Determine Scaling Dimension of Field Theory

In summary, the conversation discusses a theory that is invariant under length scaling, where the action of a real scalar field is given by an integral with derivative terms and an interaction term. The conversation explores the transformation of the field and its derivatives under scaling, and concludes that the only allowed theory is a massless field with a quartic interaction. They also discuss the Noether current of the scale symmetry and the implications for quantizing the theory.
  • #1
ergospherical
1,072
1,365
It is given that a theory is invariant under the length scaling:\begin{align*}
x &\rightarrow \lambda x \\
\phi(x) &\rightarrow \lambda^{-D} \phi(\lambda^{-1} x)
\end{align*}for some ##D## to be determined. The action of a real scalar field is here:\begin{align*}
S = \int d^4 x \dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu} \phi \partial^{\mu} \phi - \dfrac{1}{2}m^2 \phi^2 -g\phi^p
\end{align*}Since ##\partial_{\mu} = \frac{\partial x'^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} \partial'_{\nu} = {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}}_{\mu} \partial'_{\nu}## then would I be correct in thinking that the derivative of the field transforms as:\begin{align*}
\partial_{\mu} \phi(x) \rightarrow \partial_{\mu} \phi'(x) &= \lambda^{-D} \partial_{\mu} \phi(\lambda^{-1} x) \\
&= \lambda^{-D} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}}_{\mu} \partial'_{\nu} \phi(x')
\end{align*}so the derivative term in the action transforms as \begin{align*}
(\partial_{\mu} \phi)^2 &\rightarrow \lambda^{-2D} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}}_{\mu} {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} (\partial'_{\nu} \phi(x'))( \partial'^{\rho} \phi(x')) \\
&= \lambda^{-2D} (\partial'_{\mu} \phi(x'))^2
\end{align*}Meanwhile ##d^4 x = \lambda^{-4} d^4 x'##, and this would imply scale invariance when ##D=-2##? That feels wrong and I worry that I have transformed the wrong things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's much simpler. For the scale transformation to be a symmetry, it's sufficient that the action is invariant. Now start with the massless free field,
$$S_0=\int \mathrm{d}^4 x \frac{1}{2} (\partial_{\mu} \phi) (\partial^{\mu} \phi).$$
Since ##\mathrm{d}^4 x \rightarrow \lambda^4 \mathrm{d}^4 x## and ##\partial_{\mu} \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda} \partial_{\mu}##, you must have ##D=1## to get ##S_0## invariant.

Then you see that the mass term is "forbidden" by the symmetry, because ##\mathrm{d}^4 x m^2 \phi^2## is not invariant. This is no surprise, because ##m## is a dimensionful parameter, which breaks scale invariance to begin with.

For the interaction term ##\mathrm{d}^4 x \phi^p## must be invariant, and thus ##p=4##. Indeed, only for ##p=4## the coupling constant ##g## is dimensionless too.

So the only allowed theory of this kind is a massless field ##\phi## with a ##\phi^4## interaction.

Some further ideas to think about:

(a) What's the Noether current of the scale symmetry?

(b) If you quantize it, you have to renormalize this massless (!) field theory, and then what happens with scale invariance?
 
  • Love
Likes ergospherical
  • #3
I was thinking about the two questions earlier, I wonder if you can guide me a little since this is new material. What I understand is that if the Lagrangian varies by a total derivative ##\delta \mathcal{L} = \partial_{\mu} F^{\mu}## under a variation ##\delta \phi_a(x) = X_a (\phi)## of the fields, then one obtains a Noether current ##j^{\mu} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi_{a,\mu}} X_a(\phi) - F^{\mu}(\phi)## satisfying ##\nabla \cdot j = 0##.

For this problem, is it correct to proceed as follows? I will put ##\lambda = 1+ \epsilon## where ##\epsilon## is a small positive or negative number, then write\begin{align*}
\tilde{\phi}(x) = \lambda^{-1} \phi(\lambda^{-1}x) &= (1 - \epsilon + O(\epsilon^2))\phi((1- \epsilon) x + O(\epsilon^2 x^2)) \\
&= (1 - \epsilon + O(\epsilon^2)) (\phi(x) - \epsilon x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu}(x) + O(\epsilon^2 x^2) ) \\
&= \phi(x) - \epsilon \phi(x) - \epsilon x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu}(x)
\end{align*}Then ##\delta \phi = - \epsilon (\phi + x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu})##. For ##\phi_{,\mu}## I write\begin{align*}
\delta \phi_{,\mu} &= -\epsilon \partial_{\mu}(\phi + x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu}) \\
&= - \epsilon \phi_{,\mu} - \epsilon \partial_{\mu}(x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu}) \\
&= - \epsilon \phi_{,\mu} - \epsilon \phi_{,\mu} - x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu \mu} \\
&= -\epsilon(2\phi_{,\mu} + x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu \mu})
\end{align*}I write for the Lagrangian,\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} = \dfrac{1}{2} \phi_{,\mu} \phi^{,\mu} -g \phi^4
\end{align*}from which follows ##\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi_{,\mu}} = \phi^{,\mu}## and ##\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi} = -4g\phi^3##, so that\begin{align*}
\delta \mathcal{L} &= -\epsilon \phi^{,\mu}(2\phi_{,\mu} + x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu \mu}) + 4 g \epsilon \phi^3 (\phi + x^{\nu} \phi_{,\nu}) \\
&= -4\epsilon( \frac{1}{2} \phi^{,\mu} \phi^{,\mu} - g \phi^4) - 4\epsilon x^{\nu} (\frac{1}{4}\phi^{,\mu} \phi_{,\nu \mu} - g \phi^3 \phi_{,\nu}) \\
&= -4 \epsilon \left[ \mathcal{L} + x^{\nu} (\frac{1}{4}\phi^{,\mu} \phi_{,\nu \mu} - g \phi^3 \phi_{,\nu}) \right] \\
&= -4 \epsilon \left[ \mathcal{L} + x^{\nu} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^{\nu}} (\frac{1}{2}\phi^{,\mu} \phi_{,\mu} - \dfrac{1}{4}g \phi^4) \right] \\
\end{align*}which is almost ##- 4\epsilon \partial_{\nu}(x^{\nu} \mathcal{L})## but fails because of the factor of ##1/4## in front of the ##g\phi^4## term...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
Looks good (though I haven't checked the calculation in dateail). But now you also have to take into account that you have to express ##\mathrm{d}^4 x'## through ##\mathrm{d}^4 x## in the action integral, i.e., there's an additional contribution from the corresponding Jacobian, which you also get by expanding to first order in ##\epsilon##.
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
748
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
834
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top