University Quantum Field Theory I · unit UQFTI-03
Feynman Diagrams for Scalar Field Theories
Connect the ideas, make your working visible, and test the result. Use the hints when you need a starting point; open the full solution after your attempt.
Extra challenging questions
A selection from this pathway. Open a topic below for its complete practice and challenge set.
Position-space Feynman rules for φ⁴: infer an input with uncertainty
Position-space Feynman rules turn each term of a correlation function's perturbation series into a picture and back: D_F(a − b) for every line joining points a and b, and −iλ with ∫d⁴z over all spacetime for every φ⁴ vertex z, divided by the diagram's symmetry factor. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = (cut*sqrt(cut*cut+1)-ln(cut+sqrt(cut*cut+1)))/(8*pi*pi), where Y_out is D_F(0)/m² WITH CUTOFF (dimensionless). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793; sqrt(x) means √x; ln(x) means the natural logarithm. cut is Cutoff on |p|, Λ/m, dimensionless. Keep lam (Coupling λ) = 0.6; s (Probe separation m r) = 2 fixed. For this exercise use only 1.74375 ≤ cut ≤ 7.25625 on this continuous branch. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. A reading gives Y_out = 0.30696864, with a bounded reading uncertainty ±0.041899. Treat the model and all fixed inputs as exact for this exercise; the bound is not a standard deviation. First estimate the unknown cut by straight-line interpolation between the two endpoint predictions. Then solve the actual model on the stated branch to an absolute input tolerance of 0.00055125, using a numerical bracket if required. Find the full input interval consistent with the bounded reading uncertainty and compare it with a symmetric input-error assumption. Do not assume that the supplied calibration points prove monotonicity outside this branch.
D_F(0)/m² WITH CUTOFF against cut
Predictions from the supplied Position-space Feynman rules for φ⁴ model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): D_F(0)/m² WITH CUTOFF
Horizontal axis (x): cut: Cutoff on |p|, Λ/m
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| cut: Cutoff on |p|, Λ/m | D_F(0)/m² WITH CUTOFF |
|---|---|
| 1.74375 | 0.027640285230667333 |
| 3.1218749999999997 | 0.106103524436662 |
| 4.5 | 0.23474379730772063 |
| 5.878124999999999 | 0.4125956167046533 |
| 7.25625 | 0.6392237891305256 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
The model's endpoint predictions bracket the reading. Solve Y_out(cut) = Y_measured and then solve again at Y_measured − u and Y_measured + u; a nonlinear inverse can give unequal input deviations.
Reveal the worked solution
- Endpoint predictions are Y_out(1.74375) = 0.0276403 and Y_out(7.25625) = 0.639224. The target lies between them. On the selected branch the response is strictly increasing.
- Endpoint interpolation gives cut_line = 1.74375 + (0.306969 − 0.0276403)(7.25625 − 1.74375)/(0.639224 − 0.0276403) = 4.26147. This estimates the inverse of the endpoint chord, rather than assuming that chord is the physical model.
- Use the actual equation, not the chord, and bracket its root. Evaluating the midpoint and retaining the sign-changing half-interval gives cut = 5.10638; substituting back gives Y_out = 0.30696864.
- The interpolation error in the input is |cut_line − cut| = 0.844903. This is larger than the requested numerical tolerance.
- Invert both limits Y_out = 0.26506964 and 0.34886764. Sort the roots even if the response decreases: 4.76441 ≤ cut ≤ 5.42609.
- The lower and upper input deviations are 0.341965 and 0.319711. They differ because the inverse response is nonlinear; a symmetric error bar would only be a local approximation. This interval includes reading uncertainty only, not model error or uncertainty in fixed inputs.
Answer cut ≈ 5.10638; compatible interval [4.76441, 5.42609]. Endpoint interpolation gives 4.26147.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.
Symmetry factors: where the 1/4! fails to cancel: infer an input with uncertainty
A diagram's symmetry factor S is the number of ways to permute its vertices, and the line ends at each vertex, that give back exactly the same contraction, every line end still paired with the same partner and external points held fixed; the diagram enters the series with weight 1/S. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = 0.5+1/ss, where Y_out is λ² COEFFICIENT (EXACT 0.667) (dimensionless). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793. ss is Sunset symmetry factor S, dimensionless. Keep st (Tadpole symmetry factor S) = 1 fixed. For this exercise use only 1 ≤ ss ≤ 12, at the specified test settings separated by 1. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. A reading gives Y_out = 0.625, with a bounded reading uncertainty ±0.073333. Treat the model and all fixed inputs as exact for this exercise; the bound is not a standard deviation. Determine every allowed value of ss consistent with that bound. Compare with a straight-line interpolation between the two endpoint predictions, and explain why a fractional setting may be inadmissible. Do not assume that the supplied calibration points prove monotonicity outside this branch.
