Misplaced Pages

Landau pole: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:54, 28 January 2006 editQFT (talk | contribs)535 edits categorizing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:30, 24 November 2024 edit undo188.232.43.139 (talk) Phenomenological aspects 
(170 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Coupling constant divergence at high energies}}
In ], '''Landau pole''' is the ] (or the precise value of the ]) where a ] (the strength of an interaction) of a ] becomes ]. Such a possibility was pointed out by the eminent physicist ]. The dependence of coupling constants on the ] is one of the basic ideas behind the ].
In ], the '''Landau pole''' (or the '''Moscow zero''', or the '''Landau ghost''')<ref>{{cite web |url=http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100049732 |title=Landau ghost – Oxford Index |access-date=2017-12-27 |archive-date=2017-12-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171228054634/http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100049732 |url-status=dead }}</ref> is the ] at which the ] (interaction strength) of a ] becomes infinite. Such a possibility was pointed out by the physicist ] and his colleagues in 1954.<ref name="LAKh">{{cite journal |last1=Landau|first1=L. D. |last2=Abrikosov|first2=A. A. |last3=Khalatnikov|first3=I. M. |title=On the elimination of infinities in quantum electrodynamics (Об устранении бесконечностей в квантовой электродинамике) |journal=Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Доклады Академии Наук СССР) |volume=95 |issue=3 |pages=497–500 |year=1954 }}</ref><ref>], in {{cite book| title=Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics|editor=Wolfgang Pauli|editor-link=Wolfgang Pauli|publisher=Pergamon Press| year=1955| location=London}}</ref> The fact that couplings depend on the momentum (or length) scale is the central idea behind the ].


Theories with ] have Landau poles at very low energies. However, the phrase "Landau pole" is usually used in the context of the theories that are not asymptotically free, such as ] (QED) or a ] with a ] interaction. The coupling constant grows with energy, and at some energy scale the growth becomes infinite and the coupling constant itself diverges. Landau poles appear in theories that are not ], such as ] (QED) or {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory—a ] with a ]—such as may describe the ]. In these theories, the renormalized coupling constant grows with energy. A Landau pole appears when the coupling becomes infinite at a finite energy scale. In a theory purporting to be complete, this could be considered a mathematical inconsistency. A possible solution is that the renormalized charge could go to zero as the cut-off is removed, meaning that the charge is completely screened by quantum fluctuations (]). This is a case of ],<ref name="TrivPurs">
{{cite journal
| last=Callaway | first=D. J. E.
| year=1988
| title=Triviality Pursuit: Can Elementary Scalar Particles Exist?
| journal=]
| volume=167
| issue=5 | pages=241–320
| doi=10.1016/0370-1573(88)90008-7
|bibcode = 1988PhR...167..241C | author-link=David J E Callaway
}}</ref> which means that quantum corrections completely suppress the interactions in the absence of a cut-off.


Since the Landau pole is normally identified through ] one-loop or two-loop calculations, it is possible that the pole is merely a sign that the perturbative approximation breaks down at strong coupling. Perturbation theory may also be invalid if ] exist. ] provides a means to address questions in quantum field theory beyond the realm of perturbation theory, and thus has been used to attempt to resolve this question.
Landau poles at high energy are viewed as problems; more precisely, they are evidence that the theory (e.g. QED) is not well-defined ]ly. The Landau pole of QED is removed if QED is embedded into a ] or an even more powerful framework such as ].


Numerical computations performed in this framework seem to confirm Landau's conclusion that in QED the renormalized charge completely vanishes for an infinite cutoff.<ref>
== An equation ==
{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/0550-3213(86)90431-1 | title =CAN elementary scalar particles exist?: (II). Scalar electrodynamics | journal = Nuclear Physics B| volume = 277| issue = 1| pages = 50–66| year = 1986| last1 = Callaway | first1 = D. J. E. | last2 = Petronzio | first2 = R. |bibcode = 1986NuPhB.277...50C | url =https://cds.cern.ch/record/167168 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal |last1=Göckeler|first1=M. |last2=Horsley|first2=R. |last3=Linke|first3=V. |last4=Rakow|first4=P. |last5=Schierholz|first5=G. |last6=Stüben|first6=H. |s2cid=119494925 |year=1998|title=Is There a Landau Pole Problem in QED?|journal=]|volume=80|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4119| pages=4119–4122| bibcode=1998PhRvL..80.4119G|arxiv = hep-th/9712244|issue=19 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal| last1=Kim| first1=S. |last2=Kogut |first2=John B. |last3=Lombardo |first3=Maria Paola | s2cid=15420646 |date=2002-01-31|journal=]| doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054015|volume=65|pages=054015|arxiv = hep-lat/0112009 |bibcode = 2002PhRvD..65e4015K| title=Gauged Nambu–Jona-Lasinio studies of the triviality of quantum electrodynamics|issue=5 }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal| last1=Gies| first1=Holger|last2=Jaeckel| first2=Joerg| s2cid=222197| title=Renormalization Flow of QED| journal=]| date=2004-09-09| volume=93| doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.110405 | page=110405| bibcode=2004PhRvL..93k0405G|arxiv = hep-ph/0405183|issue=11| pmid=15447325}}</ref>


