21

Often times in quantum field theory, you will hear people using the term "vacuum expectation value" when referring to the minimum of the potential $V(\phi )$ in the Lagrangian (I'm pretty sure every source I've seen that explains the Higgs mechanism uses this terminology).

However, a priori, it would seem that the term "vacuum expectation value" (of a field $\phi$) should refer to $\langle 0|\phi |0\rangle$, where $|0\rangle$ is the physical vacuum of the theory (whatever that means; see my other question).

What is the proof that these two coincide?

SRS
  • 26,333
Jonathan Gleason
  • 8,490
  • 10
  • 43
  • 60

2 Answers2

16

We have the functional of the external source $J$, which gives us v.e.v.s of field operators, by functional differentiation: $$e^{-iE[J]} = \int {\cal{D}}\phi\, e^{iS[\phi]+iJ\phi} $$ $$\phi_{cl}=\langle\phi\rangle_J = -\frac{\delta E}{\delta J}$$ Where $\langle\phi\rangle_J$ is the v.e.v of $\phi$ in presence of external source $J$. That could be considered as a visible "response" of the system on the source and it usually denoted as a new variable, called the "classical field". We would like to find it when there are no external sources: $J=0$.
For that, one then does the Legendre transform trick, arriving at the effective action: $$\Gamma[\phi_{cl}] = - E - J\phi_{cl}\quad\quad\frac{\delta\,\Gamma}{\delta \phi_{cl}} = - J$$ Remembering our goal to find $\phi_{cl}$ at $J=0$, we arrive at the equation. $$\frac{\delta\,\Gamma}{\delta \phi_{cl}} = 0$$ Adding an extra assumption that $\phi_{cl}$ is space and time independent: $\phi_{cl}(x) = v$, the effective action functional $\Gamma[\phi_{cl}]$ is then reduced to effective potential $V_{eff}(v)$ and the equation becomes. $$\frac{dV_{eff}}{dv} = 0$$ Now, as David Vercauteren correctly pointed out, $V_{eff}(v)$ is not the same function as $V(\phi)$. But usually it is a good first approximation, because we usually consider systems where the "real" quantum field fluctuates weakly around its vacuum: $\phi(x)=v+\eta(x)$ with $\eta$ being small.

Kostya
  • 19,992
7

They don't excactly coincide. In perturbation theory, the vev $\langle 0|\phi|0\rangle$ is equal to the value of $\phi$ at the minimum of $V(\phi)$ at leading order. The exact value of the vev is equal to this value-at-the-minimum plus perturbative (and at times also nonperturbative) corrections. Saying that they coincide is just a leading-order approximation.

  • 2
    So then what is the proof of this leading-order approximation? – Jonathan Gleason Sep 01 '13 at 22:13
  • 1
    @JonathanGleason How about Peskin Schroeder 11.3 ? – Kostya Sep 01 '13 at 22:15
  • 1
    You are generally free to take as one of your renormalization conditions that the higher order corrections to the vev vanish. (You don't have to of course, but this is a particularly useful choice for many purposes.) – Michael Sep 01 '13 at 22:45
  • 1
    @MichaelBrown Indeed, I was under the impression that you had to have this as a re-normalization condition in order to apply LSZ (that is, a hypothesis require for the LSZ Reduction Formula to hold was that $\langle 0|\phi (x)|0\rangle =0$). In fact, I thought this was the entire idea behind the symmetry breaking: you must re-write your Lagrangian in terms of the re-normalized field (with vanishing VEV), and if the bare field had a non-vanishing VEV, this will 'break' the symmetry . . . – Jonathan Gleason Sep 01 '13 at 23:37
  • . . . In practice, you do this by writing the Lagrangian in terms of $\phi :=\phi _0-v$, where $v$ is some minimum of the potential and $\phi _0$ is the original field. My question could then be equivalently phrased as "Why does this guarantee that $\langle 0|\phi (x)|0\rangle =0$?". – Jonathan Gleason Sep 01 '13 at 23:38
  • @JonathanGleason You have to introduce renormalized fields regardless of whether symmetries are broken or you inted to use LSZ. It's just a necessity to get a continuum limit from QFTs. You have to absorb the divergences in the vev in the tadpole counter-terms, but you can set the finite part to whatever you want. It might be stupid, but you can do it. I actually can't think of a good reason to keep finite corrections to the vev off hand (actually it might make lattice calculations easier, whatever, don't quote me on that), but if it ever comes up know you can. – Michael Sep 02 '13 at 05:33
  • (cont.) General truth about renormalization: the divergences are forced on you by the theory, but the finite parts are up to your choice of renormalization scheme. As long as you do it consistently the physics at the end of the day is scheme independent, but some schemes may be more convenient for a particular purpose than others. For example, you might have to patch up the LSZ formula if your scheme doesn't match the derivation you looked up somewhere... – Michael Sep 02 '13 at 05:33