Misplaced Pages

Landau pole

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phys (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 28 December 2004 (cat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:24, 28 December 2004 by Phys (talk | contribs) (cat)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In physics, Landau pole is the energy scale (or the precise value of the energy) where a coupling constant (the strength of an interaction) of a quantum field theory becomes infinite. Such a possibility was pointed out by the eminent Russian physicist Lev Davidovich Landau. The dependence of coupling constants on the energy scale is one of the basic ideas behind the renormalization group.

Theories with asymptotic freedom 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 quantum electrodynamics (QED) or a scalar field with a quartic interaction. The coupling constant grows with energy, and at some energy scale the growth becomes infinite and the coupling constant itself diverges.

Landau poles at high energy are viewed as problems; more precisely, they are evidence that the theory (e.g. QED) is not well-defined nonperturbatively. The Landau pole of QED is removed if QED is embedded into a Grand Unified Theory or an even more powerful framework such as superstring theory.

An equation

Everything started in the 1950s when Landau decided to understand the relation between the bare electric charge e {\displaystyle e} and the renormalized electric charge e R {\displaystyle e_{R}} . He found the following equation:

1 e R 2 1 e 2 = N f 6 π 2 ln Λ m R {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{e_{R}^{2}}}-{\frac {1}{e^{2}}}={\frac {N_{f}}{6\pi ^{2}}}\ln {\frac {\Lambda }{m_{R}}}}

This equation needs to be explained:

  • e {\displaystyle e} is the value of the electric charge that we naively insert to the Lagrangian, but it turns out that this number is actually not a constant, but rather an energy-dependent quantity
  • e R {\displaystyle e_{R}} is the actual renormalized, 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 e {\displaystyle e}
  • N f {\displaystyle N_{f}} is the number of flavors; for "staggered" fermions we substitute N f = 4 {\displaystyle N_{f}=4}
  • Λ {\displaystyle \Lambda } is the momentum cutoff i.e. the maximal value of the momentum that we allow to be taken into account
  • m R {\displaystyle m_{R}} is the renormalized electron mass

The right-hand side can be calculated from loops in Feynman diagrams (namely one-loop Feynman diagrams), i.e. as a contribution of quantum mechanics. It has a logarithmic form because the integral happens to be logarithmically divergent. Note that the equation has two obvious implications:

  • If the bare charge e {\displaystyle e} is kept fixed, the theory (QED) has a trivial continuum ( Λ {\displaystyle \Lambda \to \infty } ) limit, namely e R 0 {\displaystyle e_{R}\to 0}
  • When the renormalized charge e R {\displaystyle e_{R}} is kept fixed, the bare charge becomes singular (infinite) at
Λ L a n d a u = m R exp ( 6 π 2 / N f e R 2 ) {\displaystyle \Lambda _{\mathrm {Landau} }=m_{R}\exp(6\pi ^{2}/N_{f}e_{R}^{2})} .

The latter singularity is the Landau pole. It does not affect the phenomenological success of perturbative calculations in QED because for all practical purposes, the cutoff Λ {\displaystyle \Lambda } can be chosen much smaller than the huge scale Λ L a n d a u {\displaystyle \Lambda _{\mathrm {Landau} }} , comparable to the Planck scale, 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.

Category: