Large n-pt functions renormalized by small n-pt functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter geoduck
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
geoduck
Messages
257
Reaction score
2
Suppose you have a λφ4 theory. Books only seem to calculate counter-terms for 2-pt and 4-pt functions.

But what about 3 particles scattering into 3 particles? Do the counter-terms determined by renormalizing the 2-pt and 4-pt functions cancel divergences in 3x3 scattering?

For example, take the graph below:

Is it obvious that the counter-terms from 2x2 and scattering, along with counter-terms from the 2-pt function, can cancel this graph?
 

Attachments

  • 3_3.jpg
    3_3.jpg
    7.8 KB · Views: 391
Physics news on Phys.org
In a renormalizable theory, the counterterms that you introduce to cancel the divergences in a few basic n-point functions suffice to cancel the divergences in all n-point functions.

I think the intuitive reason for this is: the more propagators you add to a loop, the more convergent the loop integral becomes. So large n-point functions generally aren't divergent unless they contain a divergent subdiagram with a small loop. But the divergences in those small loops will be canceled by the counterterms that you introduced to make the small n-point functions finite.

For example look at the attached diagram that contributes to the 6-point function in ##\phi^4## theory. The loop has three propagators, so the loop integral goes like ##\int d^4 p / p^6##, which is convergent. The second attached image shows a divergent diagram contributing to the 6-point function. However the divergent loop looks just like one of the divergent contributions to the 4-point function, so it should be canceled by the same counterterm that cancels the divergence in the 4-point function.

In your diagram, I think the only divergent loop is the topmost loop. This divergence should be canceled by the same counterterm that cancels the divergences in the 4-point function.

I think there are nontrivial cases where there are "interlocking" divergent loops and it's not totally obvious that these ideas go through without doing some careful work, but this is the general picture.

Peskin & Schroeder sections 10.4 and 10.5 discuss these issues.
 

Attachments

  • 6pt.png
    6pt.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 403
  • 6pt2.png
    6pt2.png
    1.2 KB · Views: 422
  • Like
Likes geoduck
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top