== Brief history ==
Everything started in the 1950s when Landau decided to understand the relation between the bare electric charge <math>e</math> and the renormalized electric charge <math>e_R</math>. He found the following equation:
According to Landau, ], and ],<ref name="LAKh"></ref> the relation of the observable charge {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub>}} to the "bare" charge {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}} for renormalizable field theories when {{math|Λ ≫ ''m''}} is given by
{{NumBlk||<math display="block"> g_\text{obs}=\frac{g_0}{1+\beta_2 g_0 \ln \Lambda/m} </math>|{{EquationRef|1}}}}
where {{mvar|m}} is the mass of the particle and {{math|Λ}} is the momentum cut-off. If {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> < ∞}} and {{math|Λ → ∞ }} then {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub> → 0}} and the theory looks trivial. In fact, inverting {{EquationNote|1|Eq.&nbsp;1}}, so that {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}} (related to the length scale {{math|Λ<sup>−1</sup>}}) reveals an accurate value of {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub>}},
{{NumBlk||<math display="block"> g_0 = \frac{g_\text{obs}}{1-\beta_2 g_\text{obs} \ln \Lambda/m}. </math>|{{EquationRef|2}}}}


As {{math|Λ}} grows, the bare charge {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> {{=}} ''g''(Λ)}} increases, to finally diverge at the renormalization point
:<math>\frac{1}{e_R^2} - \frac{1}{e^2}=\frac{N_f}{6\pi^2}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{m_R}</math>
{{NumBlk||<math display="block"> \Lambda_\text{Landau} = m \exp\left.</math>|{{EquationRef|3}}}}


This singularity is the '''Landau pole''' with a ''negative residue'', {{math|''g''(Λ) ≈ −Λ<sub>Landau</sub> / (''β''<sub>2</sub>(Λ − Λ<sub>Landau</sub>))}}.
This equation needs to be explained:


In fact, however, the growth of {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}} invalidates {{EquationNote|1|Eqs.&nbsp;1}},&nbsp;{{EquationNote|2}} in the region {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≈ 1}}, since these were obtained for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≪ 1}}, so that the nonperturbative existence of the Landau pole becomes questionable.
* <math>e</math> is the value of the ] that we naively insert to the ], but it turns out that this number is actually not a constant, but rather an energy-dependent quantity
* <math>e_R</math> is the actual ], measurable value of the charge (that determines how much the electrons attract each other at low energies), which is not quite the same thing as <math>e</math>
* <math>N_f</math> is the number of ]s; for "staggered" ]s we substitute <math>N_f=4</math>
* <math>\Lambda</math> is the momentum ] i.e. the maximal value of the momentum that we allow to be taken into account
* <math>m_R</math> is the renormalized ] mass


The actual behavior of the charge {{math|''g''(''μ'')}} as a function of the momentum scale {{mvar|μ}} is determined by the ]–] equation<ref name="GellMannLow" >{{cite journal|last1=Gell-Mann| first1=M.| last2=Low| first2=F. E.| year=1954| journal=]| title=Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances | volume=95| doi=10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300| pages=1300–1320| bibcode = 1954PhRv...95.1300G | issue=5| url=https://authors.library.caltech.edu/60469/1/PhysRev.95.1300.pdf| author1-link=Murray Gell-Mann}}</ref>
]
{{NumBlk||<math display="block"> \frac{\mathrm{d}g}{\mathrm{d} \ln \mu} = \beta(g) = \beta_2 g^2 + \beta_3 g^3 + \cdots </math>|{{EquationRef|4}}}}
which gives Eqs.&nbsp;{{EquationNote|1}},&nbsp;{{EquationNote|2}} if it is integrated under conditions {{math|''g''(''μ'') {{=}} ''g''<sub>obs</sub>}} for {{math|''μ'' {{=}} ''m''}} and {{math|''g''(''μ'') {{=}} ''g''<sub>0</sub>}} for {{math|''μ'' {{=}} Λ}}, when only the term with {{math|''β''<sub>2</sub>}} is retained in the right hand side. The general behavior of {{math|''g''(''μ'')}} depends on the appearance of the function {{math|''β''(''g'')}}.


According to the classification of Bogoliubov and Shirkov,<ref>{{cite book |authorlink1=Nikolay Bogolyubov |last1=Bogoliubov|first1=N. N. |authorlink2=Dmitry Shirkov |last2=Shirkov|first2=D. V. |title=Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Fields |edition=3rd |others=Translated by Seweryn Chomet |publisher=] |location=New York |year=1980}}</ref> there are three qualitatively different cases:
The right-hand side can be calculated from loops in ]s (namely ]s), i.e. as a contribution of ]. It has a ]ic form because the ] happens to be logarithmically divergent. Note that the equation has two obvious implications:
{{ordered list | list-style-type = lower-alpha
| if {{math|''β''(''g'')}} has a zero at the finite value {{math|''g''<sup>∗</sup>}}, then growth of {{mvar|g}} is saturated, i.e. {{math|''g''(''μ'') → ''g''<sup>∗</sup>}} for {{math|''μ'' → ∞}};
| if {{math|''β''(''g'')}} is non-alternating and behaves as {{math|''β''(''g'') ∝ ''g<sup>α</sup>''}} with {{math|''α'' ≤ 1}} for large {{mvar|g}}, then the growth of {{math|''g''(''μ'')}} continues to infinity;
| if {{math|''β''(''g'') ∝ ''g<sup>α</sup>''}} with {{math|''α'' > 1}} for large {{mvar|g}}, then {{math|''g''(''μ'')}} is divergent at finite value {{math|''μ''<sub>0</sub>}} and the real Landau pole arises: the theory is internally inconsistent due to indeterminacy of {{math|''g''(''μ'')}} for {{math|''μ'' > ''μ''<sub>0</sub>}}.
}}
Landau and ]<ref>L.D.Landau, I.Ya.Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 102, 489 (1955); I.Ya.Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 103, 1005 (1955).</ref> tried to justify the possibility (c) in the case of QED and {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory. They have noted that the growth of {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}} in {{EquationNote|1|Eq.&nbsp;1}} drives the observable charge {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub>}} to the constant limit, which does not depend on {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}}. The same behavior can be obtained from the functional integrals, omitting the quadratic terms in the action. If neglecting the quadratic terms is valid already for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≪ 1}}, it is all the more valid for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}} of the order or greater than unity: it gives a reason to consider {{EquationNote|1|Eq.&nbsp;1}} to be valid for arbitrary {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub>}}. Validity of these considerations at the quantitative level is excluded by the non-quadratic form of the {{mvar|β}}-function.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}}


Nevertheless, they can be correct qualitatively. Indeed, the result {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub> {{=}} const(''g''<sub>0</sub>)}} can be obtained from the functional integrals only for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≫ 1}}, while its validity for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≪ 1}}, based on {{EquationNote|1|Eq.&nbsp;1}}, may be related to other reasons; for {{math|''g''<sub>0</sub> ≈ 1}} this result is probably violated but coincidence of two constant values in the order of magnitude can be expected from the matching condition. The ] results <ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1016/0550-3213(84)90246-3 | title = Monte Carlo renormalization group study of {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} field theory| journal = Nuclear Physics B| volume = 240| issue = 4| pages = 577| year = 1984| last1 = Callaway | first1 = D. J. E. | last2 = Petronzio | first2 = R. |bibcode = 1984NuPhB.240..577C | url = https://cds.cern.ch/record/150964}}</ref> seems to confirm the qualitative validity of the Landau–Pomeranchuk arguments, although a different interpretation is also possible.
* If the bare charge <math>e</math> is kept fixed, the theory (QED) has a trivial continuum (<math>\Lambda\to\infty</math>) limit, namely <math>e_R\to 0</math>
* When the renormalized charge <math>e_R</math> is kept fixed, the bare charge becomes singular (infinite) at


The case (c) in the Bogoliubov and Shirkov classification corresponds to the ] in full theory (beyond its perturbation context), as can be seen by a ]. Indeed, if {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub> < ∞}}, the theory is internally inconsistent. The only way to avoid it, is for {{math|''μ''<sub>0</sub> → ∞}}, which is possible only for {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub> → 0}}. It is a widespread belief {{by whom|date=November 2018}} that both QED and {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory are trivial in the ].
:<math>\Lambda_{\mathrm{Landau}}=m_R\exp(6\pi^2/N_f e_R^2)</math>.


