QFTs & Epsilons: Unraveling Beta Functions in Dim Reg

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lonelyphysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beta Functions
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of beta functions in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) using dimensional regularization, specifically addressing the role of epsilons. The derived beta function is expressed as β[e] = - (ε/2)e - e (d ln[Z_{e}]/d ln[μ]), with Z_{e} = 1 + (e²A/ε). The calculations confirm that as ε approaches zero, the beta function approaches a non-zero value, indicating that the coupling runs. The importance of the renormalization group flow and the proper handling of higher-order terms in the Taylor expansion is emphasized for accurate physical results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
  • Familiarity with dimensional regularization techniques
  • Knowledge of beta functions in quantum field theory
  • Basic principles of renormalization group flow
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of beta functions in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Learn about the implications of dimensional regularization in QFT calculations
  • Explore the concept of renormalization group flow in detail
  • Investigate higher-order perturbation theory and its applications in QED
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, theoretical physicists working on particle physics, and researchers interested in the mathematical techniques of dimensional regularization and renormalization.

lonelyphysicist
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Question about epsilons that occur in calculating beta functions in QFTs w dim reg

In deriving the beta function of, say, QED using dimensional regularization we get the relation (up to 1 loop)

\beta[e] = - \frac{\epsilon}{2} e - e \frac{d ln[Z_{e}]}{d ln[\mu]} \quad (1)

and

Z_{e} = 1 + \frac{e^{2} A}{\epsilon}

where e is the coupling, Z_{e} is the renormalization of the coupling, \mu is the arbitrary scale introduced to make the dimension of the coupling the same as if \epsilon was zero, and A is some constant that does not depend on \mu or \epsilon.

Now if I do the following math

\frac{d ln[Z_{e}]}{d ln[\mu]}
= \frac{1}{1 + \frac{e^{2} A}{\epsilon} } \frac{d}{d ln[\mu]} \left( 1 + \frac{e^{2} A}{\epsilon} \right)
= \frac{2 e A}{\epsilon + e^{2} A} \beta[e]

Is this correct? It seems extremely elementary, but if I trust my results

\beta[e] \left(1 + \frac{2 e^2 A}{\epsilon + e^{2} A} \right) = - \frac{\epsilon}{2}e

Taking the limit \epsilon going to zero I get that the beta function for QED is zero up to one loop!

What seems to be usually done is we taylor expand \frac{1}{1 + \frac{e^{2} A}{\epsilon} } \approx 1 - \frac{e^2 A}{\epsilon} and so

\frac{d ln[Z_{e}]}{d ln[\mu]}
= \frac{2 A e \beta[e]}{\epsilon} + \mathcal{O}[e^{4}] \quad (2)

and next we put (2) into (1) and iterate

\beta[e]
= - \frac{\epsilon}{2}e - \frac{2 A e^{2} \beta[e]}{\epsilon} + \mathcal{O}[e^{4}]
= - \frac{\epsilon}{2}e - 2 A e^{2} \left( - \frac{\epsilon}{2}e - \frac{2 A e^{2} \beta[e]}{\epsilon} + \mathcal{O}[e^{4}] \right) \frac{1}{\epsilon} + \mathcal{O}[e^{4}]
= - \frac{\epsilon}{2} e + A e^{3} + \frac{(2 A e^{2})^{2} \beta[e]}{\epsilon^{2}} + . . .

and we say as epsilon goes to zero it's approximately equal to

A e^{3}

(For instance A = 1/12 \pi^{3} for pure QED.)

How can we taylor expand in powers of e when \epsilon is supposed to be tiny in dimensional regularization? Even if we do taylor expand and iterate what about the 1/\epsilon^{2} and possibly even more infinite quantities?

This issue really bothers me a lot because I'm sure there's something I'm not understanding here, since the QED coupling does indeed run as calculated, right? Any clarification would be deeply appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org



The use of dimensional regularization in calculating beta functions in QFTs can be quite confusing, especially when it comes to the role of epsilons. Your calculations are correct, but it is important to understand the concept of "renormalization group flow" in order to make sense of the results.

In dimensional regularization, we introduce an arbitrary scale \mu to make the dimension of the coupling the same as if \epsilon was zero. This allows us to avoid infinities and perform calculations in a more manageable way. However, the presence of \epsilon in the equations indicates that we are working in a theory with a non-integer number of dimensions. This is not physical, and the goal is to take the limit \epsilon \rightarrow 0 at the end of the calculations.

In the expansion of (1/\epsilon), we are essentially taking into account the effects of higher dimensional operators. This is why we are able to get a non-zero beta function even though the one-loop result seems to indicate that the coupling does not run. However, in order to get a physical result, we must take the limit \epsilon \rightarrow 0.

The taylor expansion in powers of e is a way of approximating the results in terms of the coupling constant, which is a small parameter. This is a common technique in perturbative calculations. The higher order terms involving 1/\epsilon^{2} and higher powers of e are actually finite and do not cause any issues. In fact, they are necessary in order to get a physical result when taking the limit \epsilon \rightarrow 0.

So in summary, the use of epsilons in dimensional regularization is a mathematical tool that allows us to perform calculations without dealing with infinities. It is important to remember that the ultimate goal is to take the limit \epsilon \rightarrow 0 in order to get a physical result. The taylor expansion in powers of e is a useful approximation technique, and the higher order terms involving 1/\epsilon^{2} and higher powers of e are necessary for obtaining a physical result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
860
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
932
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K