is that all we have are these 5 parameters, and they must be sucient to absorb every innity. There are many more than 5 correlation functions we can compute!

197

e0 Z2 Z3 eR

(19.76)

and to use Z1 instead of e0. Then (dropping the subscript R on elds) 1 2 + Z 2 m0 + eRZ1 A + iZ2 L = Z3F 4 (19.77)

At leading order, we know what all the constants are: Z3 = Z2 = 1 and the mass and charge are determined by their physical, renormalized, values m0 = mR and e0 = eR. The 0 subscripts are called bare parameters, and the R subscript is for renormalized. At next-to-leading order, these constants are all innite. But if we do our perturbation theory expansion in powers of eR, this is a calculable series, and physical quantities will come out nite. So we can expand perturbatively Z 3 = 1 + 3 Z 2 = 1 + 2 1 Z 1 = 1 + 1 = 1 + e + 2 + 3 2 Z2m0 = mR + m where all the s start at O(e2). Then the Lagrangian is 1 2 mR + eR A +i L = F 4 1 2 m + eR1 A 3F + i2 4 (19.82) (19.83) (19.78) (19.79) (19.80) (19.81)

A nice feature of this approach is that since the s are all innite, but higher order in powers of eR they can be simply used as vertices in the Lagrangian. These counterterms subtract o the innities directly, leaving nite quantities. Moreover, we can do the perturbation expansion directly in terms of eR instead of e0, which is nice because e0 is innite. Note that the counterterms must be numbers (or functions of eR and mR) they cannot depend on derivatives or factors of momentum. We assumed this when we commuted the factors of Z through everything. If they did depend on momentum, that would correspond to the renormalization of a dierent tree , which is not what we level operator. For example, if m = p2 then that would have renormalized started with. You can have counterterms like this, but then you need to start from a dierent theory than ). We will come back to this point when we discuss QED (i.e. one whose Lagrangian has a term like renormalizable vs non-renormalizable theories. The original Lagrangian Eq (19.70) is considered bare and the one with the Z s Eq (19.75) considered renormalized. That is, in the bare Lagrangian the elds are innite. In the renormalized Lagrangian, the elds are nite and the innities are all in the counterterms. Sometimes we drop the subscript R.

Lets compare the calculation of the two point function in bare perturbation theory and in renormalized perturbation theory. In renormalized perturbation theory, the Feynman diagrams give 0|T { R R }|0 =

k

+

q qk q

i i i + [ i2(q )] q mR q mR q mR

(19.84)

i i i(q2 m) q mR q mR

(19.85)

198

Systematic Renormalization

The way we did it originally (bare perturbation theory), 0|T { R R }|0 = 0|T { 0 0}|0 =

k

and

1

q qk q

= i i i + [ i2(q )] q m0 q m0 q m0

(19.86)

(19.87)

(19.88)

(19.89) (19.90)

1

which leads to an 2iq vertex, and to the same correction + 2iq q . This works for the 2-point function, which is a special case it is the thing we amputate In general, with an amputated amplitude, we use 0|T { R R }|0

am putated n = Z2 0|T { 0 0}|0 amputated

A note on signs. Lets double check the signs here: in bare perturbation theory the factor Z = 1 + 2 2 iq i leads to 2 iq = + 2iq q . In renormalized perturbation theory, the kinetic term gives Z2i = (1 + 2) q ,

i

(19.91)

Then the Z factors on the right are all thats left over. For example, for an amputated three point func 0 0 0 R R Z 0 | T { A | 0 . Recalling that Z = Z3 Z2 we see we will get the tion 0|T {AR | 0 = Z 1 3 2 same counterterms automatically using the two methods. Thus they are really two ways of saying the same thing. The dierence is Renormalized perturbation theory: all counterterms come from the Lagrangian Bare perturbation theory: eld Z -factor counterterms come from external states in correlation functions, mass/charge/interaction counterterms comes from replacing bare parameters by their physical values.

The renormalized perturbation theory approach is simpler in many ways, but we will go back and forth a bit to check consistency. We have already found reasonable conditions to x 2 and m, so lets continue our study of correlation function to x 1 and 3.

The other non-vanishing 2-point function in QED is the photon propagator

AR }|0 ( p) = 0|T {AR

pk k p p

(19.92)

= i ( g

p p )2( p2) p2

199

1 0 1 0

dxx(1 x) m2 e

1 2x(1 x) m2 p e 2 2 p x(1 x)

2 2

(19.93) (19.94)

dxx(1 x)log

Actually, we only computed the p2 g part of the expression. Peskin and Schroeder compute the rest. In any case, we could have guessed the form by the Ward identity. Note that

So that this is a projector. For simplicity, we will just drop the p p terms, since we can always put them back in the end by asking that the Ward identity be restored. Before, we had claimed we claimed we could absorb innities of the vacuum polarization graph into the renormalized electric coupling e2 R. That was for Coulomb scattering, where the photon was an internal line. Here, this is just the 2 point function of the photon. For the 2-point function, the leading order piece is not proportional to e2 R, thus we cannot absorb the innity into eR. However, since the Greens function does involve the external states, we do have the Z3 counterterm to play with. It gives:

Now resumming the series to all orders, including the other 1PI graphs gives ( p2) = \ +

pk k p p

with

We have dropped gauge dependent terms. (You can actually treat the gauge as a parameter in the Lagrangian, introduce a counterterm for it, and calculate radiative corrections. This is silly in practice, as they always drop out of physical calculations. But it is useful for proving the renormalizability of gauge theories.) Note that the photon automatically has a pole at p = 0. This is because the function vacuum polarization loop is proportional to p2. Thus, the only condition we require is that the residue of the pole at p = 0 be ig . Which means (0) = 0 At order e2 R, this implies 3 = 2(0) = = So then the complete -function is ( p2) = 2

1 0

( p p p2 g )2 = p2( p p p2 g )

(19.95)

( i ) g 2 ( i) g i p g 3 p2 p2

=i

p2(1 ( p2))

(19.96) (19.97)

( p2) = 2( p2) + 3 +

(19.98)

4 e2 d (2 ) 3 (4 )d/2 2 me

4d

(19.99) (19.100)

2 2 1 + log 2 3 3 me m2 e p2x(1 x)

dxx(1 x)log

m2 e

(19.101)

which is totally nite (and also independent!). Although there is no infrared divergences here, there would be if we took me 0. So this is very similar to the infrared divergence in the electron self-energy diagram.

200

For the electron propagator, we needed two conditions, one to x the location of the pole, and the other to x its residue. For the photon, the location is xed by gauge invariance, so we only need one condition. That is especially convenient because there is only one free parameter, the normalization Z3 for the A eld. It would have been possible, a priori , that the loop might have given

pk k p p

With the additional term proportional to some dimensionful quantity M (presumably proportional to the electron mass). This would have led to = i g

M (p 2)

Then we would have needed a counterterm so that we could renormalize the photon mass back to its physical location. However, there is no such counterterm available. To get one, we would have needed 1 2 2 L = Z3F + Z3m2 (19.103) A 4 Which allows for the counterterm to appear in the redenition of m . Instead, no M 2 term is generated, and not coincidentally this addition to the Lagrangian is forbidden by gauge invariance. We are seeing a very important and general phenomenon: the connection between symmetries and Feynman diagrams. We will be coming back to this theme again and again. It is also worth pointing out that the generation of a photon mass is something that you have to be very careful about. If we didnt use dimensional regularization, we might have ended up with a photon mass. Dimensional regularization is nice because you can dene gauge invariance in any dimension. In contrast with a Pauli-Villars regulator, or a hard cuto, the explicit scale destroys gauge invariance and in fact a spurious M 2 term does appear.

p k p+k q2 q1 k q1

Systematic Renormalization

= i ( p p p2 g ) g 2( p2) + M 2M ( p2)

p2(1 ( p2)) + M 2

(19.102)

So much for 2-point functions. We have made everything nite. Now lets look at 3-point functions. The simplest one is simply ( q1)A ( p) ( q2)}|0 (19.104) G3 = 0|T { This is non-zero at tree level due to the QED vertex. G3 = ie (19.105)

p

q1 q2

i pF2( p2) 2 me

(19.106)

= ieR 1

(19.107)

which we can use to absorb the innities in F1( p2). The decomposition into form factors just relied on Lorentz invariance, so it holds even non-perturbatively. Thus we can write, in general p i pF2( p2) 2 me

where the blob refers to all amputated vertex corrections. Only amputated corrections contribute because the corrections to the external lines get absorbed in the external line propagators, and then truncated by LSZ. 2 2 At order e2 R, F1( p ) = 1 and F2( p ) = 0. In fact, through our study of g -2, we observed that F2(0) contributes to the magnetic moment of the electron. F2(0) is nite, and at the one loop level, we found F2( p2) =

0 1

q1 q2

d

201

(19.108)

dz

0

1z

dy

(19.109)

F1 on the other hand controls the gross interactions of the electron with the photon. It is the part that leads to Coulombs law. Thus the electric charge measured in Coulombs law is proportional to eRF1(0). So we have to set F1(0) = 1. That is, we demand (0) = ieR (19.110) This is the nal renormalization condition. It implies that the renormalized electric charge is what is measured by Coulombs law, and by denition , does not get radiative corrections. F1 is UV and IR divergent. In dim-reg, with a photon mass, it comes out to (2 d )(2 )2 1 2 e R 2 4d F1( p2) = dxdydz ( x + y + z 1) (19.111) (4 )d/2 2 d/2 0 + (3 2 ) 3 d/2

2 2 p2[2(1 x)(1 y) xy ] + m2 R[2(1 4 z + z ) (1 z ) ] 2 2 = (1 z )2m2 R + zm xyp

(19.112)

where

Expanding in d = 4 , we get 2 +

1 0

F1( p2) =

e2 R 16 2

dxdydz (x + y + z 1)

At p = 0, we can perform the x and y integrals giving (after some algebra) F1(0) = e2 4 2 R + 1 + log 2 4 2 16 mR dx 2x (1 x)2m2 R x , 2 1 x (1 x)2m2 R + xm (19.116)

At order e2 R the renormalization condition F1(0) = 1 implies In fact, comparing with Equation (?), we nd e2 R. 1 = F1(0) 1 = 2 (19.117) (19.118)

To order This is a very important relation, that we will discuss a bit more shortly. Keep in mind that even though 1 = 2, we still need both counterterms to absorb all the innities!

202

Systematic Renormalization

1 0

dxdydz (x + y + z 1) log

z 2 1 + (1 x)(1 y ) p2 + (1 4z + z 2)m2

with the same as above. F2 is the same in dim-reg as in PV as it is UV nite (and IR nite).

To summarize, a set of renormalization conditions in QED which is sucient to x all the counterterms is (q )

d (q ) dq ( p)

|q =m

=0

R

|p=0 = |p=0 = 0

|q =m

=0

( p)

where (q ) are the 1PI electron self energy corrections, are the amputated corrections to the QED vertex, and ( p) are the 1PI vacuum polarization corrections. The rst two conditions x the electron propagator to }|0 = 0|T { i + regular at q = mR q mR (19.123)

the second condition xes the renormalized electric charge eR to be what is measured by Coulombs law at large distance. The nal condition forces the photon propagator to be ( p) = g + regular at p = 0 + gauge dependent piesces p2 (19.124)

We have discussed one set of rather physical renormalization conditions which were enough to x the counterterms to all orders. There is another way to x these counterterms, which is not as physical, but turns out to be much more useful in practice for complicated calculations. The prescription is to remove just the innities. This is appropriately called minimal subtraction. The convention for the Lagrangian with minimal subtraction is slightly dierent. We write 1 2 + m R Z Z m + eRZe ZA Z A L = ZAF + iZ 4 Z A = 1 + A Z = 1 + Z e = 1 + e Z m = 1 + m The electron self energy graph plus counterterms gives, with Pauli-Villars (q ) = e2 16 dx(4mR 2qx)log x2 + q mR(m + ) 2 (1 x)(m2 R xq ) (19.130) (19.125) (19.126) (19.127) (19.128) (19.129)

203

The innity is the log term. So we choose = e2 16 dx(2x)log 2 e2 2 log 2 , = 2 16 (PV, MS) (PV, MS) (19.131) (19.132)

m =

e2 2 e2 2 4log 2 = 3log 2 , 16 16

We have introduced a scale to keep this dimensionally correct. can be anything (e.g. = mR) it is not innite like . We then get e2 x2 (q ) = dx(4mR 2qx)log (19.133) 2 16 (1 x)(m2 R xq ) One nice thing about this scheme is that there are never infrared divergences in the counterterms, only in the nite remainder for (q ). Actually, minimal subtraction is hardly ever used with Pauli-Villars. In fact, Pauli-Villars is hardly ever used. Its really not so useful, because it breaks gauge invariance. In dimensional regularization, (q ) = 8mR + 2q e2 R + 2(q mR) + 2 16 dx(4mR 2 qx)log 4e E2 2 (1 x)(m2 R xq ) (19.134) (19.135) (19.136) 4e E2 2 (1 x)(m2 R xq )

So now we take

+ q mR(m + ) = m = 2 4

leaving (q ) =

8 6 = 4 4 dx(4mR 2 qx)log

e2 R 2(q mR) + 16 2

So you see this scheme is extraordinarily simple. The scheme is used almost exclusively in complicated calculations. It is often convenient to also subtract o the 4e E in the counterterm, by choosing = m = Then (q ) = 2 + log(4e E) 4 6 2log(4e E) 4 dx(4mR 2 qx)log 2 2 (1 x)(m2 R xq ) (19.137) (19.138)

e2 R 2(q mR) + 16 2

This is known as MS (em-ess-bar). It is equivalent to just using MS counterterms but replacing 2 2 = E 2 , which is totally ne since was arbitrary anyway. 4e For completeness, we can also compute from the vacuum polarization and the vertex correction graphs, A = e2 8 R 3 16 2 e2 4 R 16 3 (19.139) (19.140)

e =

204

Systematic Renormalization

Which we showed using the other subtraction scheme. An important point, which is often confused, is that there are two scales involved: the innite UV scale , which is taken to innity, and a nite low-energy scale . Both PV and DR have these two scales: in PV is obscure, and in DR is obscure. But they are both there. is completely arbitrary, and the physical calculations should not depend on it. However, = so the calculation cannot depend on . As we will see, at each order in perturbation theory, there can be some residual dependence on , but as we go to higher orders in perturbation theory, the dependence on should disappear. In fact, by demanding that the dependence disappear, one is lead to the renormalization group.

19.9.1 propagator in MS

With minimal subtraction, the propagator is no longer guaranteed to have a pole at q = mR, and the residue is not guaranteed to be 1. We are still doing an expansion in physical parameters, and the electron propagator is still 1 (19.142) e = q mR + (q ) but we no longer have (mR) = 0. Explicitly, (mR) = e2 2 R mR 5 + 3log 2 2 16 mR (19.143)

In fact what we mean by the renormalized mass mR is not the location of the pole, but the term in the Lagrangian 1 2 + mR + eR A + counterterms +i (19.144) L = F 4 This is called the MS mass. Let us call the pole mass mP . Then mP satises e2 R 16 2 0 = mP mR (mP ) 2(mP mR) + dx(4mR 2 mPx)log (19.145) 2 (1 x)(m2 R xmP )

2

mP = mR

(19.146)

This equation has some solution which depends on . If we choose = mR it leads to a calculable shift in the pole mass to rst order in perturbation theory. There is a very good reason that MS masses are better than pole masses many fermions, such as quarks, are not free. So they do not correspond to asymptotic states, and thus talking about a free propagator for these elds does not correspond to anything physical. This is a particularly troublesome confusion for the top quark mass, where the dierence between the pole mass and MS mass denitions dier by a few GeV.

The relation 1 = 2 is a very important result of QED, so it is worth a discussion. 1 = 2 implies Z1 = Z2. Recalling that eRZ1 = e0Z2 Z3 , it follows that (19.147) eR = e0 Z3 In other words e = 2 3. That is, the renormalization of the electric charge is determined completely by the renormalization of the photon eld strength. That is why we were able to calculate the renormalization of the electric charge from only the vacuum polarization graphs.

