Shift of momenta cures IR divergence?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CAF123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence Ir Shift
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of infrared (IR) divergences in loop integrals, particularly focusing on the integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2}$$ and the effects of shifting loop momenta. Participants explore whether such shifts can cure IR divergences and how the introduction of mass affects the integrand's behavior as momentum approaches zero.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2}$$ is IR divergent, suggesting that shifting the loop momenta by a vector ##p_1## could eliminate the IR divergence.
  • Another participant points out that shifting the momenta introduces a new divergence at ##k = -p_1##.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of having a large ##p_1## and whether the divergence at ##k = -p_1## can still be considered IR.
  • Participants discuss the role of mass in the integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2-M^2}$$ and how it affects the presence of divergences at ##k = \pm M##, noting that while mass cures the IR divergence, it does not eliminate other types of divergences.
  • One participant suggests that taking the IR limit in the shifted integral leads to an infinite result, raising questions about the persistence of IR divergences.
  • Another participant mentions that the integral is IR safe when treated as a Euclidean/Wick rotated QFT integral, implying a different perspective on the nature of divergences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether shifting momenta can effectively cure IR divergences, and there is no consensus on the implications of large momenta or the nature of divergences introduced by mass. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the classification of divergences and the effectiveness of various approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of divergences in quantum field theory, noting that different types of divergences may require different treatments, such as the Feynman prescription or Wick rotation. There is an acknowledgment of the need for careful consideration of the definitions and conditions under which divergences are analyzed.

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
Consider the following integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2}$$ It is UV divergent but is it IR finite or IR divergent? The integrand is singular as ##k \rightarrow 0## so this suggest an IR divergence but this is no longer the case if I make a shift of the loop momenta by say ##p_1## and write the same integral as $$\int \frac{d^4k}{(k+p_1)^2}$$

Usually we say an IR divergence can be cured by addition of a mass in the denominator (as then the integrand won't be singular as k goes to 0) but isn't the IR divergence also cured by simply making a lorentz transformation on the momenta (assuming ##p_1^2 \neq 0##) ? I don't understand this result so where is the failure in the reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't you get a divergence at k=-p1 now?
 
mfb said:
Don't you get a divergence at k=-p1 now?
Yes.
 
What if ##p_1## is large numerically? Then the divergence at ##k=-p_1## is not in the IR?

With a mass M, e.g in the integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2-M^2},$$ we have a divergence at ##k=\pm M##. The mass is said to cure the IR divergence (because integrand no longer singular as ##k\rightarrow 0##) but there is still this ##k=\pm M## divergence in place that is cured by the Feynman prescription.

So if ##k=\pm M## is not an IR divergence then why is ##k=-p_1## one?
 
CAF123 said:
What if ##p_1## is large numerically? Then the divergence at ##k=-p_1## is not in the IR?
It is still there, and renaming it won't help.
Substituting k -> k-p1 doesn't change the integral at all.
With a mass M, e.g in the integral $$\int \frac{d^4k}{k^2-M^2},$$ we have a divergence at ##k=\pm M##. The mass is said to cure the IR divergence (because integrand no longer singular as ##k\rightarrow 0##) but there is still this ##k=\pm M## divergence in place that is cured by the Feynman prescription.
That is a different type of divergence (note the difference of squares instead of a squared difference), and there are ways to deal with it.
 
mfb said:
It is still there, and renaming it won't help.
Ok,so if I took the IR limit (k->0) in the integral ##\int d^4k/(k+p_1)^2## then I lose all k dependence from the integrand and so the result is like ##\int d^4k## which is infinite. Is it in this sense that the IR divergence is still clear?

That is a different type of divergence (note the difference of squares instead of a squared difference), and there are ways to deal with it.
Are these 'ways' you mention the wick rotation to Euclidean 4 momentum etc?
 
This integral is IR save since ##\mathrm{d}^4 k \propto |k|^3## (taking it as a Euclidean/Wick rotated QFT integral).
 

Similar threads

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