A Why is unitarity important for validating effective field theories (EFT)?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Unitarity
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Hi all... As far as I understand, the concept of "unitarity" is pretty close to that of perturbation; in that it tells you that your amplitudes are finite with energy scale (one solution the Higgs gave in e.g. the Vector Boson Scattering).
However, since an EFT comes with a natural cut-off, why do people try to justify their validity using unitarity arguments? I mean, you are safe from an explosive amplitude by your EFT's scale.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChrisVer said:
the concept of "unitarity" is pretty close to that of perturbation

I don't understand what you mean by that.

ChrisVer said:
it tells you that your amplitudes are finite with energy scale (one solution the Higgs gave in e.g. the Vector Boson Scattering)

It does tell you that the S-matrix is unitary. For that the amplitudes must not grow too much, it is not necessarily enough that they stays finite.

ChrisVer said:
(one solution the Higgs gave in e.g. the Vector Boson Scattering).

This solution also only works for a not too heavy Higgs. Thats why you basically knew something would be found at the LHC: A Higgs with mass larger than 1TeV or so will not work, because unitarity would be violated earlier.

ChrisVer said:
However, since an EFT comes with a natural cut-off, why do people try to justify their validity using unitarity arguments? I mean, you are safe from an explosive amplitude by your EFT's scale.

So it is not enough to have an energy cutoff somewhere, you need it early enough so your amplitudes are not already too large when reaching it.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top