1

205

There is an important physical implication of Z1 = Z2. For example, suppose we have a theory with 1 two dierent kinds of particles say a quark of charge 3 and an electron of charge 1. Then the Lagrangian is 1 2 e + eRZ1e eAe + iZ2 q q q + 1 eRZ1 q A q L = Z3F + iZ2e (19.148) 4 3 1 2 e(i + eRA) e + Z2 q q (i + 1 eRA) q = Z3F + Z2e 4 3 (19.149)

where Z1e = Z2e and Z1e = Z2 q have been used (but only shown at 1-loop). This rescaling implies the relationship between the coecient of i and of eRA is not corrected at 1-loop. In other words, the relative charges of the electron and the quark are not corrected. This is pretty remarkable. It explains why the observed charge of the proton and the charge of the electron can be exactly opposite, even in the presence of vastly dierent interactions of the two particles. A priori , we might have suspected that because of strong interactions and virtual mesons surrounding the proton, the types of radiative corrections for the proton would be vastly more complicated than for the electron. But, as it turns out, this does not happen it is the renormalization of the photon eld strength rescales the electric charge, but the corrections to the relative charges of the proton the electron cancel. 1 To see that it works to all orders, rst rescale A e A . Then the Lagrangian becomes

R

L=

(19.150)

1

q e 3 q e eie

1

A A +

Observe that the charges (1 and 3 ) appear in the transformation law but eR does not. Also, the transformation has nothing to do with perturbation theory. Since this symmetry holds in the tree-level theory, and the regulator preserves gauge invariance, then the loop corrections should also preserve the gauge symmetry, and therfore the counterterms respect the symmetry too. In other words, the form of the covariant derivatives D is xed by gauge invariance. Thus Z1 = Z2 to all orders. does not get renormalized, which is We will now show that this relation implies that the current an important, general, and useful result. And, for completeness, we will derive Z1 = Z2 from the generalized Ward-Takahashi identity.

The classical electromagnetic current density is (x) (x) j (x) = (19.154)

This couples to the photon as eA j . The 0 component of e times the current j0, integrated over all space times, gives the total charge. QEM = e d3xj0 = e d3x = total charge (19.155)

It does not change with time, since there the current vanishes at innity and tQ = e d3x0 j0 = e d3xiji = eji() = 0 (19.156)

206

Systematic Renormalization

The 0-component of the current itself simply gives the number of particles minus the number of antiparticles. This is also called lepton number. Q= d3xj0 = #particles #antipartles lepton number (19.157)

The charge is conserved. As a check, we can calculate that for the free elds (x) Q = Q (x) = So, d3 y (x) ( y ) ( y ) = Q (x) + d3 y ( y ) ( y ) (x) = (x) Q + d3 y 3(x y ) ( y ) = Q (x) + (x) d3 y 3(x y ) ( y ) = (x) Q + (x) (19.158) (19.159) (19.160) (19.161)

[ Q, ] = [ Q, ] =

That is, Q generates particle number. Since the current is conserved non-perturbatively, this should be true to all orders in perturbation theory. Let us check. (x) (x) as an operator in the theory in its own right. It is an example of a Now consider j (x) = are taken at the same point. We can calculate Greens functions of j just composite operator and like anything else. The leading non-vanishing amputated Greens function for this operator is ( q1) ( q2)}|0 = 0|T {( )( p) ( q1) ( q2)}|0 = 0|T { j ( p) There is only one relevant one-loop graph, whose divergent part we already know. = 1 + nite (19.163)

But now we do not have the 1 counterterm to cancel this 1 innity. To cancel this innity, we have to allow that the current may be renormalized. So we write

R 0 j = Z jj

with

(19.162)

(19.164) (19.165)

Zj = 1 + j

It is critical that we allow for the composite operator to be renormalized separately from its constituent elds. Lets compute j rst in bare perturbation theory, then in renormalized perturbation theory. In bare perturbation theory, the Z factors compensate for the renormalization of the external states in the amputated amplitude:

R ( q1) ( q2)}|0 R( q1) R( q2)}|0 = 1 Z2 0|T { j ( p) 0|T { j ( p) Zj 1 Now we add the counterterm contributions from the Z j Z2 factor in front

(19.166)

ct = ( j + 2)

(19.167)

So the sum is 1 j + 2. But since 1 = 2, all the divergences have canceled in 2 = 1, we can simply set j = 0. In other words The current is not renormalized

207

In renormalized perturbation theory, we have to work at the level of the Lagrangian. So we add our new operator to the Lagrangian as

R R R = Z2Z jj j

(19.168)

This leads to a i(2 + j ) vertex as before. We could have anticipated that the current must be conserved by looking back at the conservation of charge equation. Putting in the renormalized elds.

Thus unless Zj = 1 to all orders, this equation cannot be satised. Note that the current not being renormalized is not the same as saying that the divergences in the graphs cancel. That is, + + nite (19.170)

In fact, the sum of these three graphs is divergent. The correct statement is that the fermion eld strength renormalization is enough to cancel all the divergences, we do not need to renormalize the current separately. It also does not say we do not need both counterterms 1 and 2. We do need them both, but they are both equal.

(19.169)

That 1 = 2 to all orders follows from the generalized Ward-Takahashi identity, which was introduced in our discussion of path integrals: (19.171) (19.172) (19.173) Where,

1P I

So,

Similarly, M should sum all contributions to the photon vertex. All contributions are given by all amputated contributions plus external line corrections. The amputated contributions can be written as p

So,

Thus, writing q2 = q1 + p, the Ward-Takahashi identity implies p (q1) ( p, q1)(q1 + p) = 2(q1 + p) 2(q1) (19.178)

q1 q2

i(q )

(19.174) (19.175)

1 u( q ) = u ( q )(q )u( q ) q m (q )

(19.176)

(19.177)

208

Systematic Renormalization

= p + (q + p) (q ) Now recall that the amputated graphs are expressed conventionally in terms of form factors ( p, q ) = F1( p2) + Since the F2 term has a factor of p then

p 0

i pF2( p2) 2 me

(19.181)

lim p ( p, q ) = F1(0)p

(19.182)

Then taking p 0 holding q1 xed, the Ward-Takahashi identity implies F1(0) = lim

p 0

p + (q1 + p) (q1) d = 1 + (q ) dq p

d

(19.183)

q = mR

to all orders. We can express this more generally, by looking back at our renormalized Lagrangian 1 2 + Z2m0 + eRZ1 A L = Z3F + iZ2 4 The electron propagator following from this is (q ) = 1 i Z2 q m (19.186) (19.185)

p 0

(19.187) (19.188)

p 0

20.1 Introduction

We have shown that the 1, 2 and 3 point functions in QED are UV nite at one loop. We were able to introduce 4 counterterms (m , 1, 2, 3) which canceled all the innities. Now let us move on to four point functions, such as ( p1) ( p2) ( p3) ( p4) |0 0|T { (20.1) For example, this can represent Moller scattering, or Bhabha scattering. We will take it to be e+e + for simplicity (this process only has an s-channel diagram). Looking at these 4-point functions at one-loop will help us understand how to combine previous loop calculations and counterterms into new observables, and will also illustrate a new feature: cancellation of infrared divergences. Recall that 1 and 2 depend on the ctitious photon mass, m . This mass was introduced to make the loops nite and is an example of an infrared regulator. In the MS subtraction scheme, none of the counterterms depend on the infrared regulator, but there is still m dependence from the loops. In fact, the existence of infrared singularities is not related to the particular choice of UV regulator or subtraction scheme. Of course, that makes sense as the UV and IR are non-intersecting regions of phase space. We have seen two graphs which are infrared divergent: the electron self energy graph

k

and the QED vertex correction graph, which is similar. Both blow up as k 0, These infrared divergences comes from the photon being massless, so we were inspired to add a ctitious photon mass m . Then, the integral becomes 1 d4k i(q k + m) (2 )4 ( q k )2 m2 + i k 2 m2 which no longer blows up as k 0. Infrared divergences are funny things. They occur when there are massless particles in a theory. The electron is not massless, but at high energies it is eectively massless. We would often like to just set me = 0 but this will often induce an infrared divergence. In fact the running of the electric charge,

2 2 e2 e ( p ) = eR 1 +

q qk q

1 d4k i(q k + m) (2 )4 ( q k )2 m2 + i k 2

(20.2)

is singular as me 0. However, we can suspect that there is no real problem with me 0 or m 0 by going back to considering physical quantities. For example, if we look at the dierence between the Coulomb potential at two scales, we have e2 p2 R 2 2 2 p2 log 1 (20.4) 1V ( p1) p2V ( p2) = 2 12 p2 2 209

p2 e2 R log 2 2 12 me

(20.3)

210

Infrared Divergences

which is in fact independent of me. So this observable dierence is nite as me 0. The same would be true of the eective Compton potential, coming from t channel electron exchange in e e , and its loop correction, the self-energy contribution Eq. (1). There the dierence between Compton scattering matrix elements at two scales would be nite as m 0 for exactly the same reason as the dierence between Coulomb scattering matrix elements at two scales is nite as me 0. The general resolution of these infrared diverges is based on a similar physical principle to the resolution of UV divergences: make sure you are calculating physical quantities. But there is an added complication. Sometimes, instead of just relating the same measurement at dierent scales, infrared divergences will often only cancel if we add dierent contributions to the same measurement. We will explore this rst with an explicit example, and then talk about general features of infrared divergences.

The simplest 4-point function to consider is for e+e +

e e

+

We had found the tree level dierential cross section, with me = m = 0 is 2 d = 1 + cos2 d 4 Q2 where we are calling the COM energy Q (instead of s ) Then the total cross section is

2 1

= iM0

(20.5)

We would like to calculate the O (3) correction to this. This is sometimes known as the Born cross sec42 tion, because its calculated in the rst Born approximation: B = 3 Q2 . First, there are the loop graphs. These contribute to the same Greens function at order 3. Considering only amputated graphs there are 3

The next-to-leading order O (3) result is the interference between these graphs (of order 2) and the original graph (of order ). We will break down this calculation into pieces. For example, if the photon only couples to muons, the rst two graphs would be irrelevant. Or we can imagine that instead of e+e + , we simply have a massive vector boson (for example, the Z ) decaying to + , or even just an o-shell photon, . We can represent these possibilities by, instead of calculating the Greens function e+( p1) e ( p2) +( p3) ( p4)}|0 G4 = 0|T { +( p1) ( p2)}|0 GJ = 0|T { j ( p) (20.8) (20.9)

0 1

0 =

d cos

d 42 = 3 Q2 d

(20.6)

(20.7)

we calculate instead

20.3 Loops

211

where (x) (x) j (x) = (20.10) (x1) (x2) in the 4-point function because the current is evaluated a This current diers from the thing single space-time point. We can represent this with an operator insertion

If you nd this operator language confusing, dont worry about it. In the end, we will have calculated the full e+e + . The current language just lets us break the problem into pieces, so we can see whats important at each stage, but if you prefer to think about doing it all at once, go right ahead! In addition to the loop corrections to the 4-point function, to cancel the infrared divergences, we will need to calculate also real emission graphs. These are the tree level contributions to a 5-point function A }|0 G5 = 0|T { Or with the current, simply the current matrix elements GJ with an extra photon. The graphs are (20.11)

p2

p2

p2 + k

p1

p1 k

p1

We will do the loops rst, then the real emission graphs, and then show that we can take m 0 after then are combined into the full cross section d (e+e + ( + )). We take me = m for simplicity.

+

p2

20.3 Loops

20.3.1 Tree level graph

The tree-level graph that we need to interfere with is

iM0 =

p1

=i u ( p2) v ( p1)

(20.12)

pols

|M0|2 = Tr[p2 p1 ] = 8 p1 p2 = 4 Q2

(20.13)

212

Infrared Divergences

The vertex correction is

p2 + k

iM =

p1 k

d4k g (2 )4

p2 p1

(20.14)

(1 ) k2

kk k2

p2 + k p1 k ( p2 + k )2 ( p1 k )2

(20.15)

which is the same amplitude weve already encountered. We wrote it in terms of form factors = F1( p2) + i pF2( p2) 2 me (20.16)

where p = p1 + p2 is the momentum coming into the current vertex. Recall, only F1 is divergent, and the divergence is given by F1(0) = 1 + nite. The interference with M0 will give

M M0 + M0 M = 2Tr[p2 p1 ] + c.c.

(20.17) (20.18)

= 2F1( p2)Tr p2 p1 +

1 pF2( p2)Tr[p2 p1 me

The rst term just gives 2F1( Q2)0. The second term has an odd number of matrices in the trace, so it vanishes (NB: this would not be true if the fermions were massive, or if we looked at the NNLO, 2 correction). Thus the total correction at order is given by 2F1( Q2)0. With a Pauli-Villars regulator for the UV and a photon mass m for the IR F1( Q2) = 2

1 0

dxdydz (x + y + z 1) log

zm2

(20.19)

This is actually considerably simpler than the general expression, because we are taking massless fermions. The rst term is IR nite, and it gives F1( Q2) = 3 1 2 + log 2 + 2 4 2 Q (20.20)

The second term is IR divergent but UV nite. The integrals are hard to do. Expanding near m = 0 gives F1( Q2) = m2 1 2 1 3 m2 7 2 log 2 log2 2 log 2 + + O ( m2 ) Q Q 6 2 2 m 2 2 4 (20.21)

Note at least that the log2 term agrees with what we had above. So the result of this loops contribution to the total rate is = m2 m2 7 2 2 0 log2 2 3log 2 + + log 2 2 2 Q Q 3 m (20.22)

Note the double logs. Double logs are diagnostic of infrared divergences. They have a name: Sudakov double logarithms. There is a lot of fun physics associated with them.

20.3 Loops

213

20.3.3 counterterms

Next, consider the counterterm contribution. In bare perturbation theory, we are trying to calculate the Greens function

R R R 0| j |0 =

Z2 0 0 0 0| j |0 Zj

(20.23)

so we get the counterterms 2 j . We already know that j = 0 by current conservation, so all thats left is 2. Recall that in PV with a massive photon and massless electron 2 = 2 log 2 4 m (20.24)

Thus including the interference of this counterterm with the tree-level graph, we get a factor of two from the cross-terming, and therefore 2 ct = 0 log 2 (20.25) 2 m Thus the sum of the radiative corrections is V = ct + = m2 m2 7 2 0 log2 2 3log 2 + Q Q 2 2 3 (20.26)

which is UV nite. The same calculation in renormalized perturbation theory gets a factor of 2 j from the vertex so its the same thing. L= + Z2 j Zj (20.27)

Lets take in more of the full e+e + process to see whats going on a little better. Suppose we work more more step in. That is, we try to compute

p2

Where now the current source is creating a photon. Let me call this current Z . So we are calculating |0 0|T {Z (20.28)

p1

we were using Note this operator Zs is a dierent operator from the lepton number current j = before. You can think of this current as a classical radiation source. You can also think of is simply as an external photon, however, we want the photon to be o-shell, so thats not quite right. Instead, try thinking of it like a heavy gauge boson, say the Z . Ok, just think of it as whatever you like. Im going to think of it as an operator. The tree level contribution is now |0 |2 = | 0|T {Z e2 e2 Tr[p2 p1 ] = 4 2 4 Q Q (20.29)

spins ,Z pols

214

Its the same, but we get an extra factor of e from the vertex and a couple of gator. The loop on the muon side is the same as before

Its divergent part is still 1. Since the current caps the end of the photon line, so the photon should be considered internal. So there are other diagrams and counterterms as well. First, there is the internal photon loop

This is just the vacuum polarization diagram. We computed it in the t-channel. In the s-channel, its the same up to a crossing symmetry (t Q2), so 2( Q2) = 2

1 0

Infrared Divergences

1 s Q2

(20.30)

2( p2)

dxx(1 x)log

2 2 m2 e + Q x(1 x)

(20.31)

This functions IR divergences is cut o naturally by the electron mass. The divergence is 2(0) = 2 log 3 m2 e (20.32)

1 in ZZ is just a convention). So we get a factor of 2 2 Z for the counterterms from the eld (the strengths. We also get a factor of e from the renormalization of the bare electric charge in the QED vertex: e0 = eR e. 1 Thus the total UV divergences are 2 2 Z (Green s function) e(electron) 3(vac pol loop) 1 1 1(vertex loop) = 2 Z e 3. But since e = 2 3 we get Z = 3. If we had included this current in the Lagrangian (renormalized perturbation theory), it would be Z L = + 3 Z A (20.34) ZZ So we get a factor of 2 3 2 Z from this term. We also have the real QED vertex counterterm, 1 and the vertex loop 1. Then the vacuum polarization gives 3 and its counterterm 3. So we are left with 1 just 2 (3 Z ). Thus we nd Z = 3. The nite parts of the loops are of course the same. We are quickly conrming that bare and renormalized perturbation theory are quite trivially the same thing. Add the counterterm to the vacuum polarization graph gives, for Q me, 2( Q2) + 3 = 2

1 0 1 1

which is just 3. The counterterms are a little dierent. Including the eld strength renormalization in the matrix element (bare perturbation theory) gives R R R 0 0 0 0|T {Z (20.33) |0 = Z2 ZZ 0|T {Z |0

Q2 x(1 x) m2 e

(20.35) (20.36)

This gives an additional contribution to the total cross section. Note that the charge appearing here is the renormalized charge, dened by what is measured in the Coulomb force at p = 0.

