Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm revisiting the elementary algorithms of renormalization that are taught in a classroom setting and find that the procedure taught to students is as follows:

  1. Write down the bare Lagrangian: $\mathcal{L}_0$
  2. Renormalize the field strengths: $\phi_0\rightarrow Z^{1/2}\phi_r$
  3. Renormalize coupling constants: e.g. $Z^2\lambda_0\rightarrow Z_\lambda \mu^{2\epsilon}\lambda_R$
  4. For perturbation theory rewrite $Z=1+\delta$, where $\delta$'s are counterterms.

I have thought long and hard about steps 2 and 3 (especially in the context of operator renormalization), and have come to the following conclusions which I would like verified.

In step 3, the renormalization of coupling constants is actually the renormalization of the operator product multiplying the coupling constant. And, in step 2, when they renormalize the field strength, it is not the renormalization of a single operator; they are actually renormalizing another composite operator: the kinetic term $\partial_\mu\phi\,\partial^\mu\phi$. The renormalization of a single operator $\phi$ actually corresponds to tadpoles, the one-point function.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, the source is the kinetic term, so it is the normalization of a composite operator, but it is the same as rescaling $\phi$ by Z, so the use the language of normalizing the field strength. The translation shift of a single operator $\phi$ corresponds to tadpoles, and rescaling $\phi$ is only a translation shift if $\phi$ has a VEV, and then the tadpole formalism is annoying in the region where you need a Maxwell construction. There was a question on tadpoles and effective action which I didn't answer yet, because of the Maxwell construction issue for the effective action. – Ron Maimon Nov 4 '12 at 2:21
Thanks for the answer. And, so like $\phi$, can I expect any composite operator to have a multiplicative and an additive component to its renormalization? that is, $\mathcal{O}\rightarrow Z\mathcal{O}+Y$ ? – QuantumDot Nov 4 '12 at 2:47
Only a multiplicvative one, one constant per monomial. – Arnold Neumaier Nov 19 '12 at 9:57
up vote 1 down vote accepted

In renormalization, one considers a family of Lagrangian densities, with arbitrary factors for each renormalizable monomial in fields and derivatives; in case of symmetries only of the symmetric ones. Thus it is determined by the field and symmetry content only. For perturbation theory, these factors are then written as the renormalized finite term plus the diverging counterterm. The particular way of generating these factors (by scaling fields or coupling constants) is immaterial.

As the regularization scale is sent to infinity, the counterterms are left to diverge in such a way that the renormalization conditions give finite results. The family of renormalized theories is now parameterizied by the parameters used in the renormalization prescription.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.