Graduate Relevant interactions in quantum field theory

Click For Summary
In a ##\phi^{3}## quantum field theory, the interaction term is given by ##\frac{g}{3!}\phi^{3}##, where the coupling constant ##g## has a mass dimension of ##1##. This indicates that the term behaves as a small perturbation at high energies (##E \gg g##) and a large perturbation at low energies (##E \ll g##). The term is termed "relevant" because it significantly influences the theory at low energies, despite the challenges of applying perturbation theory in that regime. The discussion emphasizes that quantum field theories are effective theories valid at large distances, and relevant contributions are not negligible, even if they complicate perturbative calculations. Ultimately, the terminology reflects the importance of these terms in the effective description of physical phenomena.
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
For a ##\phi^{3}## quantum field theory, the interaction term is ##\displaystyle{\frac{g}{3!}\phi^{3}}##, where ##g## is the coupling constant.

The mass dimension of the coupling constant ##g## is ##1##, which means that ##\displaystyle{\frac{g}{E}}## is dimensionless.

Therefore, ##\displaystyle{\frac{g}{3!}\phi^{3}}## is a small pertubation at high energies ##E \gg g##, but a large perturbation at low energies ##E \ll g##.

Terms with this behavior are called relevant because they’re most relevant at low energies.

However, I do not understand why the interaction term is called relevant if we cannot use perturbation theory at low energies (where the term ##\displaystyle{\frac{g}{3!}\phi^{3}}## is a large pertubation). Is it because quantum field theory is only applicable in the relativistic limit, where ##E \gg g## and the perturbation is small ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The philosophy behind this terminology is that all field theories are only effective theories, which means that they are valid only at large distances (low energies). If a contribution is relevant, it means that it is not negligible. But it does not mean that it is not sufficiently small for application of perturbation theory. For instance, ##\alpha=1/137## is small but not negligible.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
613
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
561
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K