Graduate Why is the Integral of Dimensional Regularization Equal to 0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luca_Mantani
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regularization
Click For Summary
The integral of dimensional regularization, expressed as $$\int d^dp =0$$, arises from the properties of these integrals, which are not well-defined in isolation and require analytic continuation in the space-time dimensions. This leads to the conclusion that $$\int d^dp \, (p^2)^\alpha=0$$ holds for any value of ##\alpha##, including ##\alpha=0##. The regularization process typically involves a parameter like ##2 \epsilon=d-4##, allowing for the evaluation of divergent integrals through Laurent expansion in ##\epsilon##. The poles that emerge as ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0## are crucial for defining counter terms needed for renormalization in perturbation theory. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the foundations of quantum field theory and dimensional regularization techniques.
Luca_Mantani
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone,
I read this property of dimensional regularization, but i do not understand why it is so.

$$\int d^dp =0$$.

Actually looking for an answer i also saw that a general property of dim. reg. is

$$\int d^dp \, (p^2)^\alpha=0$$

for any value of ##\alpha##, so also for ##\alpha=0##. Do you have an explanation for this?
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where is this from? It depends on how you define these integrals. Standing alone these integrals do not make sense since you can define only integrals which exist for some space-time dimensions and then use analytic continuation in ##d## to evaluate formally integrals that are not defined. The usual regularization parameter is ##2 \epsilon=d-4##, and Feynman diagrams are evaluated in form of a Laurent expansion in ##\epsilon## the poles in ##\epsilon##, which diverge for ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0## define the subtractions ("counter terms") to renormalize (order by order in perturbation theory) the proper vertex functions (aka 1PI truncated diagrams). For an introduction to the technique, see my QFT script:

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf
 
I read them in an Eft course, in the video the professor was citing the Collins renormalization book for the proof, but I do not have this book at my disposal now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
760
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K