Dimensional regularization vs momentum cutoff

nidnus
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I have a 2D sigma model with supersymmetry on the worldsheet. It has both cubic and quartic interactions and I'm interested in the one loop correction to the worldsheet masses. When I calculate this with dimensional regularization I find that everything is zero as expected. In momentum cutoff ##\Lambda## however I find terms corresponding to infinite mass renormalization. That is

Dim reg:

$$ \delta m^2 = 0 $$

while in

momentum cutoff:

$$ \delta m^2 = \alpha \Lambda^2 + \beta $$

where ##\alpha,\beta## are constants like ##1/\pi## etc.

My question is, what is the meaning of the terms popping up in the momentum cutoff? They shouldn't be physical but I feel I lack a proper argument for that statement.

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
People say that such terms are "pure counterterm", meaning adding a local counterterm of the form delta m^2*phi^2 term in your action is sufficient to cancel such divergences; there's no leftover bit that depends on p or mu, the renormalization scale.
 
Hi Chris,

Thanks for your answer. Indeed, the terms I find correspond to mass renormalization. However, I would expect ##\delta m^2 ## to be zero since its a susy model. What is more, the ##\delta m^2## in hard cutoff is different for boson and fermions implying that susy is broken which should not be the case. I want an argument for how to either get rid of the mass renormalization terms or why I can say they don't matter.

Thanks, Nid.
 
I would also expect it to be zero; I would expect that you'd find wavefunction renormalization that respects supersymmetry, provided you have no explicit SUSY-breaking terms in your Lagrangian in the first place. Have you verified your calculation?
 
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