== Phenomenological aspects ==
The latter singularity is the Landau pole. It does not affect the ] success of ] calculations in QED because for all practical purposes, the cutoff <math>\Lambda</math> can be chosen much smaller than the huge scale <math>\Lambda_{\mathrm{Landau}}</math>, comparable to the ], and it is still enough to describe all accessible experiments. Nevertheless, the Landau pole is an awkward theoretical feature of QED, a sufficiently awkward one to make us look for a better theory.
In a theory intended to represent a physical interaction where the coupling constant is known to be non-zero, Landau poles or triviality may be viewed as a ''sign of incompleteness in the theory''. For example, QED is usually not believed{{cn|date=June 2024}} to be a complete theory on its own, because it does not describe other ]s, and contains a Landau pole. Conventionally QED forms part of the more fundamental ]. The {{math|U(1)<sub>Y</sub>}} group of electroweak theory also has a Landau pole which is usually considered{{by whom|date=June 2019}} to be a signal of a need for an ultimate embedding into a ]. The grand unified scale would provide a natural cutoff well below the Landau scale, preventing the pole from having observable physical consequences.


The problem of the Landau pole in QED is of purely academic interest, for the following reason. The role of {{math|''g''<sub>obs</sub>}} in {{EquationNote|1|Eqs.&nbsp;1}},&nbsp;{{EquationNote|2}} is played by the ] {{math|''α'' ≈ 1/137}} and the Landau scale for QED is estimated as {{val|e=286|u=eV}}, which is far beyond any energy scale relevant to observable physics. For comparison, the maximum energies accessible at the ] are of order {{val|e=13|u=eV}}, while the ], at which ] becomes important and the relevance of ] itself may be questioned, is {{val|e=28|u=eV}}. The energy of the observable universe is on the order of {{val|e=88|u=eV}}.
Since the Landau pole is calculated using one-loop or two-loop calculations but ] breaks down for large coupling constants, there has been some controversy as to whether the Landau pole really exists or if we have a ] instead.


The ] in the ] of ] is described by {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory (see '']''). If the latter has a Landau pole, then this fact is used in setting a "triviality bound" on the Higgs mass. The bound depends on the scale at which new physics is assumed to enter and the maximum value of the quartic coupling permitted (its physical value is unknown). For large couplings, non-perturbative methods are required. This can even lead to a predictable Higgs mass in ] scenarios. Lattice calculations have also been useful in this context.<ref>For example, {{Cite journal|last1=Callaway|first1=D.J.E.|last2=Petronzio|first2=R.|doi=10.1016/0550-3213(87)90657-2|title=Is the standard model Higgs mass predictable?|journal=]|volume=292|pages=497–526|year=1987|bibcode=1987NuPhB.292..497C|url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/172532}}{{cite journal| last=Heller| first=Urs| author2=Markus Klomfass |author3=Herbert Neuberger |author4=Pavols Vranas | s2cid=7146602|date=1993-09-20|journal=]| volume=405| doi=10.1016/0550-3213(93)90559-8| pages=555–573|arxiv = hep-ph/9303215 |bibcode = 1993NuPhB.405..555H|title=Numerical analysis of the Higgs mass triviality bound|issue=2–3 }}, which suggests {{math|''M<sub>H</sub>'' < 710 GeV}}.</ref>
]

== Connections with statistical physics ==
A deeper understanding of the physical meaning and generalization of the
renormalization process leading to Landau poles comes from condensed matter physics. ]'s paper in 1966 proposed the "block-spin" renormalization group.<ref>] (1966): "Scaling laws for Ising models near {{math|''T''<sub>c</sub>}}", Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) '''2''', 263.</ref> The ''blocking idea'' is a way to define the components of the theory at large distances as aggregates of components at shorter distances. This approach was developed by ].<ref>](1975): The renormalization group: critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. '''47''', 4, 773.</ref> He was awarded the Nobel prize for these decisive contributions in 1982.

Assume that we have a theory described by a certain function {{math|''Z''}} of the state variables {{math|{{mset|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}}}} and a set of coupling constants {{math|{{mset|''J''<sub>''k''</sub>}}}}. This function can be a ], an ], or a ].
Consider a certain blocking transformation of the state variables {{math|{{mset|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}} → {{mset|1={{overset|lh=0.5em|~|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}}}}}}, the number of {{math|1={{overset|lh=0.5em|~|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}}}} must be lower than the number of {{math|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}}. Now let us try to rewrite {{math|''Z''}} ''only'' in terms of the {{math|1={{overset|lh=0.5em|~|''s''<sub>''i''</sub>}}}}. If this is achievable by a certain change in the parameters, {{math|{{mset|''J''<sub>''k''</sub>}} → {{mset|{{overset|lh=0.7em|~|''J''<sub>''k''</sub>}}}}}}, then the theory is said to be '''renormalizable'''. The most important information in the RG flow are its '''fixed points'''. The possible macroscopic states of the system, at a large scale, are given by this set of fixed points. If these fixed points correspond to a free field theory, the theory is said to exhibit ], and possesses a Landau pole. Numerous fixed points appear in the study of ], but it is not known whether these correspond to free field theories.<ref name="TrivPurs"/>

== Large order perturbative calculations ==
Solution of the Landau pole problem requires the calculation of the Gell-Mann–Low function {{math|''β''(''g'')}} at arbitrary {{mvar|g}} and, in particular, its asymptotic behavior for {{math|''g'' → ∞}}. Diagrammatic calculations allow one to obtain only a few expansion coefficients {{math|''β''<sub>2</sub>, ''β''<sub>3</sub>, ...}}, which do not allow one to investigate the {{mvar|β}} function in the whole. Progress became possible after the development of the ] method for calculating large orders of perturbation theory:<ref>L.N.Lipatov, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 72, 411 (1977) .</ref> One may now try to interpolate the known coefficients {{math|''β''<sub>2</sub>, ''β''<sub>3</sub>, ...}} with their large order behavior, and to then sum the perturbation series.

The first attempts of reconstruction of the {{math|''β''}} function by this method bear on the triviality of the {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory. Application of more advanced summation methods yielded the exponent {{mvar|α}} in the asymptotic behavior {{math|''β''(''g'') ∝ ''g<sup>α</sup>''}}, a value close to unity. The hypothesis for the asymptotic behavior of {{math|''β''(''g'') ∝ ''g''}} was recently presented analytically for {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory and QED.<ref>{{Cite journal |arxiv = 1010.4081|doi = 10.1134/S1063776108090094|title = Renormalization group functions of the {{math|''φ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory in the strong coupling limit: Analytical results|year = 2008|last1 = Suslov|first1 = I. M.|s2cid = 119205490|journal = Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics|volume = 107|issue = 3|pages = 413–429|bibcode = 2008JETP..107..413S}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |arxiv = 1010.4317|doi = 10.1134/S1063776110090153|title = Asymptotic behavior of the {{math|''β''}} function in the {{math|''ϕ''<sup>4</sup>}} theory: A scheme without complex parameters|year = 2010|last1 = Suslov|first1 = I. M.|s2cid = 118545858|journal = Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics|volume = 111|issue = 3|pages = 450–465|bibcode = 2010JETP..111..450S}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |arxiv = 0804.2650|doi = 10.1134/S1063776109060089|title = Exact asymptotic form for the {{math|''β''}} function in quantum electrodynamics|year = 2009|last1 = Suslov|first1 = I. M.|s2cid = 7219671|journal = Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics|volume = 108|issue = 6|pages = 980–984|bibcode = 2009JETP..108..980S}}</ref> Together with positiveness of {{math|''β''(''g'')}}, obtained by summation of the series, it suggests case (b) of the above Bogoliubov and Shirkov classification, and hence the absence of the Landau pole in these theories, assuming perturbation theory is valid (but see above discussion in the introduction ).

== See also ==
* ]
* ]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Landau Pole}}
]
] ]

Latest revision as of 05:30, 24 November 2024

Coupling constant divergence at high energies

In physics, the Landau pole (or the Moscow zero, or the Landau ghost) is the momentum (or energy) scale at which the coupling constant (interaction strength) of a quantum field theory becomes infinite. Such a possibility was pointed out by the physicist Lev Landau and his colleagues in 1954. The fact that couplings depend on the momentum (or length) scale is the central idea behind the renormalization group.

Landau poles appear in theories that are not asymptotically free, such as quantum electrodynamics (QED) or φ theory—a scalar field with a quartic interaction—such as may describe the Higgs boson. In these theories, the renormalized coupling constant grows with energy. A Landau pole appears when the coupling becomes infinite at a finite energy scale. In a theory purporting to be complete, this could be considered a mathematical inconsistency. A possible solution is that the renormalized charge could go to zero as the cut-off is removed, meaning that the charge is completely screened by quantum fluctuations (vacuum polarization). This is a case of quantum triviality, which means that quantum corrections completely suppress the interactions in the absence of a cut-off.

Since the Landau pole is normally identified through perturbative one-loop or two-loop calculations, it is possible that the pole is merely a sign that the perturbative approximation breaks down at strong coupling. Perturbation theory may also be invalid if non-adiabatic states exist. Lattice gauge theory provides a means to address questions in quantum field theory beyond the realm of perturbation theory, and thus has been used to attempt to resolve this question.

Numerical computations performed in this framework seem to confirm Landau's conclusion that in QED the renormalized charge completely vanishes for an infinite cutoff.

Brief history

According to Landau, Abrikosov, and Khalatnikov, the relation of the observable charge gobs to the "bare" charge g0 for renormalizable field theories when Λ ≫ m is given by

g obs = g 0 1 + β 2 g 0 ln Λ / m {\displaystyle g_{\text{obs}}={\frac {g_{0}}{1+\beta _{2}g_{0}\ln \Lambda /m}}} 1

where m is the mass of the particle and Λ is the momentum cut-off. If g0 < ∞ and Λ → ∞ then gobs → 0 and the theory looks trivial. In fact, inverting Eq. 1, so that g0 (related to the length scale Λ) reveals an accurate value of gobs,

g 0 = g obs 1 β 2 g obs ln Λ / m . {\displaystyle g_{0}={\frac {g_{\text{obs}}}{1-\beta _{2}g_{\text{obs}}\ln \Lambda /m}}.} 2

As Λ grows, the bare charge g0 = g(Λ) increases, to finally diverge at the renormalization point

Λ Landau = m exp [ 1 β 2 g obs ] . {\displaystyle \Lambda _{\text{Landau}}=m\exp \left.} 3

This singularity is the Landau pole with a negative residue, g(Λ) ≈ −ΛLandau / (β2(Λ − ΛLandau)).

In fact, however, the growth of g0 invalidates Eqs. 12 in the region g0 ≈ 1, since these were obtained for g0 ≪ 1, so that the nonperturbative existence of the Landau pole becomes questionable.

The actual behavior of the charge g(μ) as a function of the momentum scale μ is determined by the Gell-MannLow equation

d g d ln μ = β ( g ) = β 2 g 2 + β 3 g 3 + {\displaystyle {\frac {\mathrm {d} g}{\mathrm {d} \ln \mu }}=\beta (g)=\beta _{2}g^{2}+\beta _{3}g^{3}+\cdots } 4

which gives Eqs. 12 if it is integrated under conditions g(μ) = gobs for μ = m and g(μ) = g0 for μ = Λ, when only the term with β2 is retained in the right hand side. The general behavior of g(μ) depends on the appearance of the function β(g).

According to the classification of Bogoliubov and Shirkov, there are three qualitatively different cases:

  1. if β(g) has a zero at the finite value g, then growth of g is saturated, i.e. g(μ) → g for μ → ∞;
  2. if β(g) is non-alternating and behaves as β(g) ∝ g with α ≤ 1 for large g, then the growth of g(μ) continues to infinity;
  3. if β(g) ∝ g with α > 1 for large g, then g(μ) is divergent at finite value μ0 and the real Landau pole arises: the theory is internally inconsistent due to indeterminacy of g(μ) for μ > μ0.

Landau and Pomeranchuk tried to justify the possibility (c) in the case of QED and φ theory. They have noted that the growth of g0 in Eq. 1 drives the observable charge gobs to the constant limit, which does not depend on g0. The same behavior can be obtained from the functional integrals, omitting the quadratic terms in the action. If neglecting the quadratic terms is valid already for g0 ≪ 1, it is all the more valid for g0 of the order or greater than unity: it gives a reason to consider Eq. 1 to be valid for arbitrary g0. Validity of these considerations at the quantitative level is excluded by the non-quadratic form of the β-function.

