Undergrad Renormalisation scale and running of the φ^3 coupling constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the renormalization of the φ^3 coupling constant in quantum field theory (QFT), specifically within the context of a super-renormalizable model in 4D. The beta function for the φ^3 theory is defined as β(g) ≈ -g - (3g³)/(256π³), raising questions about dimensional consistency and the definition of a dimensionless coupling. The user seeks clarification on the appropriate renormalization procedure for the three-point function, contrasting it with the four-point function renormalization in the φ^4 model.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory (QFT) concepts
  • Familiarity with renormalization techniques and counterterms
  • Knowledge of the φ^4 and φ^3 models in 4D
  • Proficiency in using Mandelstam variables (s, t, u)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the dimensional analysis of coupling constants in QFT
  • Learn about the renormalization of three-point functions in φ^3 theory
  • Explore the implications of super-renormalizability in quantum field theories
  • Investigate the experimental relevance of off-shell renormalization points
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and students in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on quantum field theory, renormalization techniques, and the properties of scalar field models.

tomdodd4598
Messages
137
Reaction score
13
TL;DR
A question about the renormalisation and running of dimensionful coupling constants.
I am still rather new to renormalising QFT, still using the cut-off scheme with counterterms, and have only looked at the ##\varphi^4## model to one loop order (in 4D). In that case, I can renormalise with a counterterm to the one-loop four-point 1PI diagram at a certain energy scale. I can choose an on-shell point ##\{s={ \sigma }{ \mu }^{ 2 },\quad t={ \tau }{ \mu }^{ 2 },\quad u={ \upsilon }{ \mu }^{ 2 }\}## (where ##s,t,u## are the Mandelstam variables) at which to define a physical coupling ##\lambda\equiv\lambda(\mu)##, yielding a four-point amplitude of $$\tilde { \Gamma } \left( { p }_{ 1 },...,{ p }_{ 4 } \right) \approx \lambda +a{ \lambda }^{ 2 }\ln { \left[ \frac { stu }{ \sigma \tau \upsilon { \mu }^{ 6 } } \right] }.$$ We can also get a beta function from this using $$\lambda \left( \mu +d\mu \right) \approx \lambda \left( \mu \right) +a{ \lambda \left( \mu \right) }^{ 2 }\ln { \left[ \frac { { \left( \mu +d\mu \right) }^{ 6 } }{ { \mu }^{ 6 } } \right] },$$ $$\cdots$$ $$\mu \frac { d\lambda }{ d\mu }=\beta \left( \lambda \right) \approx6a{ { \lambda }^{ 2 } }$$ (I believe the constant ##a## can be found to be ##\frac { 1 }{ 32{ \pi }^{ 2 } }##).

Moving on to ##\varphi^3## (still in 4D), there's a couple of things that I'm a little unsure about. First of all, the theory is super-renormalisable, and so the beta function should not be a marginal one; in fact, it's quoted in this answer to be $$\beta (g)\approx -g-\frac { 3g^{ 3 } }{ 256\pi ^{ 3 } }.$$
The first question is: how is this expression dimensionally consistent? The coupling ##g## has units of mass. Are we implicitly defining a 'dimensionless' coupling such as ##g(\mu )=\mu \cdot { g }_{ dimless }(\mu )##? If so, the first term in the beta function becomes clear, as we then also have ##g(\mu +d\mu )=(\mu +d\mu )\cdot{ g }_{ dimless }(\mu +d\mu )##.

The second question is: I imagine that I should be renormalising the three-point function in the case of ##\varphi^3##, similar to how I renormalised the four-point function in the case of ##\varphi^4##. Is this the right thing to do, and if so, how do I choose a renormalisation point? Unlike the case of a four-point function, there is no on-shell choice for the momenta of the incoming/outgoing particles. I could just choose an off-shell point, but still don't quite understand the legitimacy of doing this from an 'experimental' point of view.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry if bumps are not a respectable move, but I still feel a little bit lost on these issues.
 
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 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
4K