Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

What are renormalons from a physics point of view?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
2171 views

This is again a question in the context of this paper about the Exact Renormalization Group. On p 23 and the following few pages, it is explained that for a $\lambda \phi^4$ bare action at the bare scale $\Lambda_0$, after integrating out degrees of freedom and assuming a small coupling $\lambda$, the effective action at the larger scale $\Lambda$ can be written as the sum of a perturbative series plus nonperturbative power corrections (Eq. 2.6)

$$ S_{\Lambda,\Lambda_0}[\phi] = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{\infty}\lambda^{i-1}S_i[\phi] +O(\Lambda/\Lambda_0) $$

Naively taking $\Lambda_0 \rightarrow \infty$ makes the second part disappear and leaves the first part which is self-similar which means that the theory is renormalizable. However, as stated in the paper, UV renormalons can make the perturbation series ambiguous, such that the power corrections and therefore the bare scale can not be removed and the theory would then not be renormalizable.

The issue is explained by the mathematical argument that in order to obtain a unique finite value for the perturbative series, one makes use of the so-called Borel transformation to define a function which has the same power series expansion defined as an integral in the complex Borel plane. This integral exists only of there are no poles on the real axis, otherwise the contour of integration around these poles can be deformed which makes the integral and the function defined by it ambiguous. If this is the case, the power correction terms have to be kept to restore the uniqueness of the integral which means that the bare scale can not be removed.

In the paper it is said, that the poles on the real axis are for example due to UV renormalons, that arise from large loop momenta in certain Feynman diagrams.

My question now is:

What are these renormalons from a physics point of view? How do they enter the Lagrangian of the theory? Are they some kind of unphysical auxilliary fields that appear in the mentioned Feynman diagrams? And what do the Feynman diagrams that contain them look like?

asked Jul 10, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Dilaton (4,175 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Mar 9, 2014
Have you done a Google search first? Within a minute, I found a Wiki and a paper with section 3 on renormalons from Feynman diagrams.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 16:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Larry Harson
@LarryHarson thanks for the paper, why dont you post an answer and explain it a little bit?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 16:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
I wish I could, but I'm not competent enough to explain any part of it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 16:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Larry Harson

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

Larry Harson is right; you should read Beneke's Physics Report. But I think I can make your reading easier by clearing up a misconception:

The name 'renormalon' is a bit misleading. Renormalons (like instantons) aren't real physical things. They don't appear in the Lagrangian, and they don't correspond to any physical state. They are not auxiliary fields. What they are is divergences that show up when you use a particular approximation scheme. You could say, I suppose that the renormalons are the field configurations which lead to the divergences, but that's not quite the right spirit. If you do pure non-perturbative calcuations, you never see renormalons. They're an artefact of the perturbative approach.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 16:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
answered Jul 11, 2013 by user1504 (1,100 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks for these clarifications, they are very helpful since the term renormalon mislead me indeed ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 16:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...