Highest loop order of experimental relevance?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the highest loop order in standard model scattering computations that contributes measurable effects in particle collider experiments. Participants explore the necessary loop corrections for high energy physics, examining both theoretical and experimental aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that loop corrections are generally order-1 for most computations and order-2 in rare cases, questioning if there are notable exceptions.
  • Another participant mentions that some Higgs calculations are performed at NNNLO and that calculations for the electron g-factor involve up to 5 loops, although this is not a collider experiment.
  • A question is raised about the order up to which perturbation series can be expected to improve before diverging, with a participant noting that low-energy QCD may have already reached this point.
  • Estimates are provided regarding QED contributions, suggesting they stop getting smaller around order 430, although the problem arises earlier in high-energy QCD.
  • Concerns are expressed about the subtlety of determining where an asymptotic series starts to diverge, with references to mathematical series that decrease but do not converge to a value.
  • Participants discuss the implications of high-order contributions being tiny, particularly in the context of the g-2 calculation, and the relevance of these contributions to experimental results.
  • There is a discussion about the uncertainty of theoretical predictions compared to experimental measurements, with specific values provided for the g-2 case.
  • One participant emphasizes that the smallness of contributions does not necessarily imply they improve the match to experimental results, raising questions about the behavior of contributions beyond certain orders.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the highest relevant loop order and the behavior of perturbation series. There is no consensus on the exact order beyond which contributions may diverge or fail to improve theoretical predictions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the calculations and estimates discussed depend on specific measurements and theoretical frameworks, with unresolved aspects regarding the behavior of asymptotic series and the implications of high-order corrections.

  • #31
[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/urs-schreiber/']Urs Schreiber[/URL] said:
Could you point me to a good reference for this?

The original NLO paper was (Paulo) Nason, (Sally) Dawson, and (R. Keith) Ellis, around 1989. It builds on a paper a few years earlier by (John) Collins, (Dave) Soper and (Jack) Smith where they derive the relevant factorization theorems. Matteo Cacciari was giving talks about LO, NLO and the state of the art about ten years ago; if you find a conference proceedings by him that references one or both of the above papers, that's probably as good as you are going to get in one place.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
The original NLO paper was (Paulo) Nason, (Sally) Dawson, and (R. Keith) Ellis, around 1989. It builds on a paper a few years earlier by (John) Collins, (Dave) Soper and (Jack) Smith where they derive the relevant factorization theorems. Matteo Cacciari was giving talks about LO, NLO and the state of the art about ten years ago; if you find a conference proceedings by him that references one or both of the above papers, that's probably as good as you are going to get in one place.

Thanks. Maybe slide 12 in
  • Matteo Cacciari: "(Theoretical) review of heavy quark production" BNL 14/12/2005 (pdf)
has the kind of statement that you are referring to.
 
  • #33
I think the slides as a whole give a reasonable view of the heavy flavour state of the art. Slide 5 is a motivation for NNLO (and why N3LO may play only a minor role).
 
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
I think the slides as a whole give a reasonable view of the heavy flavour state of the art. Slide 5 is a motivation for NNLO (and why N3LO may play only a minor role).

Right, sorry, I meant slide 12 (I was pointing somebody else to slide 5 for another reason, and mixed up the numbers when writing here).

I am trying to pinpoint the statement which you were referring to above when you wrote:

Vanadium 50 said:
...heavy flavor production. The NLO contributions are about the same size as the LO contributions, and the scale dependence is actually worse at NLO than LO.
 
  • #35
[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/urs-schreiber/']Urs Schreiber[/URL] said:
I am trying to pinpoint the statement which you were referring to above

I'm sorry, but that's a little unfair. "Here's an article I found - why can't I find a statement you made in it?"

I think I did a pretty good job of pointing you in the right direction, but it may well be that a single document that has everything you want doesn't exist. But if a literature search needs to be done, I don't think I am the one who needs to do it.
 
  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
that's a little unfair.

There is some misunderstanding here. But never mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K