Beta Function for QED: 20/9 or 8/3?

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
The beta function for QED is given by:

\beta=\frac{e^3}{16 \pi^2}*\frac{4}{3}*(Q_i)^2

where (Q_i)^2 represents the sum of the squares of the charges of all Dirac fields.

For one generation, for the charge squared you have (2/3)^2 for the up quark, (-1/3)^2 for the down quark, but this is all multiplied by 3 for the 3 colors of quarks, and then you have (-1)^2 for the electron and (0)^2 for its neutrino.

So all in all, 3[(2/3)^2+(-1/3)^2]+(-1)^2=8/3

However this gives a beta function that is not equal to the book value of:

\beta=\frac{e^3}{16 \pi^2}*\frac{20}{9}

So is the book wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
20/9 is the coefficient for the contribution of one quark-lepton generation to the beta function for hypercharge, not QED.
 
Last edited:
Ah that's it. But now I have to re-calculate the beta function for the hypercharge. Darn it.

Do you remember Srednicki ever providing justification that the coupling constants of SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) are unified to the coupling constant of SU(5) (well within a factor of 3/5 for the U(1) coupling constant) at the mass of the X-particle? I mean you can show that the 3 couplings of the product group meet at a point, but after that point what's the justification for using SU(5) instead of just continuing to follow the three beta functions past that point, i.e., continue with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)? I don't recall ever seeing Srednicki talk about the phase transition.
 
He says after eq.(97.14) that the couplings are equal in the MS-bar renormalization scheme, but that we should not use this scheme below MX. Then, at the bottom of p.630, he says that the usual beta functions apply if we integrate out the heavy fields. At the top of p.631, he says that we have to restore the heavy fields for mu>MX, and then the couplings are equal again. So it just depends on which renormalization scheme is most appropriate, the one with heavy fields included or the one with heavy fields integrated out.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top