I have difficulty in understanding the path-integral formalism of SSB, and that of Effective Action.
Let's say a complex scalar field theory has the global U(1) SSB, L(ϕ)=(∂μϕ)2−m2ϕ†ϕ−14(ϕ†ϕ)2
The proof of the masslessness of Goldstone bosons associated with this theory usually uses the U(1) symmetry of the Effective action Γ[ϕ], which usually is proven by assuming that in the generating functional Z[J]=∫[DϕDϕ†]ei∫d4x[L(ϕ)+J†ϕ+ϕ†J]
But the problem is, if we assume [DϕDϕ†] is invariant, we could easily get ⟨Ω|ϕ|Ω⟩=eiθ⟨Ω|ϕ|Ω⟩
Where did I get wrong, or how to correctly prove that the effective action Γ[ϕ] indeed has the U(1) symmetry?
PS:
let me make my question clearer.
The fact is that we don't really need the generating functional Z[J] to calculate the VEV, we can simply go back to the functional-integral version of the VEV:
VEV=∫[DϕDϕ†] ϕ eiS[ϕ]
Now the measure [DϕDϕ†] (and its region/asymptotic behavior) appearing in (3) is the same as that in (1), so if we assume its invariance to prove the symmetry of Z[J], we can as well use it to prove (2). The proof (if I'm right) goes like this:
(3) just calculates VEV as a expect value of ϕ, since everything is in the integral, the variables ϕ are dummy, we can just rename ϕ as ϕ′ without affecting anything: VEV=∫[Dϕ′Dϕ′†] ϕ′ eiS[ϕ′]
we make a variable transformation
ϕ′=eiθϕ
Looking back, (7) holds only if the functional integral is over an symmetrical region/class of field configurations ϕ(x), for example, if the integral is over all field configurations that vanish at infinity, ϕ(∞)=0.
So my conclusion is that, since (8) contradicts SSB, the functional integration region shouldn't be invariant under ϕ→eiθϕ, and thus picks up a particular/favored "orientation" in field's configurations, and thereby yields an nonzero VEV.
But if this is the case, I don't understand how the effective action Γ[ϕ] has the delightful property that it has the same symmetry as the classical action S[ϕ].
No comments:
Post a Comment