λ² COEFFICIENT (EXACT 0.667) against ss
Predictions from the supplied Symmetry factors: where the 1/4! fails to cancel model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): λ² COEFFICIENT (EXACT 0.667)
Horizontal axis (x): ss: Sunset symmetry factor S
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| ss: Sunset symmetry factor S | λ² COEFFICIENT (EXACT 0.667) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1.5 |
| 4 | 0.75 |
| 7 | 0.6428571428571428 |
| 9 | 0.6111111111111112 |
| 12 | 0.5833333333333334 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
Enumerate the permitted settings in the stated range, evaluate Y_out at each, and retain every setting satisfying |Y_out − Y_measured| ≤ u. The plotted predictions are supplied calibration evidence.
Reveal the worked solution
- Endpoint predictions are Y_out(1) = 1.5 and Y_out(12) = 0.583333. The target lies between them. On the selected branch the response is strictly decreasing.
- Endpoint interpolation gives ss_line = 1 + (0.625 − 1.5)(12 − 1)/(0.583333 − 1.5) = 11.5. This estimates the inverse of the endpoint chord, rather than assuming that chord is the physical model.
- Evaluate the model at each permitted setting. The central reading corresponds to ss = 8; only the allowed settings 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 lie inside the stated reading bound.
- The interpolation error in the input is |ss_line − ss| = 3.5.
- The compatible allowed values span 6 to 12. Values between specified test settings are outside this exercise's input domain even if an interpolation passes through them.
- The quoted output bound restricts which specified settings remain compatible. It does not change physical restrictions on quantum numbers or counts, and the chosen grid alone does not establish physical quantisation.
Answer Compatible ss: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Endpoint interpolation predicts 11.5; check admissibility against the discrete settings.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.
Vacuum bubbles exponentiate and cancel: infer an input with uncertainty
A vacuum bubble is a piece of a diagram joined to none of the external points; summed over every number of copies, the bubbles multiply each diagram by the same factor exp(Σᵢ Vᵢ), which is exactly the Gell-Mann-Low denominator, so they cancel. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = 20*2.60958*lc^4*box^3/197.327, where Y_out is PHASE E₀t AT t = 20 fm/c (rad). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793. lc is Cutoff Λ on ⟨φ²⟩, measured in GeV. Keep box (Box side L) = 3 fm; nb (Bubbles kept N) = 2 fixed. For this exercise use only 0.574375 GeV ≤ lc ≤ 1.12562 GeV on this continuous branch. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. A reading gives Y_out = 4.9108875 rad, with a bounded reading uncertainty ±0.62005 rad. Treat the model and all fixed inputs as exact for this exercise; the bound is not a standard deviation. First estimate the unknown lc by straight-line interpolation between the two endpoint predictions. Then solve the actual model on the stated branch to an absolute input tolerance of 0.000055125 GeV, using a numerical bracket if required. Find the full input interval consistent with the bounded reading uncertainty and compare it with a symmetric input-error assumption. Do not assume that the supplied calibration points prove monotonicity outside this branch.
PHASE E₀t AT t = 20 fm/c against lc
Predictions from the supplied Vacuum bubbles exponentiate and cancel model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): PHASE E₀t AT t = 20 fm/c / rad
Horizontal axis (x): lc: Cutoff Λ on ⟨φ²⟩ / GeV
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| lc: Cutoff Λ on ⟨φ²⟩ / GeV | PHASE E₀t AT t = 20 fm/c / rad |
|---|---|
| 0.574375 | 0.777248650580159 |
| 0.7121875 | 1.8371949764764257 |
| 0.8499999999999999 | 3.72780824586853 |
| 0.9878124999999999 | 6.7994836196286155 |
| 1.1256249999999999 | 11.464438329420824 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
The model's endpoint predictions bracket the reading. Solve Y_out(lc) = Y_measured and then solve again at Y_measured − u and Y_measured + u; a nonlinear inverse can give unequal input deviations.
Reveal the worked solution
- Endpoint predictions are Y_out(0.574375) = 0.777249 rad and Y_out(1.12562) = 11.4644 rad. The target lies between them. On the selected branch the response is strictly increasing.
- Endpoint interpolation gives lc_line = 0.574375 + (4.91089 − 0.777249)(1.12562 − 0.574375)/(11.4644 − 0.777249) = 0.78759 GeV. This estimates the inverse of the endpoint chord, rather than assuming that chord is the physical model.
- Use the actual equation, not the chord, and bracket its root. Evaluating the midpoint and retaining the sign-changing half-interval gives lc = 0.910638 GeV; substituting back gives Y_out = 4.9108875 rad.
- The interpolation error in the input is |lc_line − lc| = 0.123048 GeV. This is larger than the requested numerical tolerance.
