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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,847 answers , 20,601 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

What is meant by the phrase "this operator does not renormalize this other operator", and how can one understand it using diagrammatic arguments?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
638 views

I am trying to understand some sentences in a paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7151v2.pdf. In section two  the following theory of a (complex) massless scalar coupled to a $U(1)$ gauge boson is introduced
$$\cal{L}_4=-|D_{\mu}\phi|^2-\lambda_{\phi}|\phi|^4-\frac{1}{4g^2}F_{\mu\nu}^2\qquad{}\cal{L}_6=\frac{1}{\Lambda^2}[c_rO_r+c_6O_6+c_{FF}O_{FF}]$$
where $\Lambda$ is an energy scale suppresing the dimension 6 operators and
$$\cal{O}_r=|\phi|^2|D_{\mu}\phi|^2\qquad{}O_6=|\phi|^6\qquad{}O_{FF}=|\phi|^2F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$$
What I want to understand is what is meant in the last paragraph of the same page 

>"Many of the one-loop non-renormalization results that we discuss can be understood from arguments based on the Lorentz structure of the vertices involved. Take for instance thenon-renormalization of $\cal{O}_{FF}$ by $\cal{O}_R$."

my first question is, what is exactly meant when they say that an operator doesn't renormalize the other? ( I somehow suspect this has something to do with the renormalization group but since my knowledge on this matter is very recent I would like as explicit an explanation as possible)

the paragraph continues

>"Integrating by parts and using the EOM, we can eliminate $\cal{O}_r$ in favor of $\cal{O}'_r=(\phi{}D_{\mu}\phi^*)^2+h.c..$ Now it is apparent that $\cal{O}'_r$ cannot renormalize $\cal{O}_{FF}$ because either $\phi{}D_{\mu}\phi^*$ or $\phi^*{}D_{\mu}\phi$ is external in all one-loop diagrams, and these Lorentz structures cannot be completed to form $\cal{O}_{FF}$."

This whole part confuses me. I want to know how do these diagrammatic arguments arise in this context and how can I learn to use them (it would be nice also if someone pointed out which are "all one-loop diagrams" that are mentioned").

asked May 19, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Dmitry hand me the Kalashnikov (720 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 20, 2015 by Dmitry hand me the Kalashnikov

This paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01844, is more worthy of study on these issues.

The paper cited in the comment of anonymous cites the paper in the OP with the comment "Interestingly, the superfield formalism offers an enlightening albeit partial explanation of these cancellations [16]".

The complete reference to the previous work is in fact this:

"Interestingly, the superfield formalism offers an enlightening albeit partial explanation of these cancellations [16] as well as analogous effects in chiral perturbation theory [17]. These results are clearly connected to our own via the well-known “effective” supersymmetry of tree-level QCD [18], and so merits further study."

As Savas Dimopoulos likes to say: "don't be a hater".

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. --

--Richard P. Feynman
 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01844  has the title "Non-renormalization Theorems without Supersymmetry"

Precisely so: cancellations without supersymmetric spectrum. That's the point. And still supersymmetry helps your understanding, same way it helped with spinor-helicity cancellations in non-supersymmetric QCD. Facts, not PR.

Certainly there is no PR here. None whatsoever.

Another point of view is that supersymmetry supplies a way to misunderstand the actual physics at work quite profoundly.

Here is another fact. A relevant one. The word "helicity" never appears in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7151.pdf.

Answers turned into comments since they dont answer the question.

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$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flow
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
...