20.3 Loops

215

Also note that the electron mass appears, but we wanted to set me = 0. Recall that our denition of Q2 the electric charge was thing thing measured at p = me 0. So, the me in 3 log m is really just the renore malization point. That is, more generally, we can write 2( Q2) = R Q2 log 2 3 p0 (20.37)

where R is dened as the electric charge measured at p = p0. For comparison with other experiments, its easier just to leave me 0 for this eect. First, note that the tree level cross section becomes (still normalization the phase space to 1) 0 = e24 Q2 . So e2 e2 e2 Q2 R tot = 4 R +4 R log 2 (20.38) 2 2 2 Q Q 12 me This is nothing more than the running of the electric charge in the bare cross section tot = 16Q2 Q with Q = e ( Q2) = R 1 + Q2 R log me 3 (20.39) (20.40)

This is the same scale-dependent eective coupling we were using for the corrections to Coulombs law.

e e

+

0|e+e + |0 42 Q 3 Q2

with no weird operators anymore (phew!). The total cross section is 0 = (20.42)

= iM0

(20.41)

where I have included the vacuum-polarization loop in writing Q instead of R for this cross section. 2 Remember Q = R + O (R ). For the loops, there is the vertex correction on the left and the vacuum polarization graph, plus a new graph the vertex correction on the left hand side. Thus the total loop divergences are divergences = 1 3 1 (20.43) For counterterms, we get just the two vertex counterterms and the photon propagator counterterm. The external lines are amputated so they do not contribute. Thus we have counterterms = 1 + 3 + 1 So all the divergences cancel. Thus the total loop contribution is V = 0 m2 m2 7 2 2 log2 2 3log 2 + Q Q 2 3 2 (20.44)

216

Infrared Divergences

and R is dened in terms of the charge measured at p 0. So we just get twice what we had for just the loop on the muon side, plus the vacuum polarization eect.

The real emission graphs are easy to compute. However, the phase space integrals with a massive photon can be somewhat tedious. This analysis is taken from Rick Fields book Applications of perturbative QCD. First, take massless photon emission from the muon side only. We need to calculate these diagrams

p3

p4

p2

(20.45)

s = ( p3 + p4)2 = Q2(1 x2) t = ( p2 + p4)2 = Q2(1 x1) u = ( p2 + p3)2 = Q2(1 x3) Note that now s + t + u = Q2 since the current is o-shell. The calculation is straightforward and we nd d2 s t 2u = 0 + + dsdt 2 t s st

2 d2 x2 1 + x2 = 0 dx1dx2 2 (1 x1)(1 x2)

(20.49) (20.50)

or equivalently

With a massive photon, this gets modied. There are both explicit factors of m that come into the matrix elements, but also factors of m in the phase space integrals to make a cross section. The result is 1 (1 x1)2 + (1 x2)2 d2 2 x2 + 2 = 0 1 + x2 + 2(x1 + x2) + (1 x1)(1 x2) dx1dx2 2 (1 x1)(1 x2)

with = Q2 . Now, s + t + u = Q2 + Q2 2. To calculate the total cross section, we have to integrate over phase space. Since

(20.51)

m2

x1 + x2 + x3 = 2 0 < xi < 1

(20.52) (20.53)

We get restricted phase space. For example, if x3 = 0 then x1 < 1 or else x2 would have to be larger than 1. The limits are 0 1 x1 xi x2 1 1 x1 1 x1 (20.54) (20.55)

217

Thus, R =

0 1

dx1

1 x1 1 x1

dx2

Recalling

1 x1

(20.56)

V = ct + =

m2 m2 7 2 g g 0 log2 2 3log 2 + Q Q 2 2 3

(20.57)

We see that all the log m terms precisely cancel, and we are left with R + V = 3 0 4 (20.58)

So we see that if we include the virtual contribution and the real emission, the IR divergences cancel. We have, at this point, only included real emission from the muon side, and the vertex correction loop from the muon side. We must now also be able to cancel the infrared divergence from the vertex correction on the electron side.

Thats all well and good for the muon side, where it makes sense to sum over the possibility of emitting muons and photons in calculating the total cross section. If we integrate over all initial state photons as well, we would nd tot [e+e( + ) + ( + )] = 0 1 + 3e 2 (20.59)

which is perfectly nite. However, shouldnt we be able to collide the e+e without summing also over initial state photons? Actually, no. While it does not make sense to integrate over all possible initial-state photons, it is impossible to make sure you just have an electron and not an electron and a bunch of photons. So at least you must sum over the soft stu, which will be enough to cut-o the divergence. One reason this might seem confusing is because our language has been imprecise. All along we have pretended weve been colliding momentum eigenstates, i.e plane waves. In fact, we are colliding wave packets. The uncertainty in the wave-packet has to do with not knowing how much energy there is, and also not known how much energy is in the electron or in its soup of surrounding soft photons, which are also in the wave-packet. For example, suppose the wave packet has some energy uncertainty Ei Q. Ei can be very small, even Ei me, but it must be greater than zero. Then integrating the photon energy up to Ei will give R = 0 m2 m2 log2 2 + 3log + c 2 Ei Ei (20.60)

for some constant c. Then adding this to our correction will cancel the logs of m leaving tot [e+e( + ) + ( + )] = 0 1 + Q2 Q2 3 log2 2 + 3log 2 + c 4 Ei Ei (20.61)

which is nite it doesnt depend on the ctitious photon mass. How do we deal with this in practice? First of all, we could just choose Ei of some scale so that Q2 log2 E 2 1. But do we have to really know what the uncertainty is on our wavepackets and include that

i

in the calculation? No we dont. In fact, there are many uncertainties which are much larger than wavepacket width, such as the impact parameter of the e+ and e we are colliding. Averaging over impact parameters completely overwhelms any uncertainty-relation bounded wave-packet uncertainty. The practical resolution is that we should just stick to observables that are not sensitive to the electron side. Let me give some examples.

218

Infrared Divergences

A process like e+e + is not well-dened in perturbation theory because of the infrared divergence. We found that we need to sum over additional photon emissions to get a nite quantity. Quantities which are insensitive to the infrared regulator are called infrared safe . There is a theorem due to Kinoshita-Lee and Nauenberg (KLN theorem) which says that any physically observable quantity is infrared safe. Here are a few examples of the importance of infrared safety in practice: For situations where the cross section is important, such as Z boson production, its usually resonance production. In fact, the soft photons help bring the Z to the resonance peak, a process called radiative return . In this case, its just the decay width you measure, so you only need the nal state loops. The decay width is calculable, nite, and does not depend on whether it was e+e or something else that pro3 duced the Z . Thus the correction to the width is a way to test for the 2 correction. 2 1 For example, suppose the Z decays to quarks and to muons. Quarks have charge 3 or 3 , so the photon loop correction will be smaller for the width to quarks than the width to muons. Thus the ratio of partial widths directly measures and the charges of the particles in the decay. The electron side drops out completely. So we dont need to bother with the Ei cuto or the vertex correction loop. For QCD, where you dont have free quarks, the wave-packets have a natural size the proton. The proton is a bundle of quarks and gluons, where the gluons are mostly soft, and can be thought of to a rst approximation like the photons we have been using in this discussion. These virtual and soft gluons strongly inuence the distribution of energies of quarks inside the proton, in a calculable way. This is the physical basis of parton distribution functions . So theres a lot of physics in initial state radiation, it just doesnt have much to do with total cross sections in QED. Swapping a log m for a logE works for nal state radiation too, and there it is important. We dont have to integrate over all photons on the + side. We can do something less inclusive (more exclusive ), and integrate only over photons up to an energy E f . If we put a cut on the photon energy, we will get logs of that energy divided by Q in the cross section. E2 dtot = tot 2log2 f + dE f Q2 (20.62) Final state energy cuts. Protons in QCD Decay widths

This E f is often a realistic quantity related to actual parameters of an experiment. For example, the experiment BABAR at SLAC measures the decays of B mesons to kaons and photons (B K ). They are only sensitive to photons harder than 1.6 GeV. Softer photons are below the threshold sensitivity of their detector. Thus this log is a very important quantitative feature of the cross section they measure, and must be included in attempts to constrain new physics (eg. supersymmetry) using B K + decays. Note that for small E f Q there will be large logarithms which may invalidate your perturbation expansion. In fact, it seems that if we look at d /d E f it will be completely dominated by small E f . Another way of saying this is that the dominant radiation will be soft. We can see this from the Feynman diagrams directly Soft/Collinear singularities

p3 p4 p2

219

The propagator is

1 ( p4 + p2)2

1 . E E2

Ef 1 dE . 0 E

More

Writing p4 = E (1, 0, 0, 1), this happens when either E 0 , which is called a soft divergence, or when p3 is also in the z direction, that is K p3 p 4 = 0. That is called a collinear singularity. So the cross section is dominated by soft and collinear singularities. Jets

It is not hard to see that when the radiation is soft enough, the enhancement in the cross section will be substantial. This is compensated for by the fact that the soft radiation is hard to see. But what it means is that the outgoing particle, say the muon, will be accompanied by lots of soft or collinear photons. This broadens the outgoing particle from a plane wave into something like a wave-packet. This wave-packet is not a Gaussian wave-packet, and not easy to describe theoretically, but it has a calculable shape. While these nal-state muon-photon wave-packets are are hard to see in QED, they are easy to see in QCD. In QCD, the muon is replaced by a quark and the photon replaced by a gluon. The quark itself, and the additional soft gluons turn into separate observable particles, such as pions and kaons. Thus a quark in QCD turns into a jet of hadrons . These jets are a very real and characteristic phenomenon of all high-energy collisions. We have explained their existence by studying the infrared singularity structure of Feynman diagrams in quantum eld theory. Lamb shift

The dominant contribution to the Lamb shift is given by an infrared divergent eect. The loop gives a m2 log m 2 and the real emission contribution replaces this m with the binding energy of the orbital EB . The

result is E log E 2 1000 MHz. We will discuss this in detail in the next lecture. B e

m2

The calculation of the total cross section can be done also in dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction or MS. Repeating the calculation this way helps illustrate regulator independence not just of UV quantities, but also of IR quantities. This part is taken from Muta Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics, which you should look at to get more details.

20.7.1 loops

The important loop in dimensional regularization is the F1 form factor. We computed it already with an electron and photon mass (2 d )(2 )2 1 2 e R 2 4d F1( p2) = dxdydz ( x + y + z 1) (20.64) (4 )d/2 2 d/2 0 + (3 2 ) 3 d/2

d 2 2 p2[2(1 x)(1 y ) xy ] + m2 e[2(1 4 z + z ) (1 z ) ] 2 2 = (1 z )2m2 e + zm xyp

(20.65)

where (20.66)

220

Infrared Divergences

A nice thing about dimensional regularization is that can be used to regulate infrared as well as ultraviolet divergences. This is because ddk 1 (20.67) (2 )4 k 4 is nite in at small k for d > 4. That means should expand for d = 4 + . However, as long as we keep d as a variable, we will always be able to do the integrals and expand in , not worrying about whether then sign of is positive or negative. So, we can just set me = m = 0 before doing the integrals, then expand near d = 4. For me = m = 0 in dim reg the form factor at p2 = Q2 becomes

1 e2 2 F1( Q2) = dxdydz (x + y + z 1) d/2 Q2 (4 ) 0 1 d 2(1 x)(1 y ) xy d (2 )2 + (3 ) (2 ) d 2 2 2 2 (xy )3 d/2 (xy ) 2 4d

(20.68) (20.69)

42 4 Q2

d ( 1)( 2 ) (3 ) 2 (d 1) 2

8 2 + 2 2

(20.70)

Expanding out the ( Q2) gives log( Q2) = log Q2 + i. At order we only need Re[MM0] and M0 is real, so we can drop these imaginary parts. However, note that log2( Q2) = log2 Q2 + 2i logQ2 2 So we get very important 2 terms which aect the nal answer. Then, 2 2 6 + 4 log 2 2 8 7 Q2 Re[F1( Q2)] = 2 2log2 2 log 2 8 + Q Q 4 6 (20.71)

(20.72)

Now, recall that with the massive electron and photon, these masses regulated the infrared divergences. There, we found 2 F1( p2) = + (20.73) 4

We already know that this UV divergence will get canceled by the counterterm. But in order to appreciate the IR content of the counterterm, we need to understand how to compute dimensionless integrals in dim reg.

Since the UV divergences have to do with high energy, they are independent of any small mass the electron or photon might have. Thus we can gure out which of the s in F1 are UV divergences and which are IR divergences 2 2 8 + 4 log 2 2 2 2 8 7 Q (20.74) 2log2 2 log 2 8 + Re[F1( Q2)] = IR Q Q 6 4 UV 2 IR

The counterterm we need is 1. Recall that 1 cancels the divergence of the vertex correction and 2 cancels the divergence of the self energy diagram. Since 1 = 2, it is easier just to look at the self-energy diagram which is simpler.

221

The self energy diagram with massless elds is (p) = e2p ddk 1 (2 )d k 4 (20.75)

What are we to make of the k integral, which doesnt have any structure in it besides the innity? If we wick rotate and do the phase space integral, we nd ddk 1 i d/2 = (2 )d k 4 8 2 ( d )

2 0

k 3 ddk =

i 1 4d k 8 2 4 d

(20.76)

The upper limit of integration can only be used if d < 4 and the lower limit if d > 4. But d is xed, so what do we make of this? Let us split the integral into two parts

0

k 3 ddk =

0

k 3 ddk +

k 3 ddk

(20.77)

0

k 3 ddk =

1 1 I R = log IR IR

(20.78)

k 3 ddk =

0

1 1 U V = + log UV UV 1 1 IR UV

(20.79) (20.80)

k 3 ddk =

(p) =

2 2 p 4 IR UV

2

UV

(20.81) = 1.

If we are using minimal subtraction, then we have to make sure to use the full propagators for the external lines which include IR divergent loop corrections. This gives a factor of 2 4 IR (20.82)

Instead, it is conventional to add the IR divergence into your subtraction terms so that 1 = 2 = 2 2 + IR UV 4 (20.83)

This is just 0. In general, dimensionless integrals in dim reg are 0. When you add them to a process with their counterterms, they to convert UV divergences to IR divergences. Now weve seen how to make sense of and 0 0.

