|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Main|Quantum triviality}}
| | Hi there, I am Adrianne and I totally absolutely love that name. I am a people manager on the other hand soon I'll be on my own. Gardening is what I do every week. Guam has always been my house. See what's new on my website here: http://circuspartypanama.com<br><br>My webpage :: [http://circuspartypanama.com clash of clans hack no survey mac] |
| | |
| In [[physics]], the '''Landau pole''' or the '''Moscow zero''' is the [[energy scale|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.<ref>[[Lev Landau]], in {{cite book|title=Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics|editor=[[Wolfgang Pauli]]|publisher=Pergamon Press|year=1955|location=London}}</ref>
| |
| The fact that coupling constants depend on the momentum (or length) scale is one of the basic ideas behind the [[renormalization group]].
| |
| | |
| Landau poles appear in theories that are not [[asymptotic freedom|asymptotically free]], such as [[quantum electrodynamics]] (QED) or {{mvar|φ}} <sup>4</sup> theory—a [[scalar field]] with a [[quartic function|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 constant becomes infinite at a finite energy scale. In a theory intended 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 calculated using [[perturbation theory (quantum mechanics)|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. [[Lattice field 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 seems to confirm Landau's conclusion that QED charge is completely screened for an infinite cutoff.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Göckeler|first=M.|coauthors=R. Horsley, V. Linke, P. Rakow, G. Schierholz, and H. Stüben|year=1998|title=Is There a Landau Pole Problem in QED?|journal=[[Physical Review Letters]]|volume=80|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4119|url=http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4119|pages=4119–4122|bibcode=1998PhRvL..80.4119G|arxiv = hep-th/9712244|issue=19 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kim|first=S.|coauthors=John B. Kogut and Lombardo Maria Paola|date=2002-01-31|journal=[[Physical Review D]]|doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054015|url=http://link.aps.org/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|title=Renormalization Flow of QED|journal=[[Physical Review Letters]]|date=2004-09-09|volume=93|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.110405|url=http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.110405|page=110405|bibcode=2004PhRvL..93k0405G|arxiv = hep-ph/0405183|issue=11 }}</ref>
| |
| ==Brief history==
| |
| | |
| According to Landau, [[Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov|Abrikosov]], [[Isaak Markovich Khalatnikov|Khalatnikov]],<ref>L. D. Landau, A. A. Abrikosov, and I. M. Khalatnikov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 95, 497, 773, 1177 (1954).
| |
| </ref> the relation of the observable charge {{mvar|g}}<sub>obs</sub>
| |
| with the “bare” charge {{mvar|g}}<sub>0 </sub> for renormalizable field theories is given by expression
| |
| | |
| : <math> g_{obs}=\frac{g_0}{1+\beta_2 g_0 \ln \Lambda/m} \,, \qquad \qquad\qquad (1) </math>
| |
| | |
| where {{mvar|m}} is the mass of the particle, and {{mvar|Λ}} is the momentum cut-off. For finite {{mvar|g}}<sub>0 </sub> and {{math|''Λ'' → ∞ }}
| |
| the observed charge {{mvar|g}}<sub>obs</sub> tends to zero and the theory looks trivial.
| |
| In fact, the proper interpretation of Eq.1 consists in its inversion, so that {{mvar|g}}<sub>0 </sub> (related to the length scale <math> \Lambda^{-1}) </math> is chosen to give a correct value of {{mvar|g}}<sub>obs</sub>:
| |
| | |
| : <math> g_0=\frac{g_{obs}}{1-\beta_2 g_{obs} \ln \Lambda/m}\,. \qquad\qquad\qquad (2) </math>
| |
| | |
| As {{mvar|Λ}} grows, the bare charge {{math| ''g''<sub>0</sub> {{=}} ''g(Λ)''}} increases, to diverge at the renormalization point
| |
| | |
| : <math> \Lambda_{Landau} = m \exp\left\{ \frac{1}{\beta_2 g_{obs}} \right\} \, .
| |
| \qquad\qquad\qquad (3) </math>
| |
| 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>)) }}.
