Renormalization Scale in Loop Feynman Amplitudes

In summary, "Renormalization Scale in Loop Feynman Amplitudes" discusses the significance of the renormalization scale in quantum field theory, particularly in the context of loop calculations in Feynman diagrams. It explores how the choice of scale can affect the physical predictions and the running of coupling constants, emphasizing the need for careful treatment to ensure consistency and accuracy in theoretical results. The paper highlights the interplay between perturbative methods and the renormalization process, illustrating the implications for both theoretical insights and practical calculations in particle physics.
  • #1
Elmo
38
6
TL;DR Summary
Should the renormalization scale in loop amplitudes be assigned a value or should it be removed via an on-shell subtraction scheme counterterm ?
I want some clarification on what is done about the ##\mu^{2\epsilon}## renormalization scale parameter in loop amplitudes. I am under the impression that it shows up to restore the mass dimension of an amplitude when the loop momentum integral is reduced from 4 to ##4-2\epsilon## dimensions. As such upon expanding in powers of the regulator, one ends up with ##\ln(\mu/m)##.

I also know that physical observables should be independent of ##\mu## but its unclear to me how this is achieved. Some texts say that you simply choose a value for ##\mu## while others like MD Schwartz (Ch 19) imply that adding an on-shell subtraction scheme counterterm diagram to the loop diagram gets rid of both the divergence AND the renormalization scale term.
But this is not a feature of every subtraction scheme like MS or MSbar.

I am confused as to what approach should one take, are there any specific requirements or conditions when choosing a value for the renormalization scale or any particular subtraction scheme ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, in the on-shell subtraction scheme (if it's applicable at all, which it is strictly speaking only when no massless fields are involved) the scale must be given by some mass(es) of the particles in involved, and then also the coupling constant(s) must be adjusted with some observed cross section(s) at some energy, where the (renormalized) couplings are small.

The point is that of course observable cross sections are independent on the chosen renormalization scheme but the physical parameters like masses and couplings may change with the scheme, and they depend on the choice of the scale parameter, ##\mu##, of dim. reg. which in turn defines the minimal-subtraction schemes. Their advantage is that they are so-called "mass-independent renormalization schemes" and thus are well suited for renormalizing theories with massless particles/fields (like QED or QCD which have massless gauge bosons).

If you think in a bit more physical terms for theories that have massless fields around, you cannot subtract the diverging proper vertex functions (in QED the self-energies of photons and electrons/positrons as well as the photon-electron-electron vertex) with taken all external four-momenta at 0, but you must subtract at some space-like momenta with ##p^2=-\Lambda^2<0##, which introduces inevitably a scale, and the physical parameters like masses and coupling constants "run" with this scale in such a way that once fixed at one scale the observable cross sections do not change when changing the scale. That's described by renormalization-group equations for the running of the parameters of the theory.

For more on different renormalization schemes and their relation to MS (for ##\phi^4## theory as the most simple example), see Sect. 5.11 in

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf
 

FAQ: Renormalization Scale in Loop Feynman Amplitudes

What is the renormalization scale in loop Feynman amplitudes?

The renormalization scale, often denoted by μ, is an arbitrary energy scale introduced in the process of renormalization to handle infinities that appear in loop Feynman amplitudes. It serves as a reference point for defining the parameters of the theory, such as coupling constants and masses, at different energy scales.

Why is the choice of renormalization scale important?

The choice of renormalization scale is important because physical predictions can depend on it. While the renormalization scale itself is arbitrary, different choices can affect the values of the renormalized parameters. Properly chosen scales can simplify calculations and improve the convergence of perturbative expansions. Physical observables should be independent of the renormalization scale, a property ensured by the renormalization group equations.

How do you choose the optimal renormalization scale?

The optimal renormalization scale is typically chosen to be of the same order as the characteristic energy of the process being studied. This choice minimizes large logarithms in the perturbative expansion, improving the accuracy and convergence of the calculations. For example, in high-energy scattering processes, the renormalization scale might be set to the center-of-mass energy of the colliding particles.

What is the renormalization group equation?

The renormalization group equation describes how the parameters of a quantum field theory, such as coupling constants, change with the renormalization scale. It is a differential equation that ensures the physical observables remain invariant under changes in the renormalization scale. Solving the renormalization group equations allows one to understand the behavior of the theory at different energy scales.

Can physical observables depend on the renormalization scale?

In principle, physical observables should not depend on the renormalization scale. However, in practical calculations, there can be residual scale dependence due to the truncation of the perturbative series. Higher-order corrections typically reduce this dependence. The renormalization group equations help ensure that the dependence on the renormalization scale cancels out in physical observables, maintaining their invariance.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top