Adding the counterterm 1 = 2 2 + 4 UV IR (20.84)

222

Infrared Divergences

2

2log2

2 Q2

log

2 Q2

8+

where all the UV divergences cancel (are replaced by IR divergences). This separation between UV and IR divergences in dim reg is somewhat ill-dened. Thats why we did the Pauli-Villars regulator with a nite photon mass above. So the contribution to the cross section is V = 0(F1( Q2) + F1( Q2)) = 6 + 4log Q2 8 2 2 7 2 2 2log2 2 log 2 8 + IR 2 Q Q 6 IR

2

7 6

(20.85)

(20.86) (20.87)

Next, we have to compute the real emission diagrams. The matrix elements in 4D give |M 2| = x2 + y 2 (2 x y )2 x2 + y 2 = + O () 1+ 1+ 2 2 (1 x) (1 y) (1 (2 x y)) (1 x)(1 y )

1 1

(20.88)

0 1 x

dy |M 2| =

(1 2 )( 2 ) (3 2 )

3

5 4 + 6 2 2

(20.89)

For the cross section, we also have to include a factor from d dimensional 2 5 phase space dR 42 = B dxdy 2 Q2 3(1 ) |M 2| (3 2)(2 2) (20.90)

But now the Born cross section changes too, because of d dimension phase space (we have to keep track of 1 all the 2 terms, because they give nite parts on top of the 2 poles).

d B = 0

42 Q2

/2

(20.91)

3 d

(20.92)

2

6 + 4log Q2

+ 2log2

2 Q2

+ log

2 Q2

where there are no UV divergences in the real emission, so we have written it as IR to be explicit. Thus all of the IR divergences, and all of the logs cancel, and we are left with tot = V + R = 0 3 4 (20.94)

19 7 2 6

(20.93)

which is exactly what we got with PV and m . This is beautiful conrmation of the consistency of all these ideas.

223

The infrared divergences also eect other process, like Compton scattering (which as we have noted is just the crossed version of e+e ). There this leads to d ( e e) 22 = 2 dcos 2me + s(1 + cos) tot = 22 s log 2 s me (20.95) (20.96)

This log me is the same as the logm terms we were seeing. At very high energies, your knowledge of the energy of the initial state electron would be limited. In that case, you would have to allow that the electron is o-shell by an energy E and include also e e . This would replace the log me by a log E . Another way to see that this total cross section formula is of limited validity is to consider radiative corrections. They would add terms of the form tot = 22 s s log 2 + log2 2 + s me me (20.97)

If s me gets large enough than these subleading terms dominate your original estimate. Thus the processes with e e will contribute. In that case you must allow for a nite resolution of the electron s 22 energy if you want to trust your answer. Then s log E 2 is the more useful formula.

21.1 Hydrogen atom spectrum summary

At leading order, the energy of the states of the hydrogen atom only depend on the principle quantum number n Z 22 En = me 3 109 MHz (21.1) 2n2 There are corrections to this due to the non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation. The Dirac Hamiltonian can be expanded and written as an eective Schrodinger-like equation p4 Z K p2 + B K + Z (r ) = E 2 m2 2m 8m3 4r 3m2 (21.2)

K The p4 term is a relativistic corrections, as is the (r ) term (the Darwin term). The L K term is the spinorbit coupling. This changes the energy levels by

E = me 1 3 Z 44 2 n3 j + 1 4 n 2 4 104 MHz (21.3)

where j is the total angular momentum quantum number. This energy shift, to O (4) is known as the ne structure. The easiest way to see that the energies can only depend on the total angular momentum is by K =L K +1 observing that the total angular momentum operator J K commutes with the Dirac Hamiltonian. 2 So the ne structure does not split states of the same j but dierent l and s. For example, there are two states with n = 2 and j = 1/2: the 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 states. These are degenerate as far as ne structure is concerned. There is also a higher order correction, O (6), which comes from the next order non-relativistic expansion of the Dirac equation. These will be eects of order E me Z 66 2 MHz 2 n3 (21.4)

These can be important for large Z , but otherwise are negligible, and extremely dicult to measure experimentally. In any case, they will not split the states of the same j .

The most quantitatively important part of the Lamb shift is a large logarithm, due to the infrared divergent vertex correction loop. This calculation was done rst by Hans Bethe in 1947. Although Bethe did not understand the infrared divergences in our modern language, he was able to make physical arguments to arrive at the correct answer. 225

226

Consider the infrared and UV divergent form factor F1, which corrects the photon vertex. We computed it already with an electron and photon mass. We are interested mainly in the momentum region relevant to correcting the energy levels of hydrogen. Since the electron Compton radius is much less the the 1 Bohr radius: m a0, the physical eect should be dominated by momenta p2 m2 e. The calculation is e done by splitting up momenta into p > EB and p < EB , where EB is the binding energy of the orbit EB 1 Ry 2me. Let us start with EB p2 me. Recalling that the renormalization conditions set F1(0) = 1 exactly, we have to work to next-to-leading order in F1( p2) = 1 +

2 p2 . m2 e

m2 p2 log + 6 m2 m2 e e

The may include things like the 5 from the Uehling potential, which is really a vacuum polarization 3 loop, or a 4 which is spin-orbit coupling eect. So we will just concentrate on the log. To get a correction to the energy from this, observe that F1 corrects the photon vertex, so we get an interaction like A L = F1( p2) (21.7) Since interaction terms in the Lagrangian are the same as energy density terms in the Hamiltonian, up to a sign, we can turn this into an eective energy. In the non-relativistic limit, only the electric eld (A0 term) is relevant, so we get E = m2 + log 2 m2 6me e ( q1) p2A0( p) ( q2) (21.8)

where I am leaving some integrals and Fourier transforms implicit. at x = 0. Now, A0 = r = p2 in the Hydrogen atom, so p2A0 = Z (x). Thus we end up evaluating But only the l = 0 modes have support at x = 0 (0) = 2 Zme n

3/2

l, 0

(21.9)

That is, we pick up a shift for the l = 0 orbitals, like 2S1/2 but not the l = 1 orbitals, like 2P1/2. Thus this will contribute to a split of these levels. We nd E = m2 Z 33m3 e log 2 4 Zl, 0 8 6 me Z 45me m2 log 2 l, 0 12 me (21.10) (21.11)

This is still infrared divergent. The infrared divergence is canceled by the really small momentum region p2 EB 2me. In this region, the photon energy is not bigger than the energy of the photons coming out of the nucleus which are responsible for binding the electron in the rst place. So we must work to all orders in the background Coulomb potential. That is, we need to consider diagrams with multiple insertions of the external current. The calculation is a real pain. The result is what you would have guessed by dimensional analysis. The low energy region contributes an amount E =

2 Z 45me EB log 2 l, 0 12 m

(21.12)

227

2 Z 45me EB log 2 l, 0 12 me

If you are interested in a less hand wavy derivation, I think clearest treatment can be found in Landau and Lifshitz volume 4, Quantum Electrodynamics. Weinberg does the calculation also, in Section 14.3 of volume one, but its a little messier.

The splitting between the 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 levels is a very small eect. It was not measured until 1947 by Willis Lamb, who was able to use microwave technology developed during WWII to measure the shift accurately. Lamb found E (2S1/2) E (2P1/2) 1000 MHz (21.16) That is, the 2S1/2 state is lifted, by 1000 MHz. The understanding of this result was one of the great triumphs of QED. It is known as hyperne structure, and do to radiative corrections. They are down by a loop factor from the ne structure splittings. There are a number of contributions. First, there is the nite piece that has support near r = 0. V (r ) = 4 (r ) 1+ r 15 2m2 (21.17)

This eects only the l = 0 modes and lowers their energy, to En lj = m 4Z 45 1 l0 3n3 5 E (2S1/2) = 27 MHz (21.18)

This is known as the Uehling term, it was known since the mid 1930s. It shifts the 2S1/2 state by 27 MHz, which doesnt help at all to explain Lambs result. The correction is fairly unambiguous and was derived from vacuum polarization by simply dropping all the logs. Renormalization was not at all understood by the mid 30s.

Next, there is the radiative correction with the logarithm in it. We discussed this above. It was calculated rst by Hans Bethe in 1947. He did the calculation using old-fashioned perturbation theory, but only the low momentum region. He argued that the energy of a free electron and a bound electron in a Hydrogen atom can have dierent energies, and worked out the radiative correction. He found that his answer was EB , independent of the electron mass. This is the same UV divergence that OppenUV divergent E log heimer had found in 1931, for which Oppenheimer concluded that QED was a failure. The dierence is: Bethe new about Lambs measurement, and his estimate agreed. Bethe imposed that = me is a natural cuto justied on physical grounds. This led to E (2S1/2) = m 4Z 45 me log 1000 MHz 3n3 E (21.19)

is some average excitation energy, not exactly the binding energy. For example, taking E = where E me 1 13.6eV gives log E = 10 which leads to a shift of around 1600 MHz. What Bethe used for E was a little 4 more complicated, and he got 1000 MHz, in close agreement to Lambs measurement.

228

Even though this shift accounts for the majority of the Lamb shift, but Bethes derivation was somewhat ad hoc . Still, it was the rst example of something coming out of a divergent loop and agreeing with experiment and was extremely important historically.

Then there is a spin-orbit coupling term, which only eects the modes with l 0. This was rst calculated by Schwinger, who got E (2P1/2) = 3/8. Actually, Schwinger was able to argue on general grounds that this should be 3/8, but when he calculated it, he found 1/8. This was due to his use of a non gaugeinvariant regulator. The full eect was calculated correctly for the rst time by Tomonaga in 1948. He found 4Z 45 3 j ( j + 1) l(l + 1) 4 En l j = m (1 l0) 16.875 MHz 3n3 8 l(l + 1)(2l + 1)

3

(21.20)

This completed the calculation. The total shift, rst presented by Tomonaga in 1949 (Feynman and Schwinger calculated this formula correctly too, and independently of Tomonaga) is En lj = m 3 j ( j + 1) l(l + 1) 4 4Z 45 19 (1 l0) Lnl + l 0 + 3 8 3n 30 l(l + 1)(2l + 1)

3

(21.21)

where the Lnl come from the log piece, calculated properly. They are integrals over the hydrogen atom wavefunctions, and the Fourier transform of the proper combination of the loop graphs. For example, Ln =2,l =0 = 7.03 and Ln =2,l =1 is 0.030. So this becomes E (2S1/2) E (2P1/2) = 0.411m5 = 1051 MHz The current best measurement of this shift is 1054 MHz. (21.22)

Chapter 22

22.1 Introduction

We have shown how to calculate 2, 3 and 4 point functions in QED. We found that the 1-loop corrections to these correlation functions often have UV divergences, but that these UV divergences were artifacts of not computing something physical. For physical quantities, the UV divergences always canceled, leaving a nite measurable result which can be compared to experiment. The next question we will address is, will this always be the case? At 1-loop, its not hard to see that in QED we can always cancel the divergences. We already found three UV divergent loops in QED. The rst two corrected 2-point functions

k

pk k

We were able to subtract o the UV divergent parts of these graphs with counterterms 1, 2, 3 and m. These counterterms were introduced as a quick way to compare observables they drop out in dierences between correlations functions at dierent scales, which is often the quantity that we are really observing. The UV divergences are the same whether or not the the external legs are on-shell; they come from regions of loop momenta with k pi for any external momentum pi. In particular, the same counterterms will cancel the UV divergences of graphs even when the graphs are sub-graphs in more complicated higher-order correlation functions. We saw this explicitly, and in some detail, for 4-point functions, like e+e + . The graphs above were all present and the counterterms we derived from 2 and 3-point functions nicely removed the UV divergences. This will hold quite generally because the counterterms work o-shell. Thus, we only have to make sure that we can remove all the UV divergences of graphs like these which are one-particle irreducible (1PI). Recall that we introduced the notion of one-particle irreducibility when trying to deal with the electron self-energy. It justied using the exact renormalized propagator, with a pole at the physical mass instead of the bare propagator. Now we see that we only need to look at 1PI graphs when trying to gure out what UV divergences are present. Let us use as a working denition of 1PI One-particle irreducible (1PI): all internal lines have some loop momentum going through them

p p

Renormalizability of QED

(22.1)

qk

(22.2)

230

The graphs

are not 1PI. These are amputated graphs, and very important to actually calculate in working out the loop-corrections to a particular process. But their UV divergences are canceled by counterterms which can be worked out for lower-order correlation functions, for which they are 1PI. So, keep in mind that for physics we need to compute all amputated graphs, but for studying general properties of renormalizability it is enough to study only the 1PI graphs.

Renormalizability of QED

(22.3)

(22.4)

The graphs in Eqs (1) and (2) are the only non-vanishing 2 and 3-point functions in QED.

For 4-point functions, there is the function with 4-fermions }|0 0|T { (22.5)

We have already looked at this, for e+e + , where the only relevant 1-loop graphs were the 3 above. If we took Moller scattering (ee ee) at 1-loop, there would be another one: |0 0|T {

d k k6

A A |0 0|T {

This would contribute to e+e at 1-loop. It is also not UV divergent. Finally, there is the 4-point photon for light-by-light scattering:

M = 0|T {A AA A }|0

d4k 1 1 1 1 (2 )4 k 2 k 2 k k

(22.6)

d4k 1 1 1 1 (2 )4 k 2 k k k

(22.7)

d4k 1 1 1 1 (2 )4 k k k k

(22.8)

231

(22.9)

For some constant c. The s have been symmetrized. However, we know by the Ward identity that this must vanish when one of the photons is replaced by its momentum. Say A has momentum q . Then 0 = q M = c log 2( q + q + q) + q nite (22.10)

This must hold for all q , which is impossible unless c = 0. Thus gauge invariance makes this amplitude nite.

For 1-loop contributions to 1PI Greens functions with more than 4 legs, we get things like pentagon diagrams AA A |0 0|T {

This will all have at least 5 propagators, with 5 factors of loop momentum, so they will be nite. It doesnt matter if the propagators are fermions or photons anymore, we will always have more than 4 powers of k in the denominator. So, the 4 counterterms 1, 2, 3 and m suce to cancel all the divergences in any Greens function of QED at 1-loop. The general denition of renormalizable is: Renormalizable: all UV divergences are canceled with a nite number of counterterms Thus, we have shown that at QED is renormalizable at 1-loop.

d4k 1 1 1 1 1 (2 )4 k k k k k 2

(22.11)

What about 2-loop and higher loop 1PI graphs? We can show they are nite by induction. When we add a loop, we can add either a photon propagator or a fermion propagator. If we add an internal photon propagator,

it must split two fermion lines, so the new loop has two additional fermion propagators as well. By the denition of 1PI, loop momenta go through all internal lines. So for k pi, where pi is any external 1 1 momentum, each internal line will get or k2 . So the matrix element gets modied to

k

M d4k 1 1 1 M (2 )4 k 2 k k

(22.12)

(22.13)

(22.14)

232

Renormalizability of QED

giving k2 and by Lorentz invariance, we need to add at least 2 fermion propagators , so a fermion kk insertion also doesnt change the power counting. This assumes that dominant divergence comes from when all the loop momenta go to innity together. Clearly if the graph is not divergent when all the momenta are blowing up, it will not be divergent when only some of the momenta are blowing up. There is another special case, when the two loop momenta come in as k1 k2 in the denominator. Then the degree of divergence depends on precisely how we take the momenta to innity together. But if we hold p = k1 k2 xed in the limit, then we are eectively integrating over only one fewer loop momenta. Thus this is equivalent to a graph of one fewer loops. The actual proof that these special cases do not screw things up is fairly involved. For QED it involves gauge invariance in an essential way (for example, as we saw in the light-by-light scattering 4-point function above). The result that there are only a nite number of divergent loops is known as the BPHZ theorem, after Bogoliubov, Parasiuk, Hepp, and Zimmermann. We have only sketched the proof here. Since we can cancel all the 1-loop divergences already, we can now cancel all the 2 and higher loop divergences by adding pieces to the same counterterms to higher order in . We can conclude that QED is renormalizable This means that that all the UV divergences in QED are canceled by the same 4 counterterms weve introduces at 1-loop. These are t by 2 numbers: the physical value of the electric charge eR measured in Coulombs law at p = 0 and the physical value of the electron mass. The other two counterterms are xed by canonically normalizing the electron and photon elds. (The physical observable for these is that we see 1-particle electron and photon states, which sounds like a rather coarse observable, but it is an observable nonetheless.) This a is pretty amazing conclusion actually. With just 2 free parameters t to data, we can make an innite number of predictions in QED. Renormalizability played a very important role in the historical development of quantum eld theory and gauge theories. Nowadays, we have a larger context to place renormalizable theories. As it turns out, renormalizability is not obviously a quality we need in a theory, and it may even hurt us. For example, QED has a big problem: it has a Landau pole. So we cannot predict every observable just because we can cancel all the UV divergences. For example, Coulomb scattering above E = 10300 GeV is a completely mystery in QED. Moreover, precisely because QED is renormalizable, we have no sensitivity at low energy to the UV structure of the theory, so we have no way of probing the mysterious high-energy regime without building a 10300 GeV collider. Other renormalizable theories are unpredictive in much more relevant regimes: the standard electroweak model (without the Higgs) is non-perturbative at 103 GeV, as we will discuss in a moment, and QCD does not make perturbative predictions below 1 GeV. Both of these theories are renormalizable. We can understand these issues in more detail by asking a very simple question: what to non-renormalizable theories look like?

