Graduate Highest loop order of experimental relevance?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the highest loop order in standard model scattering computations that significantly impacts particle collider experiments. It is suggested that first-order (order-1) corrections are generally sufficient, with second-order (order-2) corrections being relevant in rare cases, while higher orders are typically unnecessary. Notably, calculations for the electron g-factor can reach up to five loops, but these are not directly related to collider experiments. The consensus leans towards using next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculations in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) for improved accuracy, although these calculations converge more slowly than in quantum electrodynamics (QED). Overall, while perturbative approaches are effective, there is an acknowledgment that the perturbation series is non-converging, leading to uncertainties in higher-order contributions.
  • #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
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
691
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
865
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K