Clarification of a passage from the Schwartz QFT text

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter HomogenousCow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft Text
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies a passage from Matthew D. Schwartz's Quantum Field Theory (QFT) text regarding the renormalization of the coupling constant ##\lambda## in ##\phi^4## theory. It emphasizes that while the scattering matrix ##M(s)## is infinite, the difference between scattering matrices at two scales, expressed as $$M(s_1)-M(s_2)=\frac{\lambda^2}{32\pi^2}\ln(\frac{s_2}{s_1})$$, is finite. The confusion arises from the distinction between the bare coupling constant, which is infinite and unobservable, and the renormalized coupling constant, which can be determined from the elastic scattering cross-section at a specific renormalization scale ##s_R##. The discussion highlights the necessity of adjusting renormalized quantities when changing the renormalization scale to maintain consistent cross-section values.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of renormalization in particle physics
  • Knowledge of scattering processes and cross-sections
  • Basic grasp of the renormalization-group equation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the renormalization-group equation in detail
  • Explore the concept of running coupling constants in QFT
  • Review the derivation of scattering cross-sections in ##\phi^4## theory
  • Examine practical applications of renormalization in particle physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers focusing on Quantum Field Theory and renormalization techniques.

HomogenousCow
Messages
736
Reaction score
213
Hi, would like some clarification on this passage from Matthew D. Schwartz's QFT text regarding renormalization on page 297, 15.4.1 Renormalization of ##\lambda##:

"First of all, notice that, while ##M(s)## (the ##\phi\phi\rightarrow\phi\phi## scattering matrix for ##\phi^4## theory) is infinite, the difference between ##M(s_1)## and ##M(s_2)## at two different scales is finite:$$M(s_1)-M(s_2)=\frac{\lambda^2}{32\pi^2}\ln(\frac{s_2}{s_1}).$$ Should we also expect that ##M(s)## itself be finite? After all, ##M^2## is supposed to be a physical cross section.
To answer this, let us think more about ##\lambda##. It should be characterizing the strength of the ##phi^4## interaction. So to measure ##\lambda## we would simply measure the cross section for ##\phi\phi\rightarrow\phi\phi## scattering, or equivalently, ##M##. But this matrix element is not just proportional to ##\lambda## but also has the ##\lambda^2## correction above. Thus, it is impossssible to simply extract ##\lambda## from this scattering process."

I'm a bit confused by the part in bold, can't we determine ##\lambda## from the difference in scattering cross-sections that he just wrote down?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what Schwartz is after. I've the book not here, but I guess what he means is the following: The ##\lambda## is the bare coupling and is infinite and unobservable. However, you can use the elastic scattering cross section to define a finite renormalized value for ##\lambda## at some given scale ##s_R## by measuring the cross section. Then you express everything in terms of renormalized quantities and everything is finite. However, the renormalized coupling constants (and wave-function normalization as well as masses) have to be changed, when the renormalization scale ##s_R## is changed, such that the cross section stays unchanged. That demand leads to the running of the renormalized coupling constant, wavefunction normalization constants, and masses governed by the socalled renormalization-group equation. For my treatment of renormalization, see

https://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K