11

We saw that in QED, there are nite number of divergent one-particle irreducible contributions to Greens functions. The supercial degree of divergence of a Greens function is the overall number of powers of k in the loop momenta, assuming all k pi for any external momentum pi. Call the supercial degree of divergence of a Greens function with n external fermions and m external photons Dn,m. Then we found 0|T {AA }|0 |0 0|T { d4k 1 1 (2 )4 k k d4k 1 1 (2 )4 k 2 k D2 , 0 = 2 D2, 0 = 1 (22.15) (22.16)

233

d4k 1 1 1 (2 )4 k 2 k k

And that anything with more than 4 elds has D < 0. It is not hard to work out that 3 Dn,m = 4 n m 2 The scaling comes simply from the dimension of the Greens function: fermions have dimension tons dimension 1. With scalar external states, this would be 3 Dn,m,s = 4 n m s 2 where s is the number of scalars. Only the Greens functions with D > 0 can possibly be divergent. QED is a special theory because it only has a single interaction vertex A LQ ED = Lkin + e (22.23)

3 2

(22.22)

the coecient of this interaction is the dimensionless charge e. More generally, we might have a theory with couplings of arbitrary dimension. For example, 1 L = ( + m2) + g1 3 + g2 2 3 + 2 (22.24)

This screws up the power counting. Call the dimension of the coecient of the ith interaction i. For example, the g1 term above has 1 = 1 and g2 has 2 = 5. Now consider a loop contribution to a Greens function with ni insertions of the vertices with dimension i. For k pi, the only scales that can appear are k s and s. So by dimensional analysis, the supercial degree of divergence of the same integral changes as

ni k D gi

k D nii

(22.25) (22.26)

Thus

3 Dn,m = 4 n m s nii 2

So if there are interactions with i < 0 then there can be an innite number values of n and m, and therefore an innite number of 1PI loops with D > 0. Thus we will need an innite number of counterterms to cancel all the innities. Such theories are called non-renormalizable. Non-renormalizable is equivalent to there being interactions with mass dimensions i < 0. On the other hand if all the interactions have mass dimension i > 0, then the theory is called super-renormalizable. 3 theory is a super-renormalizable theory. We generalized this terminology also to describe individual interactions renormalizable interaction: coupling constant has dimension 0

234

Renormalizability of QED

Also people sometimes describe interactions of dimension 0 as marginal , dimension > 0 as relevant , and dimension < 0 as irrelevant . These labels come from the renormalization group.

Non-renormalizable theories have an innite number of supercially divergent integrals. This is due to the 1 presence of couplings gi with negative mass dimension. For example, g = M for some scale M . The divergent integrals can always be written as sums of terms of the form I div = ( p p ) g1 gn dk kj (22.27)

for some number m of the various external momenta p . This is in the region of loop momentum for which k p for all external momenta p. These integrals can produce logarithms of the regularization scale , or powers of I div = g n( p p )[c0log + c1 + c22 + c33 + ] (22.28) It is very important that there can never be terms like log p2 in the divergent part of the integral, that is, nothing like 2log p2 can appear. This is simply because we didnt have an log p2 terms to begin with and we can go to the divergent region of the integral by taking k p before integrating over anything that might give a log. It is not just 2log p2 terms that will never appear, but anything that is not analytic in the external momenta are forbidden as well. Another way to see that the divergences are a polynomial in the external momenta comes from using the derivative trick to evaluate the integrals. Weinberg takes this approach in section 12.2. A general divergent integral will have various momenta factors in it, such as I ( p) =

0

kdk k+p

(22.29)

There will always be at least one denominator with a factor of p. If we dierentiate the integral with respect to p enough times, the integral becomes convergent I ( p) =

0

2kdk 1 = (k + p)3 p

(22.30)

Thus we can then integrate over p to produce a polynomial, up to constants of integration I ( p) = plog p p + 2 = p log p p (log 1 + 1) + 2 1 (22.31)

So we do get non-analytic terms in the integral, but only polynomials in p can ever multiply the divergences. The point is that polynomials in external momenta are exactly what we get at tree level from terms in the Lagrangian. That is, we can have counterterms for them. For example, suppose this integral I ( p) were contribution to something like a 6 correlation function: 0|T { ( p1) ( p)}|0 = p log + + nite Then we could add terms Lnew = Z5() 5 + Z6 6 = () 5 + 6 + 5() 5 + 6 6 These new terms contribute to the 6 point function as 0|T { ( p1) ( p6)}|0 = p + 1 + p5 + 6 (22.34) (22.33) (22.32)

The counterterms can now be chosen to cancel the innities: 5 = log and 6 = . Then the Greens function is made nite. This can be done order by order in perturbation theory to cancel all of the innities in the theory.

235

In order to have a counterterm, we need the corresponding term to actually be in our Lagrangian. So the easiest thing to do is just to add every possible term we can think of. But do we need terms like x4, which break Lorentz invariance? Obviously not, as we will never get Lorentz violating divergences in a Lorentz invariant theory. Clearly, we only need to add terms that preserve the symmetries of our theory. But, every possible term must be included, otherwise we cannot guarantee that all the innities can be canceled. This can be subtle as symmetries are sometimes violated in the quantum theory or in the path integral measure, even though they are symmetries of the classical Lagrangian. Such violations are called anomalies , and we will get to them eventually. In summary, non-renormalizable theories must include every term not forbidden by symmetries non-renormalizable theories need an innite number of counterterms non-renormalizable theories are just as nite as renormalizable theories non-renormalizable theories can be renormalized. Their physical predictions are just as nite as in renormalizable theories.

The dierence is that the innities in renormalizable theories can be canceled with a nite number of counterterms, while an innite number of counterterms is often necessary in non-renormalizable theories. However, non-renormalizable theories are still very predictive, as we will now see.

23.1 Introduction

Almost every quantum eld theory we ever look at is non-renormalizable. This is simply because eective eld theories are non-renormalizable, and every theory we know of is either an eective theory or can be treated as an eective theory for practical purposes. So you already know that these theories are wonderful for doing physics. We will look at 4 examples, corresponding to the 4 forces of nature: the Schrodinger equation (electromagnetism), the 4-Fermi theory (the weak force), the theory of mesons (the strong force), and quantum gravity. In each case we will see how the non-renormalizable theory is predictive despite the need for an innite number of counterterms. After studying some examples of non-renormalizable theories, we will look at the superrenormalizable theories. These theories all have couplings with positive mass dimension and have serious problems in making physical predictions..

Consider the Schrodinger equation it = H = p2 + V (r ) 2m (23.1)

This is a non-renormalizable eective eld theory. The parameter with negative mass-dimension is simply 1 the coecient of p2: m . Why are there not more terms of higher order in p in this equation? Well, there are, as we know from taking the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation H= p2 p2 p4 1 + a1 2 + a2 4 + 2m m m + V (r ) (23.2)

All we are doing here is writing down the most general Hamiltonian consistent with rotational symmetry. 1 The factors of m are just dimensional analysis. It turns out that a1 = 4 for the Dirac equation, and the others as are also calculable. 1 The Schrodinger equation is useful even if we dont know about the Dirac equation or that a1 = 4 . In the non-relativistic limit p m, the higher order terms have a very small eect. But they are measurable! a1 contributes to the ne structure of the Hydrogen atom, and a2 contributes to the hyperne structure. Its nice that we can calculate a1 and a2 from the Dirac equation. But even if we didnt have the Dirac equation to calculate a1 and a2, we could have measured them form they Hydrogen atom and predicted things about Helium, or H2 or lots of other things. So this non-renormalizable theory is very predictive indeed. 237

238

Also note that the Schrodinger equation is not predictive for energies p m. Then all of the higher order terms are equally important. So, the Schrodinger equation is predictive at low energy, but also indicates the scale at which perturbation theory breaks down. If we can nd a theory which reduces to the Schrodinger equation at low energy, but for which perturbation theory still works at high energy, it is called UV completion . Thus, the Dirac equation is a UV completion of the Schrodinger equation. The Dirac equation (and QED) are predictive to much higher energies (but not at all energies, because of the Landau pole, not to mention the rest of the standard model and gravity). The Klein-Gordon equation is a dierent UV completion of the Schrodinger equation. I want to emphasize that the Schrodinger equation is an extremely predictive quantum theory, independent of the Dirac equation. It made quantum predictions many years before the Dirac equation was discovered. So you already have seen how predictive a non-renormalizable theory can be, as long as we stay at low enough energy. Let us now look at some other non-renormalizable quantum eld theories and their UV completions.

Weak decays were rst modeled by Enrico Fermi. He observed that a proton can decay to a neutron, a positron and a neutrino, so he added an interaction to the free Lagrangian for these elds of the form pn e Lferm i = GF (23.3)

with maybe some s or 5s thrown in. This is known as a 4-Fermi interaction, both because there are 4 fermions in it and also because Fermi used this term as a very successful model of radioactive decay One prediction from this interaction is that the rate for -decay p+ ne+ will be related to the rate for n p+e . Both of these reactions occur in nuclei. It also makes a prediction for the angular dependence and energy distribution of the decay products. In addition, the 4-Fermi theory can also be used to study parity violation, say, by comparing the predictions of this interaction to that of an interaction like 5 5 . The Fermi constant is

GF = 1.166 10 5GeV 2

1 300 GeV

(23.4)

Since GF has mass dimension 2, this is a non-renormalizable interaction. Since it is non-renormalizable, we should add all terms consistent with symmetry

3 + a1G2 L = GF F + a2GF 2

(23.5)

We know the rst term has coecient GF . Keep in mind, this is the renormalized value of the coupling, because it was extracted from a physical experiment. The ai s are arbitrary, and the GF s that accompany them have been added by dimensional analysis. Despite these additional terms, the 4-Fermi theory is very predictive. For example, these higher order terms will eect the -decay rate by factors of (GFE 2) j where E is some energy in the process. Since the 1/2 , these higher order masses of the particles and energies involved in -decay are much less than GF terms will do practically nothing Or, consider a low energy scattering. The matrix element will get tree-level contributions from all of these terms, and we would nd, in the s channel M(s) = GF + a1GFs + a2GFs2 + (23.6)

239

1 No matter what a1 is, for s (a1GF ) this second term will be negligible. If it turns out that a1 a2 1 then for s 300 GeV, the entire distribution is given practically by the rst term, which is from the original 4-Fermi coupling (thats what happens in nature). On the other hand, if we go measure this scatting cross section as a function of s, and we nd that it does depend on s, we can t a1 and a2 to data. Then we have a more advanced theory, which is still very predictive. We only need to measure the cross section at 3 energies to t GF , a1 and a2, then we can say a lot about the detailed energy dependence, or other crossed (e.g. t-channel) scatterings, or decays. It is true we would need an innite number of experiments to t all the a js, but from a practical point of view, at low energies, this higher order a js are totally irrelevant, just as the p10 term in the Schrodinger equation is irrelevant. All our discussion of renormalizability is secondary to the fact that non-renormalizable theories are extremely predictive at tree level, that is as classical eld theories. 1 But what happens if s ? Then all orders in perturbation theory will contribute. Thus perturbaGF 1 tion theory breaks down. So we need a UV completion to calculate scattering for s > G .

23.3.0.1 quantum predictions of the Fermi theory Perhaps counter-intuitively, the 4-Fermi theory is predictive even at the quantum level. Many people often forget this fact! Consider the loop correction to the 4-point function:

p1 p3

iM2(s) =

This graph is actually very similar to the vacuum polarization graph. We have just parametrized the possible form the result could take with 3 constants b1, b2, and b3. Without any symmetry argument, like gauge invariance, there is no reason to expect that any of these constants should vanish. The quadratically divergent part b32 is an (innite) number, which gives an (innite) correction to GF . We can renormalize by writing L = ZF (23.8) + F = GF and using the new counterterm F to absorb the quadratically divergent correction.

2 F = G 2 Fb3

k1 k2 p2 p4

G2 F

(23.7)

(23.9)

(23.10)

In the same way the b2 log2 term would come from the renormalization of the a1 term in the Lagrangian L = Za1 (23.11)

2 to cancel the b2G2 F slog term from the loop. Then we get for

2 s

(23.12)

So we have absorbed the innities into the renormalized values of GF and a1. Note that we needed the a1 term in the Lagrangian to do this, which agrees with our general argument that all operators not forbidden by symmetry must be included. The quantum prediction comes from the log term. This term is non-analytic in s, so no term in the Lagrangian could give a tree-level contribution of this form. The coecient of the log, b2 is a calculable number. Thus, for example, we can predict that s M(s1) GF M(s2) GF = b2log 1 2 s2 G s G2 s 2 1 F F (23.13)

240

The left-hand side of this is measurable, so the right hand side is a genuine measurable prediction of the quantum theory. It is not sensitive to higher-order terms in the Lagrangian, since they would be suppressed parametrically by additional factors of GFs. 23.3.0.2 UV-completing the Fermi theory Today, we know that the 4-Fermi interaction comes from the the low-energy limit of a renormalizable theory with massive vector bosons. The actual 4-Fermi interaction has s in it and looks like

3 + a1G2 L = GF F + a2GF 2 +

(23.14)

There are additional terms with 5s, which are phenomenologically important, but irrelevant for the following discussion. Consider the Lagrangian for a fermion interacting with a massive vector 1 1 2 + M 2A2 LEW = F + (i + gw A ) 2 4 (23.15)

The vector is the Z or W boson, and the fermions are the various quarks and leptons. The tree level matrix element in the s channel is given by iM =

1 1 2

2 gw v 1 u1u 2 v2 = M2

M=

i ( g + M 2 ) = (igw) v 1 u1 u 2 v2 s M2

2

p p

(23.16)

w This is the same matrix element as we would get from the 4-Fermi interaction if GF = M 2 . The actual expression for the Fermi constant in terms of the weak coupling constant and the W mass is 2 2 gw GF = (23.18) 8 m2 W where mW = 80.4 GeV and gw = 0.65. Another way to derive the 4-Fermi interaction from the electroweak Lagrangian is by integrating out the heavy vector. At energies much less than mW , pair creation of W bosons is a very small eect. Then only tree-level diagrams involving the W are relevant and the W can be treated classically. The W s equation of motion is gw = gw 1 A = (23.19) + + M2 M2 M2

1 2 1 2

(23.17)

g2

2 gw + M2

2 gw gw + 2 M2 M2 M

241

2 which includes the Fermi interaction. It also predicts that the a1 term above is just 1/ gw . So the theory with a massive vector boson is a UV completion of the 4-Fermi theory. Since we already observed that we can measure a1, we might have used this to guess the UV completion were it not already known. In conclusion, for non-renormalizable eld theories

Dependence on powers of external momenta can be t to data and give hints about the UV completion. Non-analytic corrections are genuine predictions of the quantum theory The dimensionful coupling indicates a break down of perturbation theory at the scale of the coupling

By the way, the theory with the massive vector boson is renormalizable, but it has its own problems. Due to the massive vector propagator s M2 i ( g M 2 ) p g2 M p s M2 s M2

1 s2 p p s2

(23.23)

For large s M 2, this goes like g 2s/M 2 (this is due to exchange of the longitudinal polarization of the massive vector M k ). Loop corrections may go like g4 M 4 and so on. Thus, even though the theory is M renormalizable, perturbation theory breaks down at energies s g . For the W boson, this scale is 1 TeV. We have no idea what will happen above that scale, and so we are building the LHC.

