Zeta function regularization and quantum field theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the regularization of the series \(\sum_{r \in \mathbb{Z} + 1/2} r\) in the context of quantum field theory. Two methods are proposed: the first yields \(\frac{1}{6}\) using \(\zeta(-1) - \zeta(0)\), while the second results in \(\frac{1}{24}\) through \(-\frac{1}{2} \zeta(-1)\). Both methods are deemed valid due to the nature of infinite sums, which can lead to different finite results. The essential takeaway is that consistency in regularization methods is crucial for achieving a well-defined renormalized result.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of zeta functions, specifically \(\zeta(s)\) and its values at negative integers.
  • Familiarity with regularization techniques in quantum field theory.
  • Knowledge of renormalization processes in theoretical physics.
  • Basic grasp of infinite series and their convergence properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and applications of the Riemann zeta function, particularly \(\zeta(-1)\) and \(\zeta(0)\).
  • Explore various regularization techniques used in quantum field theory, such as dimensional regularization and cutoff regularization.
  • Investigate the principles of renormalization and its implications for physical theories.
  • Examine case studies of divergent series in quantum field theory to understand their regularization and renormalization.
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those working in quantum field theory, mathematicians interested in analytic continuation, and students studying advanced topics in mathematical physics.

sgd37
Messages
212
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement



Hi I need to regularize [itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r[/itex]

In my opinion there are two ways of going about it either re-express it as [itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r = \sum_{r =1} r - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r =1} = \zeta (-1) - \zeta (0) = \frac{1}{6}[/itex]

or

[itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r =1} r - \sum_{r =1} r = - \frac{1}{2} \zeta (-1) = \frac{1}{24}[/itex]

I know I need the second answer however I don't see any reason why the first answer is not valid. In fact I think it more so, since the first sum goes term for term with the second, whereas in the second method the r =2 term of the first sum is canceled by the r=1 of the second thus having a staggered structure if the sum was finite. Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sgd37 said:

Homework Statement



Hi I need to regularize [itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r[/itex]

In my opinion there are two ways of going about it either re-express it as [itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r = \sum_{r =1} r - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r =1} = \zeta (-1) - \zeta (0) = \frac{1}{6}[/itex]

or

[itex]\sum_{r \in Z+1/2} r = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r =1} r - \sum_{r =1} r = - \frac{1}{2} \zeta (-1) = \frac{1}{24}[/itex]

I know I need the second answer however I don't see any reason why the first answer is not valid. In fact I think it more so, since the first sum goes term for term with the second, whereas in the second method the r =2 term of the first sum is canceled by the r=1 of the second thus having a staggered structure if the sum was finite. Any thoughts?

You are making a good point. I am assuming you are encountering this in a quantum field theory calculation?

The unfortunate answer (which, I know, will feel unsatisfactory) is that both expressions are equally valid. This is because the sum is actually infinite, as you know, and therefore regularizing can give different finite results, depending on how one proceed. So the finite answer is pretty much arbitrary! But the key point is that after renormalization, all infinities cancel out (in a renormalizable theory). The key point is that one must regularize all divergent expressions in a consistent way. So if one uses the second expression to regularize an expression in one step of the calculation, one must use the same expression to regularize other divergent sums and then the final, renormalized result is finite and well-defined.

I hope this helps a bit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K