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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,761 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
506 active unimported users
More ...

O(N) sigma model at large N

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
1404 views

I would like to better understand the main principles of large-N expansion in quantum field theory. To this end I decided to consider simple toy-model with lagrangian (from Wikipedia)

$ \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu} \phi_a)^2-\frac{m^2}{2}\phi_a^2 - \frac{\lambda}{8N}(\phi_a \, \phi_a)^2 $

My aim was to renormalize this theory in all orders of perturbation theory in leading order of $\frac{1}{N}$. The calculation of counterterms in two loops in leading order of $\frac{1}{N}$ almost coincides with the corresponding calculation in $\phi^4$ theory. In leading order of $1/N$ the counterterms are (using MS-scheme):

1 Loop:

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^4}^{1} = -\lambda^2 \mu^{2\epsilon} \frac{1}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon} \frac{(\phi_a \, \phi_a)^2}{8N}$

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^2}^{1} = - \frac{\lambda}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon} \frac{m^2 \phi_a^2}{2}$

2 Loops:

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^4}^{1} = -\lambda^3 \mu^{2\epsilon} (\frac{1}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon})^2 \frac{(\phi_a \, \phi_a)^2}{8N}$

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^2}^{1} = - (\frac{\lambda}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon})^2 \frac{m^2 \phi_a^2}{2}$

I am quite sure (though I haven't proven it properly yet) that in $n$ loops the leading contribution to counterterms comes from a chain of "fish" diagrams for 4-point Green's function and chain of bubbles for 2-point Green's function (I think, it's quite easy to imagine):

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^4}^{1} = -\lambda^{n+1} \mu^{2\epsilon} (\frac{1}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon})^n \frac{(\phi_a \, \phi_a)^2}{8N}+O(\frac{1}{N})$

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^2}^{1} = - (\frac{\lambda}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon})^n \frac{m^2 \phi_a^2}{2}+O(\frac{1}{N})$

If this speculation is correct, the summation of perturbation series is quite trivial (we have geometric series). When we do it and then take limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ we will find that

$\Delta \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{\phi^2} = \frac{m^2 \phi_a^2}{2}$

$\Delta \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{\phi^4} = \frac{(\phi_a \phi_a)^2}{8N}$

and hence the total lagrangian is simply (in the leading order of $1/N$).

$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu} \phi_a)^2$

This result seems to me highly suspicious... Did anybody do similar calculation? I looked all over the Internet and didn't find anything :( I will be very grateful for remarks and links to books or may be articles where similar problem is considered.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-07 10:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user user43283
asked Jul 6, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user43283 (45 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Jul 7, 2014
I have never done explicit renormalization in a large N expansion, so I can't speak with authority, but the leading-order term in the $\frac{1}{N}$-expansion alone is frequently a bad approximation to the full theory, so "suspicious" results for it are nothing to worry too much about.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-07 10:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
@ACuriousMind: But if $N$ is large then it should still be a good approximation?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-07 10:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user JeffDror

2 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

This model was studied using RG and the epsilon-expansion (not at large N) by Wilson and Fisher. It shows interesting behaviour as a function of $d$. For d>4, the RG fixed point is the Gaussian one while for d<4, there is a new fixed point that is called the Wilson-Fisher fixed point. For N=1, it flows to the CFT associated with the Ising model at criticality. See here.

There is a brief and incomplete discussion on the large-N limit of the $O(N)$ model in the Erice lectures on large $N$ by Sidney Coleman that is reproduced in his book "Aspects of Symmetry".

answered Jul 8, 2014 by suresh (1,535 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jul 8, 2014 by suresh
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

I think that the derivation of the counterterms at n loops in the leading order in $1/N$ is essentially correct but I don't understand the result mentioned in the question for the resumation and the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.

If 

$\Delta \mathcal{L}_{\phi^4}^{1} = -\lambda^{n+1} \mu^{2\epsilon} (\frac{1}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon})^n \frac{(\phi_a \, \phi_a)^2}{8N}+O(\frac{1}{N})$

then the sumation over n is indeed quite trivial (geometric serie) and one finds

$\Delta \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{\phi^4} = -\frac{\lambda}{8N}(\phi^2)^2 \frac{1}{1 - \frac{\lambda}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon}} \mu^{2 \epsilon}$

which is non-trivial. In particular, the $\epsilon$ independant part is 

$- \frac{\lambda}{8N} (\phi^2)^2 \frac{1}{1- \frac{\lambda}{16 \pi^2}log(\mu/m)}$

which is a rather expected form (it is what we find when we resolve the renormalization group equation with a beta function computed at one loop, which as the effect of resum the logarithm coming from the one loop computation, and indeed at the leading order in $1/N$, the Feynman diagrams that remain are the chains of one-loops diagrams).

answered Jul 8, 2014 by 40227 (4,690 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jul 8, 2014 by 40227

@40227:  Thank you very much for your answer. The only thing I didn't get is how did you get  \(\epsilon\)-independent part of this expression:\(\Delta \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{\phi^4} = -\frac{\lambda}{8N}(\phi^2)^2 \frac{1}{1-\frac{\lambda}{32 \pi^2 \epsilon}} \mu^{2\epsilon} \)

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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
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
...