The rst eld theoretic model of cuclear structure was conceived by Hideki Yukawa in 1934 (Nobel prize 1949). He noted that nuclear interactions seem to be conned within the nucleus, so the are very short range. Keep in mind, he was trying to explain why neutrons and protons stuck together, not anything have to do with the structure of the neutron or proton themselves, which were still thought to be point particles. The confusion in the 30s was whether the thing binding the neutrons and protons had anything to do with the thing that caused radioactive decay (the weak force). Yukawa was the rst person to speculate that they are dierent. Actually, the more profound and lasting insight that he made was the connection between forces and virtual particle exchange. In 1934 people were still using old-fashioned perturbation theory, and nobody thought of virtual particles as actually existing. We already know that the exchange of a massive particle leads not to a Coulomb potential but to a Yukawa potential 1 (23.24) V (r ) = e m r r Yukawa saw at m 100 MeV was the appropriate scale for nuclear interactions, and therefore postulated that there should be particles of mass intermediate between the nucleons ( 1 GeV) and the electron ( 1 MeV) and he called them mesons . We know dene mesons as bosonic quark anti-quark bound states. The mesons responsible for the nuclear interactions are called pions. Incidentally, the rst meson was disovered in 1936 by Carl Anderson (Nobel 1936 for positron discovery in 1932). It had a mass of 100 MeV, very nearly what Yukawa predicted. However, this was the muon and not the pion. It took another 10 years, until 1947 for the pion to be discovered (Cecil Powell, Nobel 1950). Pions are strongly interacting and shorter lived than muons so they are harder to see. The confusion of the relationship between the cosmic ray that Anderson found and Yukawas theoretical prediction led to the rapid advancement of quantum eld theory in the 30s and helped people to start taking virtual particles seriously.

242

The pions provide an eective description of nuclear forces. These days, we dont think pions are really responsible for nuclear forces. QCD is the real theory of the strong force. But it is very dicult to use QCD to study nuclear physics. Even the simple explanation of why the strong force is short range had to wait until asymptotic freedom was understood in the 1970s, 40 years after Yukawas phenomenological explanation. The low energy theory of pions is known as the chiral Lagrangian , and it is a very powerful non-renormalizable eld theory still being actively explored today. The nucleons, more generally known as hadrons, include the proton and neutron, as well as the meson. There are three mesons labelled by their electric charges: 0, + and . We can guess that Lagrangian for the pions has normal kinetic terms and photon interactions from scalar QED: 1 1 2 +2 1 2 2 0 + 2 2 Lkin = 0( + m2 0) + (D ) m+( ) + (D ) m( ) 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 +2 + 0 0 2 + 4 ( ) + f f (23.25)

The masses are of order 140 MeV. The pions should also interact with each other, with terms like Lint = (23.26)

where f is some constant with dimensions of mass, making these interactions non-renormalizable. This is as far as we can get just using Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance to constrain the Lagrangian. It turns out the interactions are strongly constrained by an additional symmetry, called chiral symmetry, which is related to the isospin symmetry which relates the neutron and the proton. We now know that this symmetry is ultimately due to the fact that all these particles are made up of up and down quarks u and d, which are almost massless, and the symmetry is an SU(2) symmetry which rotates them into each other. (There are actually 2 SU(2) symmetries, one for the left handed quarks and one for the right-handed quarks, and the chiral symmetry is one linear combination. But lets not worry about the details now.) The point of this symmetry on the pions is that all the interaction can be expressed in terms of a single matrix i i a a 0 + + i U = exp = exp (23.27) 0 f + i f where a are the Pauli matrices. Then the simplest term we can write down involving U is L=

2 f Tr (D U ) D U 4

(23.28)

This is known as the Chiral Lagrangian . This leading order term contains interactions, such as the ones in Lint above. As well as being SU(2) invariant, all the interactions coming from this term must have 2 derivatives. So the interactions have a very special form. That form has been checked to great accuracy by low energy pion scattering experiments. Since theory is non-renormalizable, we should also add more terms. These terms must always have derivatives acting on the U s, since U U = 1. In fact, there are only 3 terms you can write down with 4derivatives L4 = L1Tr[(D U )(D U )]2 + L2Tr[(DU )(DU )]2 + L3Tr (D U )(D U )(DU )(DU ) The coecients of these terms can be t from low energy pion scattering experiments. It has been found that L1 = 0.65, L2 = 1.89 and L3 = 3.06. From the Lagrangian with these interactions we can say practically everything we would want about pion scattering. Additional interactions are suppressed by powers of momentum divided by the parameter f 92. Actually if you are careful about factors of you will nd E that this is a predictive theory for E < 4f 1200 GeV. So we are doing an expansion in 4f . Moreover, the quantum eects are calculable and measurable as well. We are talking about the nonanalytic logarithmic corrections. These have been worked out in great deal for the chiral Lagrangian and agree wonderfully with experiment.

243

As with any non-renormalizable theory, the chiral Lagrangian indicates that it becomes non-perturbative at a scale 4f. Above this scale, all the higher order interactions become relevant and the theory is not predictive. The UV completion of the chiral Lagrangian is Quantum Chromodynamics, the theory of quarks and gluons. This is a completely dierent type of UV completion than the electroweak theory that UV completed the Fermi theory or the Dirac equation completing the Schrodinger equation. For both of these theories, the fermions in the low energy theory were present in the UV completion, but with different interactions. The theory of QCD does not have pions in it at all! Thus one cannot ask about pion scattering at high energy in QCD. Instead, one must try to match the two theories more indirectly, for example, through correlation functions of external currents. Experimentally, we do this by scattering photons or electrons o pions. Theoretically, we need a non-perturbative description of QCD, such as the lattice. Lattice QCD can show the existence of pions as poles in correlation functions. It can also give a pretty good estimate of f and other parameters of the chiral Lagrangian. QCD is renormalizable. It is a UV completion of the chiral Lagrangian in the sense that it is welldened and perturbative up to arbitrarily high energies. However, it cannot answer perturbative the ques2 tions that the chiral Lagrangian couldnt answer: what does scattering look like for s f ? In fact, QCD doesnt even have asymptotic states. We cannot talk about an S -matrix of quarks and gluons, since quarks and gluons are conned. Thus we have to rephrase the questions we ask. Moreover, if we actually want to scatter pions, the chiral Lagrangian is much more useful than QCD: we can calculate things perturbatively.

The nal non-renormalizable eld theory I want to discuss is Quantum Gravity. This is the eective description of a massless spin-2 particle. As we saw with Weinbergs soft graviton theorems, an interacting theory of a massless spin-2 eld must have an associated conservation law. This is the conservation of momentum. The symmetry it corresponds to is symmetry under spacetime translations x x + (x) (23.29)

This generates the group of general coordinate transformations . The Noether current for this symmetry is the energy-momentum tensor T . The spin two eld h is a gauge eld for this symmetry. For innitesimal transformation, it transforms as h h + + + ( )h + ( )h + h The rst two terms are the gauge part, they are the analog of A A + (23.31) (23.30)

but there are 4 s now, called . The last three terms are just the transformation properties of a tensor representation of the Poincare group under translations. For example, a scalar transforms as (x) (x + ) = (x) + (x) + O( 2) (23.32)

Vectors and tensors get additional pieces because of their Lorentz properties. Requiring that V be general coordinate invariant implies that V (x) (x + )V(x + ) = V (x) + V (x) + ( )V(x) (23.33)

and so on. Note that transformation on h is non-linear: it has terms proportional to h itself. I am particularly fond of this language. By Taylor expanding the transformation we never have to talk about x changing, just elds changing. x always refers to a space-time point, which is independent of any coordinate representation we might have for it.

244

2 In the same way that F with F = A A is the unique kinetic term we can write down for A , there is a unique kinetic term we can write down for h . It is

(23.34)

You can check that this is invariant under the gauge symmetry, up to terms cubic in h. Those cubic terms can then be determined by demanding invariance under the full translation. We get a bunch of terms like Lint = a1 1 1 ( h )(h )h + a2 (h )( h )h + MP MP (23.35)

Where we have added a scale MP by dimensional analysis. You can continue, and work out what those cubic terms are, and then the quartic terms, and so on. This approach is done beautifully in Feynmans Lectures on Gravitation. It turns out you can sum the whole series and write it in a compact form

2 Lkin + Lint = MP

det( g ) R

(23.36)

with = diag(1, 1, 1, 1) the Minkowski metric. R is the Ricci curvature where g = + tensor for a Riemannian manifold based on the metric g . This is the Einstein Lagrangian. 23.5.0.3 Predictions of gravity as a non-renormalizable eld theory In some sense the Riemann curvature tensor looks like R exp 1 h , MP R R (23.37)

1 h , MP

This is very heuristic, but shows that all the terms in the expansion of the curvature have two derivatives and lots of h s. So then R = Tr[R ] becomes very similar to the form of the chiral Lagrangian Tr[DU D U ]. Just like the chiral Lagrangian, each term has two derivatives, and the interactions are strongly constrained by symmetries. We could add higher order terms

2 L = MP R + L1RR + L2RR + L3RR

(23.38)

In this case, there are 3 terms, just like in the chiral Lagrangian. (Actually one is a total derivative, called the Gauss-Bonnet term, so there are really only 2). Since R has 2 derivatives, these all have 4 derivatives, so the leading interactions go like 1 L = + Li 3 2h3 (23.39) MP The reason gravity is predictive is because MP = 1019 GeV, so E MP for any reasonable E . In fact, it is very dicult even to test the terms in the Lagrangian cubic in h with 2 derivatives. That is terms like a1 2 h h coming from g R. For these, we dont get additional E /MP suppression, but since the interacMP tion has an extra factor of h/MP , would need large eld values h MP . This happens, for example, from the gravitational eld around the sun. There, h new ton

1/2

1 Msun 1 1038 r MP r

(23.40)

By the way, MP GN , so h MP for r GNMsun 100 m , which is still much less than the radius of the sun rsun 106 km. Nevertheless, these cubic terms have been measured in the perihelion shift of Mercury. Mercury is about 107 km from the sun, so the eect is only one part in 108. Still it has been calculated precisely and measured and the agreement is perfect. L 2 3 To see the eect of the higher order terms, like L1,2, 3, we would need to use interactions like M1 h. 3 These have additional factors of M M r suppression. For mercury, this factor is 10 45 , so we would P P need to measure the perihelion shift to 1 part in 10 98 to see these terms. Needless to say, that is never going to happen. Thus the higher order terms in the Lagrangian are totally irrelevant for astrophysics.

E 1

P

So we cant measure the higher order terms. But there are still additional predictions we can make from the quantum theory. We can calculate a loop correction to graviton exchange. This is a correction to the graviton propagator, which has the same general form as the vacuum polarization graph

\+

4 comes from the two vertices which have factors of where the p4/MP analysis. To be concrete 141 c2 = 30 2

You might have also expected a term in brackets going like 4, but that would produce a double pole at p = 0, and when the 1PI graphs are resummed it would shift the graviton mass. The mass is protected by gauge invariance, so this cant happen, just like for the photon. So, grav = p2 1 2 1 + ( c + c log 1 2 2 p2 p2 MP + c3 2 2 MP (23.43)

pk k p p

245

1 1 p4 2 c + + c log 1 2 2 p2 p2 p2 M P

p2 MP

+ c3

2 p2 1 2 p2 MP

(23.41)

This is exactly the same form that we got from the radiative correction in the Fermi theory above. The quadratic divergence c3 is absorbed into the renormalization of MP , The c1 term is absorbed into counterterms for L1, 2,3. That leaves the logarithm with its calculable coecient. If we Fourier transform back into position space, and put it all together we nd the Newton potential becomes c2 L M a1 L M 1 + 31 3 + sun + 31 3 (23.44) h(r ) = sun 1 + 2 2 MP r M M r MPr MP r MP r P P The rst three terms come from h h, the log p2 quantum correction, and the L1h 2h term in Eq. (23.38). The nal two are the h3 term from g R and the L1 2h3 term from Eq. (23.38). L1 is a free parameter, but both c2 and a1 are known. Thus the radiative correction, the c2 term, gives a calculable eect this is parametrically more important than the L1 term. This term has not yet been observed, but it is a genuine prediction of quantum gravity. In fact, it is the only prediction of quantum gravity I know of. Dont forget: this prediction is entirely independent on the UV completion of the Einstein Lagrangian. In any case, this discussion should make clear that Gravity and quantum mechanics are completely compatible There is nothing inconsistent about general relativity and quantum mechanics. Gravity is the only consistent theory of an interacting spin 2 particle. It is a quantum theory, just as solid and calculable as the 4-Fermi theory. It is just non-renormalizable, and therefore non-perturbative for energies E MP , but it 1 is not inconsistent. At distances r M 10 33 cm, all of the quantum corrections, and all of the higher P order terms in the Lagrangian become important. So if we want to use gravity at very short distances we need a UV completion. String theory is one such theory. It is capable of calculating the Li terms in Eq (23.38). It does this very indirectly. If we could measure the Li, then we could test string theory, but as we noted above, we would need to improve our measurements by 90 orders of magnitude. In the same way that QCD is not a perturbative description of pions, string theory is not a perturbative theory of gravitons. However, we can prove in string theory that there is a massless spin-2 excitation, as we can (almost) prove that there are bound states in QCD. And since the only consistent theory of spin-2 particles is the Einstein Lagrangian plus higher order terms, since string theory is consistent, it must match on to Einstein gravity at low energy. However, unlike QCD, string theory does not (yet) have a non-perturbative formulation so we dont know how to dene it, or even if it exists!

246

We have looked at 4 important non-renormalizable theories. The Schrodinger equation is perturbative for E < me. Its UV completion is the Dirac equation and QED, which is perturbative up to its Landau pole, E 10100 GeV.

1/2 The Fermi theory of weak interactions is perturbative for E < GF 300 GeV. Its UV completion is the electroweak theory with massive vector bosons W and Z . The electroweak theory is renormalizable, but only perturbative up to E 1 TeV. One possible UV completion of the electroweak theory is to add a Higgs boson.

The chiral Lagrangian is the low energy theory of pions. It is perturbative and very predictive for E < 4f 1200 MeV. Its UV completion is QCD. QCD is predictive at high energies, but it has no asymptotic states. At low energy, QCD must be studied non-perturbatively on the lattice. So, at low energy the chiral Lagrangian which is perturbative, is much more useful. Einstein quantum gravity is the low energy theory of gravity. It is perturbative for E < MP 1019 GeV. It is extremely predictive at low energies, including predictive quantum corrections. One possible UV completion is string theory.

Incidentally, these 4 examples correspond to the 4 forces of nature: the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity. Notice that the UV completions are all qualitatively very dierent. In some cases, certainly for many physical applications, the non-renormalizable theory is more useful than the renormalizable one. Renormalizable just means there are a nite number of counterterms, it does not mean that you can calculate every observable perturbatively. I want to emphasize again: non-renormalizable theories are very predictive, not just at tree-level (classically) but also through quantum eects. The quantum eects are calculable and non-analytic in momentum space. In fact, non-renormalizable theories are so predictive that it is often better to make a non-renormalizable approximation to a renormalizable theory than to use the full renormalizable theory itself. Examples include Einstein gravity instead of string theory, Heavy Quark Eective Theory (HQET) instead of QCD, Ginsburg-Landau theories in condensed matter, the Schrodinger equation instead of the Dirac equation, and chemistry instead of physics.

We have seen that non-renormalizable eld theories are predictive at the classical level, but also at the quantum level through terms like log p2. Is it possible that we could also compute corrections which are analytic in p2? We already know of one example. Recall that in QED we were able to calculate a nite correction to the magnetic moment of the electron: e e = 2 + + O (2) (23.45) 2 me What happens to this prediction if we embed QED in a larger theory, such as quantum gravity? The contribution of gravity to the electron magnetic moment is divergent:

d4k = 0. where b is nite and is the UV cuto. (You dont get a linearly divergent piece because k4 Also, for a magnetic moment, you always a mass insertion because couples left and right handed spinors.) So we need another term in the Lagrangian to absorb the innity: F L = Z (23.47)

me 2 me 2 log 2 + b 2 MP m e MP

k

(23.46)

247

As usual, we split Z into a nite part c and counterterm: Z = c + with = M e 2 log m . Then

P e

e =

e m 2+ + c + b e 2 2 me MP

(23.48)

Now we need a renormalization condition to x c . If we demand that the measured value of the magnetic ent moment is experim , then e m e 2+ b e c = experiment (23.49) e 2 2m MP

e = experiment e

(23.50)

But this implies that the part we started with is totally unobservable. But that doesnt make any sense, since we have observed it! So its a paradox!