- Invert both limits Y_out = 4.2908375 rad and 5.5309375 rad. Sort the roots even if the response decreases: 0.880422 GeV ≤ lc ≤ 0.938113 GeV.
- The lower and upper input deviations are 0.0302152 GeV and 0.0274756 GeV. They differ because the inverse response is nonlinear; a symmetric error bar would only be a local approximation. This interval includes reading uncertainty only, not model error or uncertainty in fixed inputs.
Answer lc ≈ 0.910638 GeV; compatible interval [0.880422, 0.938113] GeV. Endpoint interpolation gives 0.78759 GeV.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.
Connected diagrams and the four-point function at order λ: infer an input with uncertainty
The connected four-point function is the four-point correlation function minus every product of lower correlation functions; in φ⁴ that means minus the three products of two-point functions, which leaves exactly the diagrams joining all four external points into one piece. Use the supplied topic model Y_out = gap/(0.197327/m*sqrt(1.25-cos(10.13546*m))), where Y_out is 2 → 2 STRETCH ÷ REST (dimensionless). The output symbol Y_out is distinct from all input symbols. ^ denotes a power; π = 3.141592653589793; sqrt(x) means √x; unmarked trigonometric functions use radians. m is Mass m, measured in GeV. Keep z0 (Vertex time cz⁰) = 0.25 fm; gap (Gap between the pairs c(t₃ − t₂)) = 4 fm fixed. For this exercise use only 0.174375 GeV ≤ m ≤ 0.615375 GeV on this continuous branch. A grid of test settings is an input restriction for this exercise, not by itself a claim of physical quantisation. This calculation retains the topic model's stated assumptions; it does not extend them to a different physical setup. A reading gives Y_out = 7.4212541, with a bounded reading uncertainty ±0.67216. Treat the model and all fixed inputs as exact for this exercise; the bound is not a standard deviation. First estimate the unknown m by straight-line interpolation between the two endpoint predictions. Then solve the actual model on the stated branch to an absolute input tolerance of 0.0000441 GeV, using a numerical bracket if required. Find the full input interval consistent with the bounded reading uncertainty and compare it with a symmetric input-error assumption. Do not assume that the supplied calibration points prove monotonicity outside this branch.
2 → 2 STRETCH ÷ REST against m
Predictions from the supplied Connected diagrams and the four-point function at order λ model, with all other inputs fixed as stated in the question. 5 calibration points support a trend comparison; they are not measured data or a straight-line law.
Vertical axis (y): 2 → 2 STRETCH ÷ REST
Horizontal axis (x): m: Mass m / GeV
Axes show the supplied calibration interval; the origin may lie outside the plot.
Read the exact data as a table
| m: Mass m / GeV | 2 → 2 STRETCH ÷ REST |
|---|---|
| 0.174375 | 2.9402011968559982 |
| 0.284625 | 3.874744043197866 |
| 0.394875 | 5.804087093640198 |
| 0.505125 | 11.080859295633534 |
| 0.615375 | 24.89564636316062 |
These are the supplied values, not a worked answer. No fitted trend is drawn.
Show a hint
The model's endpoint predictions bracket the reading. Solve Y_out(m) = Y_measured and then solve again at Y_measured − u and Y_measured + u; a nonlinear inverse can give unequal input deviations.
Reveal the worked solution
- Endpoint predictions are Y_out(0.174375) = 2.9402 and Y_out(0.615375) = 24.8956. The target lies between them. On the selected branch the response is strictly increasing.
- Endpoint interpolation gives m_line = 0.174375 + (7.42125 − 2.9402)(0.615375 − 0.174375)/(24.8956 − 2.9402) = 0.264382 GeV. This estimates the inverse of the endpoint chord, rather than assuming that chord is the physical model.
- Use the actual equation, not the chord, and bracket its root. Evaluating the midpoint and retaining the sign-changing half-interval gives m = 0.443385 GeV; substituting back gives Y_out = 7.4212541.
- The interpolation error in the input is |m_line − m| = 0.179003 GeV. This is larger than the requested numerical tolerance.
- Invert both limits Y_out = 6.7490941 and 8.0934141. Sort the roots even if the response decreases: 0.425848 GeV ≤ m ≤ 0.458278 GeV.
- The lower and upper input deviations are 0.0175367 GeV and 0.0148934 GeV. They differ because the inverse response is nonlinear; a symmetric error bar would only be a local approximation. This interval includes reading uncertainty only, not model error or uncertainty in fixed inputs.
Answer m ≈ 0.443385 GeV; compatible interval [0.425848, 0.458278] GeV. Endpoint interpolation gives 0.264382 GeV.
Compare the assumptions, method and units with your attempt. Explain any correction before trying another question.