Quantum Field Theory vs Effective Field Theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences and similarities between Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and Effective Field Theory (EFT), particularly regarding the concept of renormalization and the implications for calculations of amplitudes. Participants explore the nature of non-renormalizable theories and the role of counterterms in both frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Luca expresses confusion about the necessity of renormalization in EFT despite it being labeled as non-renormalizable, questioning the utility of renormalization in this context.
  • One participant explains that any theory can be made finite by adding sufficient counterterms, but renormalizable theories only require a finite number of terms to achieve finiteness at all orders, while EFTs require more terms for higher-order calculations.
  • Another participant confirms that renormalization remains a useful tool even for non-renormalizable theories, suggesting that it aids in calculations.
  • A different participant emphasizes that while EFTs require more counterterms for new operators, the challenge of calculating beyond certain orders (like NNLO in QCD) limits the practical need for these terms.
  • One participant suggests that higher-order calculations in EFT can enhance prediction accuracy and provide insights into operator correlations, despite the increasing complexity.
  • Another participant notes that effective theories often involve a low-energy expansion and are based on symmetries to constrain the Lagrangian, rather than being Dyson-renormalizable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the utility of renormalization in EFT, but there is no consensus on the implications of non-renormalizability or the extent to which counterterms are necessary for higher-order calculations. The discussion reflects multiple competing views on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific frameworks like chiral perturbation theory and the role of low-energy constants, indicating that the discussion is constrained by the definitions and assumptions related to effective theories and their renormalization properties.

Luca_Mantani
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone,
I'm approaching the study of EFT but I'm facing some problems. While in QFT usually we want renormalizable theories, in EFT we don't want this costraint anymore and this opens up space for a lot more terms in the Lagrangian.

My problem is that when we want to calculate amplitudes, if we want to go beyond the leading order, we have to deal with loops that, as usually, diverge and we have to renormalize adding counterterms. So, what's the point if we still have to renormalize? Why are they called non-renormalizable if we still renormalize the theory?

Thanks for the help,
Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I think basically any theory can be made finite by just adding enough counterterms, in the worst case you will need infinitely many. When one says that a theory is renormalizabel one usually means that it becomes finite to all orders by adding only a finite number of terms. In the case of effective field theories calculations only become finite up to some fixed order by adding a finite number of terms. So every time you want to go to a higher order you have to add more terms and more parameters, and still the next order will diverge.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Oh ok, thanks! I was thinking that way too more or less, but I wasn't sure and I didn't find a confirmation. So renormalization is a tool that is still useful, even for theory that are not renormalizable!
 
Definitely. Effective theories and not dissimilar to normal theories like qcd or whatever.

The higher order you can calculate in the EFT the better, since this gives you more accuracy for any predictions.

Ultimately, people struggle beyond NNLO in qcd, so you won't do better in an EFT framework which extends qcd for example. Therefore, although in principle the theory requires more and more counter terms for new operators etc., you can't even calculate far enough to require them.

So in the end, calculating to one loop in an EFT (like a dimension 6 extension of the SM) gives you higher precision, provides you sensitivity to correlations between operators which appear beyond tree level (through operator mixing), and can be quite fun figuring out how the one loop calculations actually work in the EFT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also note that in effective field theories you usually do an low-energy/momentum expansion, i.e., you have a "large scale" in the problem, and the small expansion parameter are energies/momenta compared to that large scale. E.g., in chiral perturbation theory the large scale is ##4 \pi f_{\pi} \simeq 1 \; \mathrm{GeV}##. Usually effective theories are not Dyson-renormalizable but based on symmetries to constrain the possible terms in the Lagrangian. It can be shown that the theory can be renormalized at any order of the low-energy expansion, introducing more and more "low-energy constants" with any order, corresponding to the allowed terms in the Lagrangian.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MrRobotoToo

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
19K