I How to determine matching coefficient in Effective Field Theory?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenge of determining the matching coefficients, C4 and C6, in an effective field theory (EFT) framework from a given ultraviolet (UV) Lagrangian. The one-loop matching condition requires that the 4-point amplitudes from both the EFT and UV theories match, but only provides one equation for two unknowns. Participants highlight the importance of ensuring that both the logarithmic and constant terms in the amplitudes are matched, which can yield two independent relations. This approach suggests that it is indeed possible to derive both coefficients from the available information. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful consideration of all terms in the matching process.
Markus Kahn
Messages
110
Reaction score
14
TL;DR
Given the amplitudes of a scattering process at a fixed order of the EFT and full theory, I don't really understand how one is supposed to match them..
Assume that I have the Lagrangian
$$\mathcal{L}_{UV}
=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\partial_{\mu} \phi\right)^{2}-m_{L}^{2} \phi^{2}+\left(\partial_{\mu} H\right)^{2}-M^{2} H^{2}\right]
-\frac{\lambda_{0}}{4 !} \phi^{4}-\frac{\lambda_{2}}{4} \phi^{2} H^{2},$$
where ##\phi## is a light scalar field with mass ##m_L## and ##H## a heavy one with mass ##M##. Let the Lagrangian of the effective field theory (EFT) be
$$\mathcal{L}_{EFT} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\partial_{\mu} \phi\right)^{2}-m^{2} \phi^{2}\right]-C_{4} \frac{\phi^{4}}{4 !}-\frac{C_{6}}{M^{2}} \frac{\phi^{6}}{6 !}.$$

Assume that I have calculated the ##4##-point function up to ##1##-loop order and regularized it correctly (renormalization scale ##\mu##). The results are:
$$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}_{4}^{\mathrm{EFT}} &=-C_{4}+\frac{C_{4}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}[f(s, m)+f(t, m)+f(u, m)] \\
&+\frac{3 C_{4}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+2\right)+\frac{C_{6} m^{2}}{32 \pi^{2} M^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+1\right)\\\\
\mathcal{M}_{4}^{\mathrm{UV}} & \approx-\lambda_{0}+\frac{3 \lambda_{0}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+2\right)+\frac{3 \lambda_{2}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{M^{2}}\right)\right)+\frac{m^{2} \lambda_{2}^{2}}{48 \pi^{2} M^{2}} \\
&+\frac{\lambda_{0}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}[f(s, m)+f(t, m)+f(u, m)].
\end{align*}
$$

The matching at tree-level resulted in:
$$m^2=m_L^2,\qquad C_4 = \lambda_0,\qquad C_6=0.$$
I would now like to perform the matching at one-loop, i.e. we demand ##\mathcal{M}_4^{EFT}= \mathcal{M}_4^{UV}+O(M^{-4})##.

Problem
We have two unknowns, ##C_4## and ##C_6##, that need to be expressed in terms of ##\lambda_0, \lambda_2, m, M,## etc. But ##\mathcal{M}_4^{EFT}= \mathcal{M}_4^{UV}+O(M^{-4})## gives us only one equation.. I don't see how we can determine both coefficients with only the above information.

Notes
I'm reading Adam Falkowski's lecture notes, see here. In section 2.3, p. 24, he performs the matching with only the above information and determines ##C_4##... I don't see how that is supposed to work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Markus Kahn said:
Summary:: Given the amplitudes of a scattering process at a fixed order of the EFT and full theory, I don't really understand how one is supposed to match them..

Assume that I have the Lagrangian
$$\mathcal{L}_{UV}
=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\partial_{\mu} \phi\right)^{2}-m_{L}^{2} \phi^{2}+\left(\partial_{\mu} H\right)^{2}-M^{2} H^{2}\right]
-\frac{\lambda_{0}}{4 !} \phi^{4}-\frac{\lambda_{2}}{4} \phi^{2} H^{2},$$
where ##\phi## is a light scalar field with mass ##m_L## and ##H## a heavy one with mass ##M##. Let the Lagrangian of the effective field theory (EFT) be
$$\mathcal{L}_{EFT} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\partial_{\mu} \phi\right)^{2}-m^{2} \phi^{2}\right]-C_{4} \frac{\phi^{4}}{4 !}-\frac{C_{6}}{M^{2}} \frac{\phi^{6}}{6 !}.$$

Assume that I have calculated the ##4##-point function up to ##1##-loop order and regularized it correctly (renormalization scale ##\mu##). The results are:
$$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}_{4}^{\mathrm{EFT}} &=-C_{4}+\frac{C_{4}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}[f(s, m)+f(t, m)+f(u, m)] \\
&+\frac{3 C_{4}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+2\right)+\frac{C_{6} m^{2}}{32 \pi^{2} M^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+1\right)\\\\
\mathcal{M}_{4}^{\mathrm{UV}} & \approx-\lambda_{0}+\frac{3 \lambda_{0}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)+2\right)+\frac{3 \lambda_{2}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}\left(\log \left(\frac{\mu^{2}}{M^{2}}\right)\right)+\frac{m^{2} \lambda_{2}^{2}}{48 \pi^{2} M^{2}} \\
&+\frac{\lambda_{0}^{2}}{32 \pi^{2}}[f(s, m)+f(t, m)+f(u, m)].
\end{align*}
$$

The matching at tree-level resulted in:
$$m^2=m_L^2,\qquad C_4 = \lambda_0,\qquad C_6=0.$$
I would now like to perform the matching at one-loop, i.e. we demand ##\mathcal{M}_4^{EFT}= \mathcal{M}_4^{UV}+O(M^{-4})##.

Problem
We have two unknowns, ##C_4## and ##C_6##, that need to be expressed in terms of ##\lambda_0, \lambda_2, m, M,## etc. But ##\mathcal{M}_4^{EFT}= \mathcal{M}_4^{UV}+O(M^{-4})## gives us only one equation.. I don't see how we can determine both coefficients with only the above information.

Notes
I'm reading Adam Falkowski's lecture notes, see here. In section 2.3, p. 24, he performs the matching with only the above information and determines ##C_4##... I don't see how that is supposed to work.
Did you take into consideration the fact that the log terms must match and that the constant pieces must also match? This gives two independent relations.
 
Thread 'Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms'
My question is about the following graph: I keep on reading that fusing atoms up until Fe-56 doesn’t cost energy and only releases binding energy. However, I understood that fusing atoms also require energy to overcome the positive charges of the protons. Where does that energy go after fusion? Does it go into the mass of the newly fused atom, escape as heat or is the released binding energy shown in the graph actually the net energy after subtracting the required fusion energy? I...