The resolution of this paradox lies outside the realm of physics. Im going to start italicizing words that are more related to philosophy then experiment, and I will try to be very clear about distinguishing the two. One way to think about it is to suppose that the ultimate theory of nature were nite. Then we dont need the counterterm, and can just compute the loop in gravity. We would nd e = m 2 m e 2+ + e log + b e 2 2 2 2 me M P me MP (23.51)

where now is some physical cuto scale. We need at least > MP . For example, in string theory, 1 MP . b is calculable, and probably not much larger than 10. Thus as long as g

strin g

< meexp(

2 44 MP ) 1010 eV m2 e

(23.52)

the eect of gravity on g -2 is completely negligible. What if the ultimate theory of nature is simply renormalizable? For example, imagine that the graviton is a bound state in some exotic theory (like string theory), as the pions are bound states of QCD. Then there are no coecients of positive mass dimension and g-2 will come out nite. Thus the eective value of would be around the compositeness scale of the graviton, which would likely be around MP . For MP , the contribution to g-2 of the graviton is still exponentially small. Another way to think about the paradox is to suppose that we actually had measured some deviation of g -2 from its value in QED (or in the renormalizable standard model). For example, there is a little room for this at order 3 and a better measurement could conceivable reveal a deviation. If you are real positivist you can then just add L and tune the renormalized value of g -2 to match experiment. From a 1 1 practical point of view that would mean that c 3 m 1300 G eV . So weve introduced a new scale in our e theory, and made it non-renormalizable. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that this eect comes from 44 45 quantum gravity. For that to happen, we would have needed 1010 eV. Moreover, if 1010 eV the eect would have been so enormous that the whole universe would have been paramagnetic. So lets add this operator to account for the 3 deviation. That works ne for g -2, but it screws up everything else. That is, this new operator would contribute to other observables, and we would need more higher dimension operators, etc. Now we can keep choosing the coecients of those operators to cancel the contribution from this one and agree with the predictions of the standard model for everything. So nothing is guaranteed to happen from this term. (Actually, there will be calculable quantum eects of this term. But since these must show up, they dont tell us anything new.) It makes more sense to expect deviations to show up elsewhere. These deviations are motivated by the g -2 observation, but they are not guaranteed to show up. By looking for those deviations, we can t more higher-dimension operators, and this may help us guess the UV completion.

248

In summary, looking for deviations in nite predictions of the standard model is a clue to new physics. Finding such a such a deviation probably indicates a new scale where we might nd other new eects, but nothing is guaranteed. In the context of a non-renormalizable theory, there are innite contributions to the same quantity. That formally makes the theory unpredictive for this quantity. However in practice, with any reasonable nite cuto, or through an embedding into a renormalizable theory, the innite correction from the non-renormalizable terms becomes calculable and small. The modern viewpoint is to think of the higher dimension operators in the non-renormalizable theory as encoding information about the UV completion.

Now let us turn to theories with coupling constants of positive mass dimension. In 4 dimensions there arent many options.

23.8.1 tadpoles

One possibility is that we could have a term linear in a scalar eld. For example, 1 L = ( + m2) + 3 2 (23.53)

where 0 = m2 . Then we remove the tadpole. So the existence of a term like 3 in the Lagrangian means we have been working with the wrong degrees of freedom. Thats a serious problem. The only possible term of mass dimension 4 a constant L= +

for some number 3 with mass-dimension 3, this would generate 0| |0 = 3 0. But also contribute to things like 0|T { 4}|0 , and everything else. The way to deal with this term is to redene + 0,

3

(23.54)

This constant has a name: is the cosmological constant . By itself, this term does nothing. It couples to nothing and in fact just be pulled out of the path integral. The reason it is dangerous is because when one couples to gravity, it becomes 1 (23.55) g = h + h2 + 2 The rst term generates a tadpole diagram, so 0|h |0 = 2 0. This indicates that we are expanding 0 around the wrong vacuum. By redening h h + h0 for some constant but x-dependent eld h (x), we can remove this term. We know it has to be x-dependent because all the terms in the Einstein Lagrangian have derivatives, so they will kill any spacetime-independent h0 . That has huge consequences. For example, it violates Lorentz invariance. In the end, it preserves some other symmetry group, the deSitter group or anti de-Sitter group, depending on the sign of . Still, if this term is around, we have to go back and rethink all the results we had in quantum eld theory that depend on Lorentz invariance. So far, these are pretty awful things. Other dimensionful couplings include mass terms, like m2 2, 2 2 , or perhaps a cubic coupling in a scalar eld theory, g3. That actually exhausts the possim A or m bilities in 4 dimensions. There are only a handful of super-renormalizable terms.

1

Lets look at 3 theory rst, then the mass terms. We are interested in radiative corrections, so lets couple to something else, say a fermion . We will set the mass of to zero for simplicity. The Lagrangian is 1 g + (i M ) L = + 3 + (23.56) 2 3!

249

Now consider the renormalization of g. We can compute this by evaluating the 3-point function 0|T { ( p) ( q1) ( q2)}|0 = g + g3 (23.57)

There is a radiative correction from the loop of . This is UV nite, proportional to and not particularly interesting. A more important radiative correction comes from the loop of the fermion.

q1

M2 =

3 M 8 2

k q1 p k k + q2 q2

1

= 3

d4k 1 1 1 Tr[ ] (2 )4 k M k q1 M k + q2 M

(23.58)

dz

1z

dy

(23.59)

(23.60)

So we nd a (divergent) shift in g proportional to the mass of the fermion M . This is ne if M g, but if parametrically its really weird. As M gets larger, the correction grows. That means that the theory is sensitive to scales much larger than the scale associated with g . So, Is this a problem? Not in the technical sense, because the correction can be absorbed in a renormalization of g . We just add a counterterm by writing g = gR 2 3 M 1 + 3log 2 2 M 16 (23.61) Super-renormalizable theories are sensitive to UV physics

This will cancel the radiative correction exactly (at p = 0). Again, this is totally reasonable if gR M , and theoretically and experimentally consistent for all g , but if gR M it looks strange . Will there be problems due to the quantum corrections? We can look at the Greens function at a different value of p2. This would contribute to something like the scalar Coulomb potential. We nd that of, course, the divergence cancels, and the result at small p is something like 0|T { ( p) ( q1) ( q2)}|0 gR + 3 p2 p2 + 3M log 1 2 2 16 M M 3 p2 16 2 M + (23.62) (23.63)

gR +

So for p M these corrections are tiny and do in fact decouple as M . As for the non-renormalizable case, we enjoy speculating that the ultimate theory of nature is nite. Then is physical. If we suppose that there is some bare g which is xed, then we need a very special value of to get the measured coupling to be gR M . Of course, there is some solution for , for any g0 and gR. But if we change by just a little bit, then we get gR gR + 2 3 old M log 2 2 16 new (23.64)

which is a huge correction if M gR. This means that generically the theory wants to have gR M . It is unnatural to have a relevant coupling in a quantum eld theory.

250

The only other possible terms of positive mass dimension in a Lagrangian are masses. First, consider a scalar mass. Lets go back to our Yukawa theory and drop that ridiculous 3 term. 1 L= 2 + (i M ) + m2 + (23.65)

Now consider the radiative corrections to m. We need to compute the self-energy graph for the scalar (see P&S 10.33) 2( p2) =

This is quadratically divergent, as evidenced by the pole at d = 2. If we expand for small p, we nd 2( p2) = 2 p2 6 M 2 1 2 M2 p4 ( p 6M 2)log 2 + p2 5M 2 + + 2 4 20M 2 2 (23.67)

It is somewhat nicer to use a regulator which makes the UV divergences explicit. Then we would have 2( p2) = 2 2 p4 2 + (2 p2 + 3M 2)log 2 + 4 p2 + 5M 2 + 6 2 + 2 4 M M (23.68)

where I have just made up the coecients of these terms. The divergences are canceled with counterterms from the eld strength and mass renormalizations giving

We can now use physical renormalization conditions to set the pole of the propagator at the renormalized mass, with residue 1. Then, 2(m2) = m2 + m

(m2) = 2

=4

2(d 1) d (1 ) 4 d/2 2 (4 )

1 0

(23.66)

= p 2 m

(23.69)

Explicitly, = m =

2 2 2 2)log + 4 + 12 m + (2 m 4 2 M2 M2

( p2) = 2( p2) + m2 + m =

Note that m is the shift in the mass. It is getting not only a quadratically divergent correction, but also a correction proportional to M 2, which can be huge if M m. Suppose we used minimal subtraction instead. Call the renormalized mass mR, to distinguish from the pole mass m above. 2 2 = 2 2log 2 (23.75) 4 M m = 2 2 2 + 3M 2log 2 2 4 M 2 p4 4 p2 + 5M 2 + 6 2 + 2 4 M (23.76) (23.77)

( p2) = 2( p2) + m2 R + m =

251

Now consider the location of the pole in this case. The propagator is = So the pole is at i

2 p 2 m2 R ( p )

2 2 0 = m2 P mR (mP ) 2 m2 R = mP

2 m4 P 2 2 4 m + 5 M + 6 + P 4 2 M2

If M mP then mR mP . But if M mP then there is an enormous dierence between the masses dened in these two subtraction schemes. In either scheme, the large corrections are absorbed into the physical mass, dened as either the pole mass or the MS mass. So this dierence is not observable. Yet it is disturbing . Just as for the 3 theory, we can see that the mass here is UV sensitive. Suppose the theory really is nite. Then to get m M we need m = 2 2 2 2 + 3 M log m2 M 2 M2 4 2 (23.81)

M2

This requires a careful selection of with respect to M , to a part in m2 . Or suppose we add a new fermion to the theory of mass Mnew M . This one will also contribute, and so the special value of that allows for this cancellation will have to change. Either way something shy is going on in the UV theory that allows m M . An important example of an unnatural scalar mass is the Higgs boson mass in the standard model. We have direct and indirect bounds on the Higgs boson implying 114 GeV < mh < 196 GeV. However, the top quark is around 170 GeV, so it gives a large radiative correction to the Higgs mass. As only the renormalized Higgs pole mass is actually observable, this radiative correction is not in itself physical. But if one imagines a nite UV completion for the standard model at very high energies, say MP , then paramem2 h ig g s 10 40 for the Higgs mass to come out right. Again, this ters have to be tuned to one part in M 2

P

tuning is not a problem in the standard model itself, only when the standard model is embedded in a larger theory. Since we believe that there should be physics beyond the standard model, in particular theres gravity, then getting a light Higgs mass becomes an extraordinary practical challenge because of this ne-tuning problem.

What about fermions and gauge boson masses? Why doesnt the electron pick up a large mass due to other couplings in the theory? We already calculated the self-energy graph of the electron. We found for the counterterm with the pole-mass renormalization scheme m = me 4

1 0

dx(4 2x)log

x 2

2 (1 x)2m2 e + xm

(23.82)

The MS bass correction is also proportional to me. First of all, note that the correction is not quadratically or linearly divergent. That is a non-trivial fact. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, you do get a linearly divergent shift. This can be seen from a simple integral over the classical electron-self energy. In the non-relativistic limit, the energy density of K |2 + |B K |2. So electromagnetic eld is = |E m d3r |E |2 = d3r e r2

2

d3r

e2 r4 r

(23.83)

252

More importantly, the shift is proportional to the electron mass, not the other mass going around the loop. In this case, the a ctitious photon mass, but if the photon were a real heavy gauge boson, like the Z , the correction would still be proportional to me not mZ . What if we throw some more fermions in, or a scalar or two, and look at 6 loops. It turns out that the mass shift will still be proportional to me. Thus heavy elds do decouple for the electron self-energy, and its mass is not UV sensitive. The reason this happens is because the electron mass is protected by a custodial chiral symmetry. The chiral symmetry is a global symmetry acting as Thus,

since 5 = 5 and [ 5, 0 ] = 0. However,

ei5

D e i5 D 0Dei5 =

(23.84) (23.85)

m e2i5 m

(23.86)

Thus the mass term breaks the chiral symmetry. Another way to see this is that the symmetry rotates left and right handed elds into each other, but in the absence of a mass, the left and right-handed elds decouple. The chiral symmetry is called custodial because it exists in the limit m 0. That means that if m = 0 then m will stay 0 to all orders in perturbations theory. Therefore, all violations of chiral symmetry will be proportional to the symmetry breaking parameter. So the chiral symmetry acts like a custodian and protects the mass. If we think of the mass term as an interaction rather than a kinetic term, every diagram that violates the custodial symmetry, including a correction to the mass itself, must be proportional to the mass. This is true whether or not you know about the symmetry. In practice, thats quite a useful thing because if you nd something is canceling, or always proportional to something else, you can go back and look for the symmetry. But you dont need to know about the symmetry ahead of time to get the cancellation. We have another way of describing this phenomenon. We say that the setting me = 0 is technically natural. Technically natural: corrections to a parameter are proportional to the parameter itself This idea is usually attributed to Gerard t Hooft. The same thing holds for a photon mass. The term L= + m2A2 (23.87)

breaks gauge invariance. Gauge invariance is another custodial symmetry. Thus any contribution to the gauge boson mass will be proportional to the mass itself. This is only true if the only term that breaks gauge invariance is the mass term. If there are other interactions breaking gauge invariance, the mass correction can be proportional to them as well.

23.8.5 summary

We have seen that super-renormalizable interactions are not super at all. The cosmological constant causes a violation of Lorentz invariance (not to mention the collapse of the universe if MP ). A g3 interaction in a scalar eld theory and a scalar mass m2 2 are both sensitive to UV physics. That is, if we change the UV theory for example by adding another massive fermion, then the bare (unphysical) parameters in our Lagrangian have to change in a very specic way. UV sensitivity means sensitivity to playing with the model, and is not physically observable directly. It violates our intuition that heavy elds should decouple. The other super-renormalizable terms we could write down are fermion and vector boson masses, both of which are protected by custodial symmetries. Although they are super-renormalizable terms, they are not UV sensitive.

253

Theories with relevant parameters appear ne-tuned. The word ne-tuned comes from condensed matter. In condensed matter physics it is possible to construct super-renormalizable eld theories by playing with external elds. For example, if you dial the magnetic eld in such a way that a system becomes close to a phase transition, there can be long range correlations. These long range correlations are indicative of a light, almost massless pseudo-particle. It is much lighter than characteristic scales in the system; one normally expects a system to communicate only over atomic distances. This is exactly the 1 situation in which m a . You achieve this by carefully tuning the external magnetic eld. 0 In nature, we might nd a light scalar. The Higgs is one possibility. Perhaps mh MP . If all we nd is the Higgs, then we have no indication of any scale of new physics up to MP . So the theory would be tuned, but we would never know who is tuning the dial of the magnetic eld. And we would have no way to nd out! A fun way to think about the development of our understanding of the standard model is Its UV completion is the standard model with W and Z bosons. This theory is Renormalizable, but still breaks down at E 1 TeV. Its UV completion is the standard model with a Higgs. This theory is Super-renormalizable. It does not break down, but is UV sensitive. 4-Fermi theory. This theory is Non-renormalizable and breaks down at E 100 GeV

We dont know if there is really anything wrong with the standard model with a Higgs. But we havent seen the Higgs. We havent ever seen any fundamental scalar in fact. So, perhaps were missing something and super-renormalizable theories arent even consistent. In that case, we are back to the standard model with the W and Z bosons. So we must nd either the Higgs or evidence of some other UV completion at the LHC.

24.1 Introduction

In a quantum theory, we expect probabilities to add up to 1. That is, we expect to get out as much stu as we put in. This means that the norm of a state |s at time t = 0 should be the same at a later time t. s, t = 0|s, t = 0 = s, t |s, t This means the Hamiltonian should be Hermetian, H = H , because |s, t = eiH t |s, 0 It also means the S -matrix should be unitary, since S = eiH t. So S S = 1 (24.3) (24.2) (24.1)

This equation has remarkable practical consequences in quantum eld theory, as we will now explore.