| |
| | |
| In fact, however, the growth of {{math| ''g''<sub>0</sub>}} invalidates Eqs.1,2 in the region {{math| ''g''<sub>0</sub>≈1}}, since these were obtained for {{math| ''g''<sub>0</sub>≪ 1}}, so that the exact reality of the Landau pole becomes doubtful.
| |
| | |
| The actual behavior of the charge <math> g(\mu) </math> as a function of the
| |
| momentum scale <math> \mu </math> is determined by the [[Murray Gell-Mann|Gell-Mann]]–[[Francis E. Low|Low]] equation<ref>{{cite journal|last1=[[Murray Gell-Mann|Gell-Mann]]|first1=M.|last2=Low|first2=F. E.|year=1954|journal=[[Physical Review]]|title=Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances|volume=95|doi=10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300|url=http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300|pages=1300–1320|bibcode = 1954PhRv...95.1300G|issue=5 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| : <math> \frac{dg}{d \ln \mu} =\beta(g)=\beta_2 g^2+\beta_3 g^3+\ldots \qquad\qquad\qquad (4) </math>
| |
| | |
| which gives Eqs.1,2 if it is integrated under conditions <math> g(\mu)=g_{obs} </math>
| |
| for <math> \mu=m </math> and <math> g(\mu)=g_0 </math> for
| |
| <math> \mu=\Lambda </math>, when only the term with <math> \beta_2 </math> is
| |
| retained in the right hand side. The general behavior of <math> g(\mu) </math> depends on the appearance of the function <math> \beta(g) </math> .
| |
| | |
| According to the standard classification,<ref>N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov, Introduction to the
| |
| Theory of Quantized Fields, 3rd ed. (Nauka, Moscow, 1976; Wiley, New York, 1980).
| |
| </ref> there are three qualitatively different cases:
| |
| | |
| (a) if <math> \beta(g) </math> has a zero at the finite value <math> g* </math>, then growth of <math> g </math> is saturated, i.e. <math> g(\mu)\to g* </math> for
| |
| <math> \mu\to\infty </math> ;
| |
| | |
| (b) if <math> \beta(g) </math> is non-alternating and behaves as
| |
| <math> \beta(g) \propto g^\alpha </math> with <math> \alpha\le 1 </math>
| |
| for large <math> g </math>, then the growth of <math> g(\mu) </math> continues to infinity;
| |
| | |
| (c) if <math> \beta(g) \propto g^\alpha </math> with <math> \alpha>1 </math> for large
| |
| <math> g</math>, then <math> g(\mu) </math> is divergent at finite value <math> \mu_0 </math> and the real Landau pole arises: the theory is internally inconsistent due to
| |
| indeterminacy of <math> g(\mu) </math> for <math> \mu>\mu_0 </math> .
| |
| | |
| Landau and [[Isaak Pomeranchuk|Pomeranchuk]] <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> \phi^4 </math> theory. They have noted that the growth of <math> g_0 </math> in Eq.1 drives the observable charge
| |
| <math> g_{obs} </math>
| |
| to the constant limit, which does not depend on <math> g_0 </math> . 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_0\ll 1 </math>, it is all the more
| |
| valid for <math> g_0 </math> of the order or greater than unity : it gives a reason to consider Eq.1 to be valid for arbitrary <math> g_0 </math> .
| |
| Validity of these considerations on the quantitative level is
| |
| excluded by non-quadratic form of the <math> \beta </math>-function.
| |
| Nevertheless, they can be correct qualitatively.
| |
| Indeed, the result <math> g_{obs} =const(g_0) </math> can be obtained
| |
| from the functional integrals only for
| |
| <math> g_0\gg 1 </math>, while its validity for <math> g_0\ll 1 </math>, based on Eq.1, may be related with other reasons; for <math> g_0\approx 1 </math>
| |
| 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 method|Monte Carlo]] results <ref>B.Freedman, P.Smolensky, D.Weingarten,
| |
| Phys. Lett. B 113, 481 (1982).</ref>
| |
| seems to confirm the qualitative validity of the Landau–Pomeranchuk arguments, though 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 <math> g_{obs} </math> is finite, the theory is internally inconsistent. The only way to avoid it, is to tend <math> \mu_0 </math> to infinity, which is possible only for <math> g_{obs}\to 0 </math> .
