- #1

- 257

- 2

Why can we get away with this? It seems mathematically we have to include counterterms in the classical solution for a saddle point expansion to be valid.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter geoduck
- Start date

- #1

- 257

- 2

Why can we get away with this? It seems mathematically we have to include counterterms in the classical solution for a saddle point expansion to be valid.

- #2

- 18,668

- 8,628

- #3

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,751

- 3,257

- #4

- 257

- 2

So if we write [itex]\lambda=k*\frac{1}{\hbar c}[/itex], where k is a pure number, then whether your higher order perturbative terms are small compared to tree level depends on the value of the pure number k, and not on Planck's constant.

So for example, the one-loop 4-pt function is [itex]\lambda+k*\lambda^2\log\left( \frac{E}{\mu}\right)*(\hbar c) [/itex].

I assume that [itex](\hbar c)[/itex] is in the one-loop correction to make the dimensions of the two terms the same. With n-loops I assume you'll get [itex](\hbar c)^n[/itex]. But you can't say this is small, because you'll also get [tex]\lambda^n [/tex], which has units of [itex](\hbar c)[/itex] in the denominators.

Share: