A $\phi^4$ in $4 - \epsilon$ dimension renormalization beta function

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the understanding of the beta function in the context of $\phi^4$ theory and renormalization group techniques. The participant seeks clarification on their reasoning regarding dimensional regularization and the momentum cut-off scheme for deriving the beta function. They express difficulty in visualizing the physical implications of the Wilson-Fisher fixed point and the meaning of running couplings in lattice simulations. Additionally, they reference a resource that provides detailed explanations but still struggle with the physical picture presented. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of renormalization and the need for clearer conceptual frameworks in quantum field theory.
paralleltransport
Messages
128
Reaction score
97
TL;DR
I'd like to check my personal understanding of renormalization group and beta function.
Hi all,

I am currently studying renormalization group and beta functions. Since I'm not in school there is no one to fix my mis-understandings if any, so I'd really appreciate some feedback.

PART I:

I wrote this short summary of what I understand of the beta function:
1635740724986.png


Is this reasoning correct? Are there fine points that I am missing that needs refinement?PARTII:

The scheme presented above uses dimensional regularization to extract the divergent counterterms. It is a bit physically hard to visualize. When I use a momentum cut-off scheme, I feel like taking the derivative of the counter-term with respect to the logΛ, the momentum cut-off should give me the beta function (up to a sign). I'm not sure how to motivate this. If there's a text that does extract RG beta function in this perspective it would help.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi vanhess, thank you for the notes. The details in the notes are worked in pretty gory details, however I'm having difficulties understanding the physical picture being emphasized here.

We first start from equation 5.275, a perfectly reasonable condition: cross section amplitudes measured should be independent of our renormalization scale. From there we get the standard callan symanzik equation (5.279). I suppose there should be one for each observable (2 point, 4 point, etc...) vertex.

However, it's not obvious to me from the calculation how one can visualize the wilson fisher fixed point for phi^4 theory, and the physical meaning, if at all of the running couplings. What does γϕγϕ (wave function renormalization flow) mean if I were to simulate the QFT on a lattice at different scales? etc...
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone, I am doing a final project on the title " fundamentals of neutrino physics". I wanted to raise some issues with neutrino which makes it the possible way to the physics beyond standard model. I am myself doing some research on these topics but at some points the math bugs me out. Anyway, i have some questions which answers themselves confounded me due to the complicated math. Some pf them are: 1. Why wouldn't there be a mirror image of a neutrino? Is it because they are...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K