One of the most important implications of unitarity is the optical theorem. Write S = 1 + iT (24.4)

Recall the matrix elements we have been calculating with Feynman graphs are matrix elements of this transfer matrix T with a factor of overall momentum conservation stripped o. f |T |i = (2 )4 4( pi p f )M(i f ) The matrix T is not Hermetian. In fact, unitarity implies 1 = S S = (1 iT )(1 + iT ) The left-hand side is i(T T = T T (24.6) (24.7) (24.8) (24.5)

X) d( LIPS f |T |X

X |T |i

(24.9) (24.10)

= i(2 )4 4( pf pX ) i(2 )4 4( pi pX )

(X )

256

Implications of Unitarity

Where dLIPS is the phase space factor we need to insure that weve only inserted the operator 1. This is the same phase space factor that appears in dierential cross-sections. Then unitarity implies M(i f ) M ( f i) = i LIPS (2 )4 4( pi pX )M(i X )M (X f )

(X )

(24.11)

This is the Generalized Optical Theorem. Note that they must work order by order in perturbation theory. But while the left hand side is matrix elements, the right hand side is matrix elements squared. This means that at order 2 in some coupling the left hand side must be a loop to match a tree-level calculation on the right hand side. Thus, the imaginary parts of loop amplitudes are determined completely by tree-level amplitudes. In particular, we must have the loops the classical theory by itself, without loops, violates unitarity. The most important case is when |i = | f = |A for some state A. Then 2i ImM(A A) = i

X

(X )

(24.12)

In particular, when |A is a 1-particle state, then the total decay rate is So, (A X ) = 1 2 mA LIPS |M(A X )|2 ( X )

(X )

(24.13) (24.14)

ImM(A A) = mA

Here M(A A) is just the 2-point function, aka the propagator. So the imaginary part of the propagator is equal to the sum of the decay rates into every possible particle. If |A is a 2-particle state, then the cross section is So, (A X ) = 1 2EC M |K pCM | LIPS |M(A X )|2 (A X )

(X )

(24.15) (24.16)

Im M(A A) = 2ECM |K pC M |

This says that the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude is proportional to the total scattering cross section, which is the optical theorem from optics. Both of these examples have nice and interesting applications.

Lets start by thinking about the 1-particle case. Then |i = | f M( ) is just the propagator i iM( ) = 2 p m2 + i The imaginary part of a propagator is Im 1 1 1 1 = p2 m2 + i 2i p2 m2 + i p2 m2 i

( p2 m2)2 + 2

(24.18)

dp2 = ( p2 m2)2 + 2

(24.19)

257

this is a useful formula. It says that the propagator is real except for when the particle goes on-shell. Lets check the optical theorem at 1-loop. To be specic, well take 3 theory but with two elds and with interaction 1 1 L = + M 2 + m2 + 2 (24.21) 2 2 2 For M > 2m we should get a contribution to the imaginary part of the propagator corresponding to decays of 2 , as given by the optical theorem. The 1-loop amplitude is i M( p2) =

M = i2 =

1 0

dx log

m2 (M 2m) M2 14

(24.20)

m2 M 2 x(1 x) 2

where we have set p2 = M 2 to put on shell after all, we are computing S-matrix elements. Now, x(1 1 x) < 4 , so for M < 2m this expression is real, and therefore ImM = 0. For M > 2m, we use Then, ImM = = The decay rate is = So, log( x) = log x + i g2 16 g2 16 g2 16M

1 0

(24.25) (24.26)

dx (M 2 x(1 x) m2)

14

(24.27)

m2 (M 2m) M2

(24.28) (24.29)

We can understand this calculation a little more clearly by looking back at the original integral. M = i2 d4k 1 (2 )4 [(k + p)2 m2 + i][k 2 m2 + i] (24.30)

Because of the i, we want the real part of the product of two propagators. That means either both real parts, or both imaginary parts. We saw above that the propagators only have imaginary parts when they go on-shell. If both parts are real, then they are both o-shell, and so there are no poles. Then we can drop the i, and after a Wickrotation, we will pick up a factor of i. So the result is both real and imaginary, meaning its zero. Thus the contribution to the imaginary part when both propagators are zero vanishes. We conclude that both propagators must by imaginary.

258

Implications of Unitarity

Therefore we can evaluate this by replacing 1 And So we get Now write (k + p)2 m2 + i Im[ 1 (k + p)2 m2 + i ] = ((k + p)2 m2) (24.31) (24.32) (24.33) (24.34) (24.35) (24.36) (24.37)

And this is

Which agrees with the optical theorem again. This result is very general:

= M ( X )

Imaginary parts of loop amplitudes arise when intermediate states go on-shell together

Its easiest to see this as an implication of the optical theorem, rather than using it to derive the optical theorem as we have done. This statement is almost the denition of the optical theorem: the decay rate comes from on-shell nal states. These states also appear as virtual states in loop momentum. Each way of putting intermediate states on-shell is known as a cut , after Cutkosky, and this method for computing the imaginary part of scattering diagrams is known as the cutting rules .

The cutting rules work for scalars, as we have shown, but also for fermions and vectors, etc.. They must work for any state simply as a consequence of unitarity. For the decay rate, we dont use the propagators of the outgoing particles. For example, take Yukawa theory 1 (24.38) Lhiggs = ( + m2 h) + 2 , we would have Then for the decay of into ( q1) ( q2)) = ( ( p) The loop is

s 1

1

(24.39)

2 2

(24.40)

For the imaginary part of the loop, we have to put the intermediate states on shell. The denominators give us the -functions, just like for the scalar case. The numerators give Tr[(q1 + m)(q2 m)] (24.41)

Which is exactly what we got for the spin sum. This works because the spin sum is the same as the numerator of the propagator. This must hold, and is a consequence of unitarity.

24.6 Breit-Wigner

259

3 i =1 i i = +

p p m2

p p

(24.42)

+ m2 ( p ) = p2 + i

2

(24.43)

So the numerator is again given by the sum over physical spin states. Thus the optical theorem holds. What about a massless spin-1 eld? There, the spin sum includes only transverse polarizations. There is no way to write the sum in a Lorentz invariant way, but we can write it as

2 i =1 i i = +

1 + p p) ( p p 2E 2

(24.44)

p) f = p = (E , K b =p = (E , K p)

(24.45) (24.46)

The propagator is

+ (1 ) p2 + i

p p p2

(24.47)

So the numerator of the propagator is not just the sum over physical polarizations. However, because of gauge invariance (for the propagator) and the Ward identity (for the decay rate), all the p terms drop out in physical calculations. Thus we see that gauge invariance and the Ward identity are tied together, and moreover, both are required for a unitary theory of a massless spin 1 particle. That is The same analysis can be made for massive and massless spin 2. It is not terribly illuminating, so we will not bother with it here. In general, we can therefore write s i ( p2) = 2 s 2s (24.48) p m where s are a basis of polarizations for a particle of arbitrary spin. unitarity for massless spin 1 elds requires gauge invariance

24.6 Breit-Wigner

We showed that the propagator to all-orders can be written as i( p2) = 1 p2 m2 + M ( p2) (24.49)

where the on-shell renormalization conditions imply M (m2) = M (m2) = 0. Now that we see that i(m2) has a substantial imaginary part, proportional to the decay rate. Thus M ( p2) cannot be purely real. The counterterms, however, were real, so we cannot completely absorb M (m2) into the mass and eld strength renormalization. There are a number of consequences of this. The most obvious one is that a pole mass is not welldened for an unstable particle. Thats ok, because unstable particles dont really appear as asymptotic states in the S-matrix anyway. We can instead make a convention for dening the real pole mass by Re[M (m2)] = 0 (24.50)

260

Implications of Unitarity

Then i( p2) =

1 p2 m2 + Im M ( p2)

(24.51)

The optical theorem tells us that Im M (m2) = im . So if the state is close to on-shell, p2 m2 and m this is well approximated by, ( p2) = i , p2 m2 + im i p2 m2 + im |2 = p 2 m2 , m (24.52)

If we plop this propagator into an s-channel diagram, we get a Breit-Wigner resonance: d | 1 ( q 2 m2)2 + (m)2 (24.53)

If is large, then the width is broad, and we will need the full momentum dependence of M( p2), which we have from computing the full self-energy graph. As 0, this resonance is well approximated by a -function | i |2 ( p2 m2) M p2 m2 + im (24.54)

Say we have an s-channel process close to a resonance, then the intermediate state is close to on shell. So we can write i s ss J2|2 (24.55) d = |J1 2 p m2 + im where J1 and J2 are whatever produced the state and whatever happened to it. If we are within the width of the resonance, p2 m2 m, then d ( p 2 m2 ) |J1s |2|sJ2|2 (24.56) M

s

( p2 m2) M

|J1s |2

(24.57)

That is, the total cross section is given by the production cross section. This is known as the narrow width approximation . For resonance production, the cross-section for production is independent of how the particle decays. For example, suppose the interactions between the currents and the resonance are proportional to some coupling e. Naively, we would have expected d |J1

i s s s J2|2 e4 p2 m2 + im

(24.58)

But the narrow width approximation implies that near a resonance, the cross-section goes as e2. Thus if we are trying to produce a particle, it is very helpful to work near resonance, since the cross-section will be tremendously enhanced.

For a 2 particle initial state, |A2 = | p1 p2 , the optical theorem becomes Im M(A2 A2) = 2EC M |K pCM |

X

(A2 X )

(24.59)

which says that the imaginary part of the matrix element for forward scattering is proportional to the cross section for A anything.

261

As a rough estimate, the total cross section is at least as big as the cross section for forward scattering,. So, 1 Im M(A2 A2) = 2E 2tot > 2E 2 |M(A2 A2)|2 (24.60) 64 2E 2 So, |M(A2 A2)| < 64 2 (24.61) Thus the matrix element for forward scattering is bounded. Lets go even further and look at two body nal states in general, so X = X2 = | p3 p4 . Then we can use our formula 1 d|M(A2 X2)|2 (24.62) (A2 X2) = 2 2 64 EC M to get 1 2 d|M(A2 X2)|2 (24.63) Im M(A2 A2) = 2EC M |K p |tot 2 EC M (A2 X2) = 32 2 Now lets write in general the partial wave decomposition M(A2 X2) = 16 (2n + 1)Pn(cos)an (24.64)

1

Pn(x)Pm(x)dx = So,

1

ImM(A2 A2) = 8

(2n + 1)|an |2

|an |

Thus the partial wave amplitudes are bounded. The matrix elements are bounded d cosPn(cos )M(A2 X2) = 16an < 16 Cross sections cannot be arbitrarily large The precise bound is that for any process, there exists a constant c such that tot (s) < c log2s (24.72) (24.71)

for all s. This is known as the Froissart bound, and is a consequence of unitarity. The partial wave unitary bound, or the Froissart bound, provide extremely important limitations on the behavior of scattering amplitudes. For example, suppose we have a theory with higher-derivative interaction, like 1 L = + 2 (24.73) The s channel exchange diagram gives M( ) =

p2 1 p2 s = p2 2

(24.74)

262

Implications of Unitarity

This has no angular dependence, so for s > 16 it violates the partial unitarity bound. Thus this diagram cannot represent the physics of this process for s > 16 . Of course, we already knew that because this is a non-renormalizable theory, and so loops become important around that scale too. But the bound also implies that the loops must be important. The perturbation expansion simply breaks down. E The same thing happens with W exchange around a TeV. Due to the m dependence of the longitudinal polarizations of the W , the amplitude for W scattering violates the unitary bound at 1 TeV. That means the standard model does not describe physics perturbative at a TeV without a Higgs. The Higgs restores perturbative unitarity. Keep in mind, this is not a statement that unitarity is violated in these theories. It says that unitary would be violated , if we could trust perturbation theory, which we cant. The standard resolution is to introduce new particles or to look for a UV completion of these models above that scale.

- Physics From Symmetry - Jakob SchwichtenbergEnviado pormykalachi1
- Weinberg, Steven - The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume IIEnviado porasacoMaster
- Introduction to Quantum Field Theory PeskinEnviado porBek
- PESKIN - Quantum Field TheoryEnviado porSpadanci
- Quantum Physics 1Enviado porkasun1237459
- Peskin&Schroeder Solution ManualEnviado porJerad Williams
- Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd EdEnviado porZach Hallenbeck
- Mandl F., Shaw G. - Quantum Field TheoryEnviado porRodolfo Araújo
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys6301.001 05f taught by Yuri Gartstein (yxg037000)Enviado porUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 204_29jfdxnxnxnEnviado porEko Setyo Budi
- Buch003englishArticles01 1015-01-2006researchgateEnviado porAdrian Udovičić
- Emergent mechanics quantum and unquantumEnviado portrevorscheopner
- Chromotgraphy and Aas NotesEnviado poraswini_siva
- Atomic Structure QuestionsEnviado porHovan Tall Nut Tan
- Cone Beam Computed Tomography Oral and Maxillofaci... ---- (2 the Nature of Ionizing Radiation and the Risks From Maxillofacial Co...)Enviado porAlex Vîlculescu
- Matthias Troyer- Supersolid phases of (lattice) bosonsEnviado porMremef
- IntroductionEnviado porMuhammad Masoom Akhtar
- 10-spinorsEnviado porjaburico
- J. C. Hidalgo and S. Mendoza- Self–similar imploding relativistic shock wavesEnviado porJuaxmaw
- photoelectriceffect-180615105718Enviado porAnmol Singhal
- PhysRevA.49.433Enviado poraftab
- Suggested Answer for Tutorial 3Enviado porEchizen
- The Best Dang Regents Physics Review Sheet EverEnviado porgodsent7
- new ppt.pptEnviado porpawan kumar gupta
- Uncertainty PrincipleEnviado porMaria Alena Edora
- RadiationEnviado porAjay Yadav
- General CoordsEnviado porMaci Costa
- 3305-GRdraftEnviado porRoy Vesey
- Physics Lecture 3bEnviado porDaniel Wong

- InterferenceEnviado porrnsabir
- THORIUM ENERGY.pdfEnviado porzimaios
- line, surface and volume integralsA.pdfEnviado porNurliyana Ghazali
- L5 RLC CircuitsEnviado porArvinthran Thennarayasu Krishnan
- Ese –Dcm01 ConEnviado poranjaneyulu
- Newton's Experiments on LightEnviado porShauna Prettygyol Hamil
- 2. Elements, Compounds and MixturesEnviado porJoric Magusara
- Diffusion Maps as Invariant Functions of Dynamical SystemsEnviado porMarko Budisic
- Lay Linalg5!01!04Enviado porfrankjamison
- Units _ Bluetooth Technology WebsiteEnviado porAshok Siva Kumar Poojala
- CHM456Enviado porAnonymous o97HYLpe0
- Work, Power EnergyEnviado porGrace Adrianne Bacay
- Tieu Chuan Uon 3D (790)Enviado porvongoctu2016
- 9702_s10_qp_11Enviado porbookworm0006
- Projectile MotionEnviado porYash Akhauri
- Kjellberg Product Brochure EnEnviado porMatija Bušić
- Metaphysics 101Enviado porarcadesdude
- TOE Presentation FinalEnviado porAakash Kamthane
- TFR-080Cable SystemEnviado porgarys
- 16017 Hydraulic ActuatorsEnviado porNilesh Gupta
- End-Winding Vibrations Caused by Steady-State Magnetic Forces in an Induction MachineEnviado porHuibin Zhang
- Gruner D Fire-And-Smoke EnEnviado porErdinç Eşref Uslu
- lab0Enviado poralex61937
- Bending and Axial Compression With RestraintsEnviado porszalaija
- newtons lawsEnviado porapi-297681510
- Structural Response of Composite BeamsEnviado porRamprasad Srinivasan
- 01 Petrucci10e CSMEnviado porAlex
- 1995 Low-temperature Transport PropertIes Ofp-type CoSb3Enviado porRebe Realy
- Curvature and Torsion of CurvesEnviado porSikandar Khan
- UNIT 1.docEnviado porpankaj12345katre