Nevertheless, they can be correct qualitatively. Indeed, the result gobs = const(g0) can be obtained from the functional integrals only for g0 ≫ 1, while its validity for g0 ≪ 1, based on Eq. 1, may be related to other reasons; for g0 ≈ 1 this result is probably violated but coincidence of two constant values in the order of magnitude can be expected from the matching condition. The Monte Carlo results seems to confirm the qualitative validity of the Landau–Pomeranchuk arguments, although a different interpretation is also possible.

The case (c) in the Bogoliubov and Shirkov classification corresponds to the quantum triviality in full theory (beyond its perturbation context), as can be seen by a reductio ad absurdum. Indeed, if gobs < ∞, the theory is internally inconsistent. The only way to avoid it, is for μ0 → ∞, which is possible only for gobs → 0. It is a widespread belief that both QED and φ theory are trivial in the continuum limit.

Phenomenological aspects

In a theory intended to represent a physical interaction where the coupling constant is known to be non-zero, Landau poles or triviality may be viewed as a sign of incompleteness in the theory. For example, QED is usually not believed to be a complete theory on its own, because it does not describe other fundamental interactions, and contains a Landau pole. Conventionally QED forms part of the more fundamental electroweak theory. The U(1)Y group of electroweak theory also has a Landau pole which is usually considered to be a signal of a need for an ultimate embedding into a Grand Unified Theory. The grand unified scale would provide a natural cutoff well below the Landau scale, preventing the pole from having observable physical consequences.

The problem of the Landau pole in QED is of purely academic interest, for the following reason. The role of gobs in Eqs. 12 is played by the fine structure constant α ≈ 1/137 and the Landau scale for QED is estimated as 10 eV, which is far beyond any energy scale relevant to observable physics. For comparison, the maximum energies accessible at the Large Hadron Collider are of order 10 eV, while the Planck scale, at which quantum gravity becomes important and the relevance of quantum field theory itself may be questioned, is 10 eV. The energy of the observable universe is on the order of 10 eV.

The Higgs boson in the Standard Model of particle physics is described by φ theory (see Quartic interaction). If the latter has a Landau pole, then this fact is used in setting a "triviality bound" on the Higgs mass. The bound depends on the scale at which new physics is assumed to enter and the maximum value of the quartic coupling permitted (its physical value is unknown). For large couplings, non-perturbative methods are required. This can even lead to a predictable Higgs mass in asymptotic safety scenarios. Lattice calculations have also been useful in this context.

Connections with statistical physics

A deeper understanding of the physical meaning and generalization of the renormalization process leading to Landau poles comes from condensed matter physics. Leo P. Kadanoff's paper in 1966 proposed the "block-spin" renormalization group. The blocking idea is a way to define the components of the theory at large distances as aggregates of components at shorter distances. This approach was developed by Kenneth Wilson. He was awarded the Nobel prize for these decisive contributions in 1982.

Assume that we have a theory described by a certain function Z of the state variables {si} and a set of coupling constants {Jk}. This function can be a partition function, an action, or a Hamiltonian. Consider a certain blocking transformation of the state variables {si} → {~si}, the number of ~si must be lower than the number of si. Now let us try to rewrite Z only in terms of the ~si. If this is achievable by a certain change in the parameters, {Jk} → {~Jk}, then the theory is said to be renormalizable. The most important information in the RG flow are its fixed points. The possible macroscopic states of the system, at a large scale, are given by this set of fixed points. If these fixed points correspond to a free field theory, the theory is said to exhibit quantum triviality, and possesses a Landau pole. Numerous fixed points appear in the study of lattice Higgs theories, but it is not known whether these correspond to free field theories.

Large order perturbative calculations

Solution of the Landau pole problem requires the calculation of the Gell-Mann–Low function β(g) at arbitrary g and, in particular, its asymptotic behavior for g → ∞. Diagrammatic calculations allow one to obtain only a few expansion coefficients β2, β3, ..., which do not allow one to investigate the β function in the whole. Progress became possible after the development of the Lipatov method for calculating large orders of perturbation theory: One may now try to interpolate the known coefficients β2, β3, ... with their large order behavior, and to then sum the perturbation series.

The first attempts of reconstruction of the β function by this method bear on the triviality of the φ theory. Application of more advanced summation methods yielded the exponent α in the asymptotic behavior β(g) ∝ g, a value close to unity. The hypothesis for the asymptotic behavior of β(g) ∝ g was recently presented analytically for φ theory and QED. Together with positiveness of β(g), obtained by summation of the series, it suggests case (b) of the above Bogoliubov and Shirkov classification, and hence the absence of the Landau pole in these theories, assuming perturbation theory is valid (but see above discussion in the introduction ).

