Dimensional analysis of the fermion mass renormalization

phypar
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
In the textbook, usually the fermion mass renormalization is introduced as follows: the mass shift \delta m must vanish when m_0=0. The mass shift must therefore be proportional to m_0. By dimensional analysis, it can only depend logarithmically on \Lambda (the ultraviolet cutoff): \delta m \sim \ln \Lambda.

Here I don't understand how the "dimensional analysis" is performed, can somebody explain it in detail? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a look at e.g. the diagram (a) here, in QED: http://ej.iop.org/images/1751-8121/45/38/383001/Full/jpa374448f4_online.jpg

This diagram will correct the mass of the electron. Schematically, this diagram has a value that looks like

##\int d^4 p \frac{\gamma^\mu p_\mu + m_e}{p^2 + m^2}\frac{1}{p^2}##

The integrand has dimension 1/[mass]^3, so the diagram has a whole has dimension [mass]^1.

Now, the integral superficially seems to be linearly divergent, like ##\int d^4 p (1/p^3)##. In that case the result would be proportional to ##\Lambda## times a dimensionless constant (since it must have dimensions of [mass]^1). However, looking a little closer we see that the term involving ##\gamma^\mu p_\mu## is odd in ##p## and therefore cancels out, leaving

##m_e \int d^4 p \frac{1}{p^2 + m^2}\frac{1}{p^2}##

Now we can see that the integral is actually logarithmically divergent, so the diagram is proportional to ##m_e \ln \Lambda##. Here ##m_e## has units of [mass]^1 and ##\ln \Lambda## is dimensionless, so the diagram has units of [mass]^1, as required.

The point of the symmetry+dimensional analysis argument is to argue that this same thing will happen generally. The diagram has to have units of [mass]^1, and must be proportional to ##m_e##. So whatever the diagram evaluates to, it has to look like ##m_e## times something dimensionless. The only dimensionless thing you can make out of ##\Lambda## is ##\ln \Lambda##, so at worst diagrams like this can only diverge like ##\ln \Lambda## and not, say, ##\Lambda^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
The_Duck said:
Take a look at e.g. the diagram (a) here, in QED: http://ej.iop.org/images/1751-8121/45/38/383001/Full/jpa374448f4_online.jpg

This diagram will correct the mass of the electron. Schematically, this diagram has a value that looks like

##\int d^4 p \frac{\gamma^\mu p_\mu + m_e}{p^2 + m^2}\frac{1}{p^2}##

The integrand has dimension 1/[mass]^3, so the diagram has a whole has dimension [mass]^1.

Now, the integral superficially seems to be linearly divergent, like ##\int d^4 p (1/p^3)##. In that case the result would be proportional to ##\Lambda## times a dimensionless constant (since it must have dimensions of [mass]^1). However, looking a little closer we see that the term involving ##\gamma^\mu p_\mu## is odd in ##p## and therefore cancels out, leaving

##m_e \int d^4 p \frac{1}{p^2 + m^2}\frac{1}{p^2}##

Now we can see that the integral is actually logarithmically divergent, so the diagram is proportional to ##m_e \ln \Lambda##. Here ##m_e## has units of [mass]^1 and ##\ln \Lambda## is dimensionless, so the diagram has units of [mass]^1, as required.

The point of the symmetry+dimensional analysis argument is to argue that this same thing will happen generally. The diagram has to have units of [mass]^1, and must be proportional to ##m_e##. So whatever the diagram evaluates to, it has to look like ##m_e## times something dimensionless. The only dimensionless thing you can make out of ##\Lambda## is ##\ln \Lambda##, so at worst diagrams like this can only diverge like ##\ln \Lambda## and not, say, ##\Lambda^2##.

Thanks a lot, you gave a very clear explanation. Now I understand it fully.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top