6

I am trying to understand the difference between the 2-point vertex function and the self energy. In many presentations, they are described in ways that seem nearly equivalent, yet as I work through the details I run into seemingly nonsensical statements.

To start with definitions, we know that the 2-point vertex $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is characterized by $\Gamma^{(2)} = G_c^{-1}$, the inverse of the 2-point connected Green's function. The self-energy $\Sigma$ is the sum of all 1-particle irreducible (1PI) diagrams of the two-point function after amputating the external legs.

It is also said that $\Gamma^{(n)}$, the $n$-point vertex, is said to be the sum of all amputated 1PI diagrams with $n$ external legs. This statement is not a definition, but a derived consequence. However, this statement seems strange to me in the case $n=2$, in which case it would be equivalent to saying $\Gamma^{(2)} = \Sigma$.

We know that $G_c^{-1} = G_0^{-1} - \Sigma$, where $G_0$ is the free propagator. If $\Gamma^{(2)} = \Sigma$, then we would arrive at the nonsensical statement $2\Gamma^{(2)} = G_0^{-1}$. This seems to imply that $\Gamma^{(2)}$ should not be thought of as the sum of all the 1PI diagrams for the amputated 2-point correlator.

Am I missing something here, or are textbooks being imprecise in the statement that $\Gamma^{(n)}$ is the sum of all amputated 1PI diagrams with $n$ external legs?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Aaron
  • 2,879
  • Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/193419/2451 – Qmechanic Oct 03 '17 at 18:07
  • One should not forget that the effective action (when obtained perturbatively) contains both the bare action and the diagrams. The diagrams are then 1PI due to the construction of $\Gamma$, but there is also a contribution (usually for small $n\leq 4$) from the bare action. – Adam Jul 01 '18 at 08:19

1 Answers1

2

It really looks like there is missing $n > 2$ for that definition. Clearly 1-PI diagrams for n-point functions with $n > 2$ are what the vertex function is, because none of them can be amputated if stacked together. On other hand, with 2-point function one can always stack 1-PI diagrams by connecting them in such way that all but one of them can be amputated.

Darkseid
  • 1,420
  • Sorry to comment on an older post but I am having the same problem as the original poster where I don't see what's special about $\Gamma^{(2)}$. What do you mean by "stacking" 1-PI diagrams? – CBBAM Mar 29 '24 at 06:13