See also

References

  1. "Landau ghost – Oxford Index". Archived from the original on 2017-12-28. Retrieved 2017-12-27.
  2. ^ Landau, L. D.; Abrikosov, A. A.; Khalatnikov, I. M. (1954). "On the elimination of infinities in quantum electrodynamics (Об устранении бесконечностей в квантовой электродинамике)". Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Доклады Академии Наук СССР). 95 (3): 497–500.
  3. Lev Landau, in Wolfgang Pauli, ed. (1955). Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics. London: Pergamon Press.
  4. ^ Callaway, D. J. E. (1988). "Triviality Pursuit: Can Elementary Scalar Particles Exist?". Physics Reports. 167 (5): 241–320. Bibcode:1988PhR...167..241C. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90008-7.
  5. Callaway, D. J. E.; Petronzio, R. (1986). "CAN elementary scalar particles exist?: (II). Scalar electrodynamics". Nuclear Physics B. 277 (1): 50–66. Bibcode:1986NuPhB.277...50C. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90431-1.
  6. Göckeler, M.; Horsley, R.; Linke, V.; Rakow, P.; Schierholz, G.; Stüben, H. (1998). "Is There a Landau Pole Problem in QED?". Physical Review Letters. 80 (19): 4119–4122. arXiv:hep-th/9712244. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80.4119G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4119. S2CID 119494925.
  7. Kim, S.; Kogut, John B.; Lombardo, Maria Paola (2002-01-31). "Gauged Nambu–Jona-Lasinio studies of the triviality of quantum electrodynamics". Physical Review D. 65 (5): 054015. arXiv:hep-lat/0112009. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65e4015K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054015. S2CID 15420646.
  8. Gies, Holger; Jaeckel, Joerg (2004-09-09). "Renormalization Flow of QED". Physical Review Letters. 93 (11): 110405. arXiv:hep-ph/0405183. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..93k0405G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.110405. PMID 15447325. S2CID 222197.
  9. Gell-Mann, M.; Low, F. E. (1954). "Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances" (PDF). Physical Review. 95 (5): 1300–1320. Bibcode:1954PhRv...95.1300G. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300.
  10. Bogoliubov, N. N.; Shirkov, D. V. (1980). Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Fields. Translated by Seweryn Chomet (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  11. L.D.Landau, I.Ya.Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 102, 489 (1955); I.Ya.Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 103, 1005 (1955).
  12. Callaway, D. J. E.; Petronzio, R. (1984). "Monte Carlo renormalization group study of φ field theory". Nuclear Physics B. 240 (4): 577. Bibcode:1984NuPhB.240..577C. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90246-3.
  13. For example, Callaway, D.J.E.; Petronzio, R. (1987). "Is the standard model Higgs mass predictable?". Nuclear Physics B. 292: 497–526. Bibcode:1987NuPhB.292..497C. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90657-2.Heller, Urs; Markus Klomfass; Herbert Neuberger; Pavols Vranas (1993-09-20). "Numerical analysis of the Higgs mass triviality bound". Nuclear Physics B. 405 (2–3): 555–573. arXiv:hep-ph/9303215. Bibcode:1993NuPhB.405..555H. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90559-8. S2CID 7146602., which suggests MH < 710 GeV.
  14. L.P. Kadanoff (1966): "Scaling laws for Ising models near Tc", Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 2, 263.
  15. K.G. Wilson(1975): The renormalization group: critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 4, 773.
  16. L.N.Lipatov, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 72, 411 (1977) .
  17. Suslov, I. M. (2008). "Renormalization group functions of the φ theory in the strong coupling limit: Analytical results". Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. 107 (3): 413–429. arXiv:1010.4081. Bibcode:2008JETP..107..413S. doi:10.1134/S1063776108090094. S2CID 119205490.
  18. Suslov, I. M. (2010). "Asymptotic behavior of the β function in the ϕ theory: A scheme without complex parameters". Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. 111 (3): 450–465. arXiv:1010.4317. Bibcode:2010JETP..111..450S. doi:10.1134/S1063776110090153. S2CID 118545858.
  19. Suslov, I. M. (2009). "Exact asymptotic form for the β function in quantum electrodynamics". Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. 108 (6): 980–984. arXiv:0804.2650. Bibcode:2009JETP..108..980S. doi:10.1134/S1063776109060089. S2CID 7219671.
Categories: