I am studying the textbook An introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder, and am not able to understand a seemly important and straightforward result on running coupling constant. It is probably a stupid one but I just cannot figure it out.
After some calculations, one obtains the expression for the running coupling in ϕ4 theory, namely, Eq.(12.82) on P.422 of Chapter 12 which reads ˉλ(p)=λ1−(3λ/16π2)log(p/M).
Now, according to the interpretation above Eq.(12.70), ˉx is the initial position (at t=0) of the element which is at x at time t. To be more specific, one emphasizes that ˉx(t;x) is not the position at time t. Similarly, I understand that ˉλ(p)≡ˉλ(log(p/M);λ) is not the coupling constant at p. ˉλ is the value of the coupling constant at renormalization energy scale p=M, which evolves to λ at scale p.
If the above understanding is correct, Eq.(12.82) cannot be interpreted as written in the textbook
The running coupling constant goes to zero at a logarithmic rate as p→0.
This is because, again, ˉλ itself corresponds to the coupling fixed at M, it does not run.
On the contrary, the inverse function λ(log(p/M);ˉλ) shall describe the running coupling, as analogically x(t;ˉx) will do. In fact, similarly to Eq.(12.70) (to be more explicit, I changed d to ∂) ∂∂t′ˉx(t′;x)=−v(ˉx),
Edit
Regarding NowIGetToLearnWhatAHeadIs's answer, I try to refine my doubts as follows:
Why p→0 is interpreted as going to small energy scale? Imagine that one would like to study the running coupling of ϕ4 theory at a (small) scale p? Intuitively, I understand that this can be achieved experimentally by carrying out a collision between few (two to two, to be exact) ϕs with energy roughly at E∼p, and then measuring the cross section of the process. In this context, the coupling we talk about (ˉλ) should be evaluated at the corresponding momentum M (not p).
If we want to study the coupling as a function of energy scale for the same theory, the renormalization condition should be something given in the first place, and it should not be modified afterwards. For instance, one can study λ as a function of p for given ˉλ and M. I understand, as pointed out, that ˉλ indeed can be viewed as a function of p. However, if one evaluates ˉλ while varies p for given λ and M, it seems to me that we are no longer talking about the same theory. (c.f. in fact, fix λ and p and study ˉλ as a function of M is also ok, but not mix variables from different pairs.)
No comments:
Post a Comment