Are running couplings distinctively 'quantum'?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter metroplex021
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum Running
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of running couplings in quantum field theory (QFT) and whether this phenomenon is distinctly quantum or could also be explained in a classical context. Participants explore the implications of running couplings, their relation to loop diagrams, and analogies with classical phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that running coupling constants are inherently quantum due to their appearance in QFT and their derivation from loop diagrams.
  • Others argue that while running couplings are a quantum effect, there are classical analogies, such as vacuum polarization resembling charge shielding in classical dielectrics.
  • A participant questions the distinctively quantum nature of running couplings and seeks a deeper explanation beyond derivation.
  • There is a discussion about the Callan-Symanzik equation and its role in governing renormalized coupling constants, which are introduced to handle divergent diagrams that include loops.
  • One participant suggests that the running of couplings is related to virtual states arising from the superposition principle and perturbation theory.
  • Another participant raises a question about whether vacuum polarization can explain why coupling increases with energy, leading to a discussion about screening and antiscreening effects.
  • One participant expresses a belief that vacuum polarization explains a decrease in coupling rather than an increase, proposing that high-energy interactions see both positive and negative charges in a "expanded" manner.
  • There is a mention of differences in running couplings for different gauge groups, such as SU(3) versus U(1), and the necessity of a theory accommodating particle-antiparticle pairs for a proper understanding of vacuum polarization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether running couplings are distinctly quantum or if classical analogies can sufficiently explain them. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of vacuum polarization and its effects on coupling behavior.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the nature of quantum effects, the role of loop diagrams, and the interpretation of vacuum polarization, which are not fully resolved. There are also references to different gauge theories that may influence the understanding of running couplings.

metroplex021
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
As is well known, the charges through which particles interact scale with the energy in QFT. What I was wondering is: can we say that this is a peculiarly 'quantum' phenomenon (or maybe, quantum-relativistic)? Is there a reason why it wouldn't be the case in a classical universe, for example?

Just a rainy afternoon question... any thoughts or musings would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your question.
the running coupling constants appear in the framework of quantum field theory. So they are quantum.
If by classical you mean the tree level interactions of classical fields, then yes the running of the coupling constant is a quantum effect appearing from higher order diagram corrections.
 
Yes, as ChrisVer says the running of the coupling in QFT comes from loop diagrams, and loop diagrams are inherently quantum mechanical because they represent the process of summing together the amplitudes of many different classical histories.

That said there are classical phenomena that are analogous in some ways. We call the running of the electric charge "vacuum polarization" because it is similar to polarization effects and charge shielding in classical dielectrics.
 
Yes, I appreciate that the running couplings appear in QFT. But -- as anyone who's benefited from reading Feynman knows -- derivation is not always the same thing as explanation. Is there a story, a gloss we can give on why the running of couplings is *distinctively* quantum?
 
OK: so is the idea here that the Callen-Symanzik equation governs renormalized coupling constants, and those things are only introduced in order to deal with divergent diagrams, which always include loops (and hence are intrinsically QMical)?

Thanks for reminding me of the analogy with dielectrics, The_Duck.
 
In the end the running of the couplins is due to virtual states coming from the superposition principle and perturbation theory. So I would say yes.
 
The_Duck said:
Yes, as ChrisVer says the running of the coupling in QFT comes from loop diagrams, and loop diagrams are inherently quantum mechanical because they represent the process of summing together the amplitudes of many different classical histories.

That said there are classical phenomena that are analogous in some ways. We call the running of the electric charge "vacuum polarization" because it is similar to polarization effects and charge shielding in classical dielectrics.
Can mass renorm. be understood in the same way, by the way?
 
And, related to that, can this " vacuum polarization" -picture explain why the coupling increases with energy instead of decreases (antiscreening instead of screening?)

Without wanting to hijack this topic, of course. ;)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I think it [vacuum polarization] explains why it's decreasing not increasing. It's more like the same charge is "expanded" in space...and so something going through it at high energies will see except for the positive charges the negative too.
 
  • #10
Maybe I'm mixing stuff up, I'll check.
 
  • #11
In fact I had always thought that the "vacuum polarization picture" is the divulgative argument to explain running couplings in the Scientific American or similar newsjournals. It can be argued that it will be different for SU(3) that for U(1), so different runnings. And it is a quantum-relativistic picture, because the polarization is not of the "vacuum" but of the pairs particle-antiparticle that come out of the vacuum and return to it. So you need a theory allowing for pairs of particle-antiparticle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
587
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
25K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K