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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the beta function in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and its comparison to the values presented in literature, specifically addressing the coefficients of 8/3 and 20/9. Participants explore the implications of these values and their relation to hypercharge and unification of coupling constants.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation of the beta function for QED, arriving at a coefficient of 8/3 based on the charge contributions from quarks and leptons.
  • Another participant clarifies that the coefficient 20/9 pertains to the contribution of one quark-lepton generation to the beta function for hypercharge, not QED.
  • A later reply expresses the need to recalculate the beta function for hypercharge following the clarification.
  • Further discussion introduces a question about the justification for unifying coupling constants of SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) to SU(5) at the mass of the X-particle, referencing Srednicki's work.
  • Another participant cites Srednicki's statements regarding the renormalization scheme and the treatment of heavy fields, indicating that the choice of scheme affects the applicability of beta functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the beta function values or the justification for the unification of coupling constants, indicating multiple competing views and unresolved questions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made in the calculations of the beta function and the definitions of the renormalization schemes discussed. The discussion also highlights the dependency on the treatment of heavy fields in the context of the beta functions.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K