How Close Are We to Reaching the Landau Pole in QED?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Landau pole in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), particularly focusing on the energy scale at which the electric charge becomes infinite. Participants explore theoretical implications, the relevance of asymptotic freedom in different gauge theories, and the practical limitations of probing such high energy scales.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the calculated energy scale for the Landau pole and expresses curiosity about the implications for calculations at tiny distance scales.
  • Another participant suggests that the Landau QED ghost exists at an energy scale many orders of magnitude above the Planck scale, indicating that probing this scale is impractical without involving quantum gravity or black hole formation.
  • A different viewpoint questions the legitimacy of integrating loop momenta to infinity in quantum field theory, suggesting that a cutoff at the Planck scale would necessitate changes to the Lagrangian and renormalization constants, potentially affecting the accuracy of results.
  • One participant argues that QED fails at the Z Pole, well before reaching the Planck scale or the Landau ghost, framing the Landau pole as more of a conceptual issue rather than a practical one.
  • Another participant reflects on the historical context of the Landau pole, noting that it was a concern in the early development of quantum field theory, while also mentioning its relevance to discussions on asymptotic freedom.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and implications of the Landau pole, with some considering it a conceptual problem and others emphasizing its theoretical importance. There is no consensus on the practical relevance of probing the energy scales associated with the Landau pole.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current understanding of integrating loop momenta, the implications of effective field theory, and the historical context of the Landau pole, indicating that these factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion.

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
Has the energy scale (or cutoff) at which the electric charge goes to infinity (the landau pole) been calculated? I sometimes hear that QED has been probed to tiny distance scales, and I was curious how far away we are until we get to distances corresponding to the Landau pole, after which we shouldn't be able to do anymore calculations.

Also I just realized that SU(2) isospin interaction is asymptotically free. I had thought only SU(3) color interaction was asymptotically free, but from the looks of the SU(2) isospin beta function (which is negative), so is SU(2) isospin. It seems strange however that whenever I look up asymptotic freedom, there is only mention of SU(3) color asymptotic freedom and no mention of SU(2) isospin.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Landau QED ghost exists many orders of magnitude higher than the Planck scale. I forget the exact value (its easily calculable), but its so ridiculously high that its not really important except as a theoretical proof of concept on the limits of field theory.

In practise you would never be able to probe this scale without doing quantum gravity and/or making black holes with your detector.
 
If, theoretically, quantum field theory breaks down at the Planck scale, then shouldn't all integrals of loop momenta be technically up to the Planck scale, and not to infinity? Having an integral up to infinite allows you to use some fancy mathematics to get analytic answers, but is it legitimate?

The effective field theory approach says that if you want the loop momenta to only go to a cutoff such as the Planck scale, the cost is introducing new terms to the Lagrangian of the order (E/Planck). If E<<<Planck, these terms can be ignored. However, there is cost to doing this in that your mass and charge are changed, and all your renormalization constants are finite - so it seems to me that you can't just say integrating to infinite is numerically almost the same as integrating to the Planck scale: in order to get them numerically almost equal, you have to change a lot of constants such as the mass and charge and renormalization factors in a very specific way. In other words, say I calculate the g-factor of the electron. There are some loop integrals up to infinite I have to calculate. However, if I take those loop integrals, but replace infinite with the Planck energy, then the answer isn't accurate. In order to replace infinite with the Planck energy, I have to make all sorts of other changes. Yet integrating to infinite without using effective field theory gives the right experimental answer, even with the Landau pole.
 
Technically, in the modern view, the cutoff should be best placed wherever there is a new physics scale that changes the nature of the effective field theory (read up on relevant and marginal operators and so forth). In practise, QED fails somewhere around the Z Pole, long before the Planck scale and much much before the Landau ghost.

The Landau pole is more of a conceptual problem and a bit of a historical artifact. Back in the early 60s, people were still trying to make relativistic quantum mechanics and field theory truly fundamental. After all, we had the Dirac and Klein Gordon equation, and they naively seem to be valid to arbitrarily high energies (well at least if you ignore the self interaction problem), so it bothered some people that the best theory of the time mathematically broke down at some point. This was long before the effective field theory point of view became fashionable.

Still the Landau ghost remains a problem for many (but not all) field theories, as its rather generic. Some people still use it as an argument, say in favor of asymptotically free theories (where the ghost is located not at high energies, but in the IR) being fundamental.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
9K