Skip to content

QFT and the SM by Schwartz, checking

Featured Replies

Checking with the physicists here:

On the p.17 it says,

image.png.f0aedb0d3e11f965085841408eb8c4e2.png

Shouldn't it say force rather than potential? Isn't any potential rather quadratic close to equilibrium?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Checking with the physicists here:

On the p.17 it says,

image.png.f0aedb0d3e11f965085841408eb8c4e2.png

Shouldn't it say force rather than potential? Isn't any potential rather quadratic close to equilibrium?

Absolutely. It's an erratum. The potential is quadratic, so it's the force that's linear.

Close to equilibrium the Taylor expansion of the potential must be quadratic, as at the equilibrium position, the gradient (the force) must be zero. So the next-to-zeroth-order term for the force is proportional to V''(x0).

V(x)=V(x0)+(1/2)V''(x0)(x-x0)2+...

Create an account or sign in to comment

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.