0

If one tried to write a term in a Lagrangian which only used one field (for example, in QED if one tried to write a term which looked like $\gamma^{\mu} A_{\mu}$), would this term have any meaning in terms of Feynman rules?

I leave aside whether the term would be forbidden because of violation of gauge invariance and other principles, and ask only if it would make sense in theory to have such a term when writing down Feynman diagrams?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Tom
  • 1,210

2 Answers2

3

An action term linear in the fields produces diagrammatically a 1-vertex (1 leg). It is either a tadpole or a source. See also this related Phys.SE post.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
-1

It seems that a term in the Lagrangian that only involves one field is not very meaningful in terms of Feynman rules.

Feynman Rules in QED

Rule 0: a factor of $i$.

Rule 1: External lines: We attach wave functions or polarizations to each incoming or outgoing particle.

Rule 2: Internal lines: To each internal line, we attach a propagator depending on particle species.

Rule 3: Vertices: To each vertex, we attach a coupling constant and a factor depending on the type of interaction.

Rule 4: Loops: To each closed loop, we attach a factor of $(2π)^4$ and an integral over the loop momentum.

As you can see, the Feynman rules involve terms that have at least two fields (either external or internal) and at least one vertex. A term that only has one field would not contribute to any Feynman diagram, and therefore would not have any physical significance. In fact, such a term would violate gauge invariance and other principles, as you mentioned. For example, in QED, a term like $γ^μA_μ$​ would not be invariant under the gauge transformation $A_μ​→A_μ​+∂_μ​λ$, where $λ$ is an arbitrary function. Therefore, such a term is not allowed in the Lagrangian.

  • 5
    Consider the scalar theory with the interaction term $j\phi$, where $j(x)$ is a classical field. It can be treated as a perturbation, and it generates vertices in Feynman diagrams. – E. Anikin Jun 14 '23 at 23:32
  • @E.Anikin Is there a reference where this is discussed in more detail (perhaps the textbook of Srednicki)? Also, what if one has a term involving a gauge field like the singlet hypercharge gauge field multiplying the associated field strength? Is this term not gauge invariant because it has a 'bare' gauge field but still makes sense in terms of generating something for a Feynman diagram? – Tom Jun 15 '23 at 07:58
  • I just checked Chapter 9 of Srednicki where he sets up an interacting scalar theory and the Lagrangian actually has a term $Yϕ$ as you say, where $Y$ is a parameter., but seems like it is only there to cancel tadpoles? – Tom Jun 15 '23 at 12:30