Interaction potential analysis from $\phi^4$ model

2520 views

In this paper, the authors consider a real scalar field theory in $d$-dimensional flat Minkowski space-time, with the action given by $$S=\int d^d\! x \left[\frac12(\partial_\mu\phi)^2-U(\phi)\right],$$ where $U(x)$ is a general self-interaction potential. Then, the authors proceed by saying that for the standard $\phi^4$ theory, the interaction potential can be written as $$U(\phi)= \frac{1}{8} \phi^2 (\phi -2)^2.$$

Why is this so? What is the significance of the cubic term present?

In this question Willie Wong answered by setting $\psi = \phi - 1$, why is that? Or why is this a gauge transformation? Does anyone have better argument to understand the interection potential?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Unlimited Dreamer

asked Mar 1, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Unlimited Dreamer (5 points) [ no revision ]

It's a field redefinition. You can use this $\psi$ in your calculations and if necessary switch back to $\phi$ in the end, if you need to. In other words, knowing the correlation functions $\langle \phi(x_1) \dotsm \phi(x_n) \rangle$ is completely equivalent to knowing $\langle \psi(x_1) \dotsm \psi(x_n) \rangle$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vibert

commented Mar 1, 2013 by Vibert (0 points) [ no revision ]

Your comment on this question:

To answer, leave an answer instead. Comments are usually for non-answers.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
To alert a user, please use the "@" command and remove spaces from the username, example, the user "John Doe" should be pinged as "@JohnDoe", while the user "Johndoe" should be pinged as "@Johndoe". The post author is always automatically pinged (unless you are the post author).
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if a comment is added after mine:

Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Anti-spam verification:

[captcha placeholder]

Please complete the anti-spam verification

1 Answer

It's not a gauge transformation, it's a field redefinition. Srednicki gives an example of this in exercise 10.5. In this exercise, a free field theory is turned into what looks like an interacting field theory by a field redefinition, however in perturbation theory, the scattering amplitudes vanish, confirming that the physics hasn't changed.

I suspect you will find the same here (though I haven't done it!) - if you compute scattering amplitudes for the 3-way vertices represented by the cubic terms resulting from this field redefinition, they should cancel.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59

answered Mar 1, 2013 by twistor59 (2,500 points) [ no revision ]

That's precisely what I meant with my comment above.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Vibert

commented Mar 1, 2013 by Vibert (0 points) [ no revision ]

@Vibert Oh yes, I think we posted simultaneously!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59

commented Mar 1, 2013 by twistor59 (2,500 points) [ no revision ]

Twistor, i got the problem 10.5. can you please redefine this field so i will have more clear understanding.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-22 17:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Unlimited Dreamer