2
$\begingroup$

Let's have diagrams in QED when we don't use Feynman gauge. Then the bare photon propagator will look like $$ \tag 1 D_{\mu \nu}(p) = -\frac{g_{\mu \nu} - \frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^{2}}}{p^{2} + i\varepsilon }. $$ How to modify it for regularization of infrared divergences? I.e.,

  1. If I want to modify it by setting nonzero photon mass, have I add $-\mu^{2}$ term only to the general denominator of $(1)$, or I also need to add it into the denominator of longitudinal part, $\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^{2}} \to \frac{p_{\mu} p_{\nu}}{p^{2} - \mu^{2}}$? The question have arisen after reading paragraph in Itzykson and Zuber QFT (chapter 7.1.2, "Electron propagator"); before reading I thought that I need to modify only the general denominator, but the expression for one-loop correction to electron propagator says (as it seems to me) that I was wrong.

  2. What methods of infrared divergences regularization exist except the method from p.1? Especially I want to know about gauge-invariant methods. Can dimensional regularization deal with infrared divergences?

  3. May I combine ultraviolet divergences regularization (like dimensional regularization (if answer on previous question about it is negative) or Pauli-Villars regularization) and infrared divergences regularization for the same calculations?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$
  1. It shouldn't matter: all methods of regularization are equally applicable if they have a correct limit at $\mu \rightarrow 0$. It is like asking whether we should keep the $(2\pi)^4$ in dimensional regularization or promote it to $(2\pi)^n$. Doesn't matter. All physical results are the same.

  2. Again, every method which makes the integral converge at finite $\epsilon$ and has a correct limit at $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is good to go. Yes, you can use dimensional regularization.

  3. Yes and no. You can use the regularizations, but the divergences cancel when adding different diagrams.

Check out this great lecture notes on IR divergencies in QED

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! But I have one question which is connected with your answer on my second question: why, for example, calculations of 1-loop self-energy of electron lead to infinities even after usage of dimensional regularization? I thought that dimensional regularization helps to avoid IR divergences as well as UV ones. $\endgroup$
    – user8817
    Nov 2, 2014 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ UV and IR divergencies have different physical meanings. As far as UV-divs are concerned, we just have to renormalize our fields and parameters in the Lagrangian to ensure that the renormalization conditions hold. IR-divs reflect our (incorrect) analysis of the physical process: there is always a possibility of a very-low-energy photon "leaking" through all out equipment unnoticed. Its when we are adding this two diagrams when IR-divs cancel. You can use dimensional regularization, or fake photon mass regularization, but only to help you with intermediate calculations. $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2014 at 13:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you can regularize IR-s in pretty much any way you want, but you wont be able to take off the cut-off until you take into account the possibility of this low-energy photon leaking (your particle detectors aren't perfect). Check out this youtube video (not kidding) youtube.com/watch?v=NZkX0uT8gtM $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2014 at 13:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.