1

I'm following Peskin & Schroeder p.302, and am trying to show that the generating functional for the Dirac field can be written as

$$ Z\left[\bar{\eta}, \eta\right] = Z_0 \exp \left[-\int d^4 x d^4 y \bar{\eta}(x) S_F(x - y) \eta(y)\right] $$

starting from

$$ Z\left[\bar{\eta}, \eta\right] = \int \mathcal{D}\bar{\psi}\mathcal{D}\psi \exp\left[i \int d^4 x \left[\bar{\psi}\left(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m\right)\psi + \bar{\eta}\psi + \bar{\psi}\eta\right]\right] $$

I've performed the following shift

$$ \psi(x) \to \psi'(x) - i\int d^4 y \;S_F(x -y )\eta(y) \\ \bar{\psi}(x) \to \bar{\psi}'(x) + i\int d^4 y \; \bar{\eta}(y)S_F(x - y) $$

But my issue is with the following term that arises from this shift

$$ -\int d^4 y \bar{\eta}(y) S_F(x - y)\left(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m\right)\psi'(x) $$

I know that I can move $(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)$ over to the left using integration by parts to get

$$ \int d^4 y \bar{\eta}(y) \left(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu + m\right) S_F(x - y) \psi'(x) $$

Since $S_F(x - y)$ isn't a Green's function of $\left(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu + m\right)$, but of $\left(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m\right)$, I don't see how this can reduce down to $-\bar{\eta}(x)\psi'(x)$. I've looked at this post, but I don't understand the argument given there. They state that $S_F(x - y)$ is invariant under $x \leftrightarrow y$, but surely that can't be right? I know that for the scalar field this type of shift works out nicely because you have $\left(\partial^2 + m^2\right)$. So you have to do integration by parts twice, which doesn't change the sign in front of $\partial^2$. But for the Dirac field here I don't see how to progress.

Qmechanic
  • 220,844
chrv
  • 33

1 Answers1

1

There seems to be a sign mistake in your expression for the shift of $\psi$, which should read instead $$ \psi(x)\to \psi^\prime(x)+i\int \! d^4y \, S_F(x-y) \eta(y). $$ This implies $$ \bar{\psi}(x)\to \bar{\psi}^\prime(x)-i \int \! d^4y \, \bar{\eta}(y) \gamma^0 S_F(x-y)^\dagger \gamma^0, $$ i.e. (apart from the different sign), you should have $\gamma^0 S_F^\dagger \gamma^0$ instead of $S_F$ in your corresponding expression. This should solve your puzzle.

Hyperon
  • 10,007