Why does dimensional regularization respect the Ward identity?

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
It is often stated that this is the case, but I have often wondered if it is a general statement or just something that we observe to be the case when calculating the relevant loop corrections. Can it be proven generally? Is it somehow easy to see?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dimensional regularization is a fairly general mathematical technique. You can always use it for calculations in QFT. As far as I know, in QFT, the technique basically just amounts to introducing extra parameters (regulators) to change an integral originally in some weird coordinate system into a simple euclidean integral [basically the infinitesimal elements and the integration bounds get retrofitted by the introduction of the regulator].

The Ward identity, on the other hand, is a result of QFT. So it only holds in special circumstances.

You might want to look in Peskin and Schroeder, they have a nice little discussion about dimensional regularization which uses the Gamma function very sneakily.

Edit: Maybe you can't always use it: if you're being very creative, you may have to check whether the regulator you introduce is going to cause something fishy to happen. But in Peskin and Schroeder, you'll see they're doing a very innocuous mathematical manipulation.
 
Last edited:
Jolb said:
Dimensional regularization is a general mathematical technique. You can always use it for calculations in QFT. As far as I know, in QFT, the technique basically just amounts to introducing extra parameters (regularizers) to change an integral originally in some weird coordinate system into a simple euclidean integral [basically the infinitesimal elements get fixed by the introduction of the regularizer].

The Ward identity, on the other hand, is a result of QFT. So it only holds in special circumstances.

I agree, but the ward identity holds when one uses dimensional regularization, while it does not when using for example a simple cutoff regulator.

When searching the net I found that this was due to the fact that integrals in a general dimensional respects a translational substitution; i.e that

$$\int d^{d} p f(p+q) = \int d^{d} p f(p).$$

This is not true for a cut-off regulator and since the proof of ward identity involves such a substitution, dimensional regularization respects it, while a cutoff regulator does not.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top