| |
| It is a widespread belief that both QED and {{mvar|φ}} <sup>4</sup> theory are trivial in the continuum limit. In fact, available information
| |
| confirms only “Wilson triviality”, which just amounts to positivity of {{math|''β(g)''}} for {{math|''g''≠0}} and can be considered as firmly established. Indications of “true” quantum triviality are not numerous and allow different interpretations.
| |
| | |
| == 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, and the Landau pole could be a sign of new physics entering via its 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 pure academic interest. The role of <math> g_{obs} </math>
| |
| in Eqs.1,2 is played by the [[fine structure constant]] α ≈ 1/137 and the Landau scale for QED is estimated as 10<sup>283</sup>keV/''c''<sup>2</sup>, 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<sup>13</sup> eV, while the [[Planck scale]], at which [[quantum gravity]] becomes important and the relevance of [[quantum field theory]] itself may be questioned, is only 10<sup>28</sup> eV.
| |
| | |
| The [[Higgs boson]] in the [[Standard Model]] of [[particle physics]] is described by <math> \phi^4 </math> theory. If the latter has a Landau pole, then this fact is used in setting a "triviality bound" on the Higgs mass.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gunion|first1=J.|coauthors=H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson|title=The Higgs Hunters Guide|publisher=Addison-Wesley|year=1990}}</ref> 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. Lattice calculations have also been useful in this context.<ref>For example, {{cite journal|last=Heller|first=Urs|coauthors=Markus Klomfass, Herbert Neuberger, and Pavols Vranas|date=1993-09-20|journal=[[Nuclear Physics B]]|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 ''M<sub>H</sub>'' < 710 GeV.</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Recent developments ==
| |
| | |
| Solution of the Landau pole problem requires calculation of the Gell-Mann–Low function <math> \beta(g) </math> at arbitrary <math> g </math> and, in particular, its asymptotic
| |
| behavior for <math> g\to\infty </math> . This problem is very difficult and
| |
| was considered as hopeless for many years: by diagrammatic calculations one can obtain only few expansion coefficients <math> \beta_2, \beta_3,\ldots </math>, which do not allow to investigate the <math> \beta </math> function in the whole. The progress became possible
| |
| after development of the [[Lev Lipatov|Lipatov]] method for calculation of large orders
| |
| of perturbation theory:<ref>L.N.Lipatov, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 72, 411
| |
| (1977) [Sov.Phys. JETP 45, 216 (1977)].</ref> now one can try to interpolate the known
| |
| coefficients <math> \beta_2, \beta_3,\ldots </math> with their large order behavior and
| |
| to sum the perturbation series. The first attempts of reconstruction of the
| |
| <math> \beta </math> function witnessed on triviality of <math> \phi^4 </math> theory. Application of more advanced summation methods gave the exponent
| |
| <math> \alpha </math> in the asymptotic behavior <math> \beta(g) \propto g^\alpha </math> a value close to unity. The hypothesis for the asymptotics <math> \beta(g) \propto g </math> was recently confirmed analytically for <math> \phi^4 </math> theory and QED
| |
| <ref>I. M. Suslov, JETP 107, 413 (2008); JETP 111, 450 (2010); http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4081, http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4317.
| |
| </ref>
| |
| .<ref>I. M. Suslov, JETP 108, 980 (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2650.
| |
| </ref>
| |
| Together with positiveness of <math>\beta(g) </math>, obtained by summation of series, it gives the case (b) of the Bogoliubov and Shirkov classification, and hence the Landau pole is absent in these theories. Possibility of omitting the quadratic terms in the action suggested by Landau and Pomeranchuk is not confirmed.
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| <references/>
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Landau Pole}}
| |
| [[Category:Quantum field theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Renormalization group]]
| |