1
$\begingroup$

Consider the Lagrangian of $\phi^4$ theory in 4-dimensions $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2-\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4\tag{1}$$ For a term in the Lagrangian of the form $C_{m,n}\phi^n(\partial_\mu\phi)^m$, the corresponding coefficient in 4-dimensions scales as $$C^\prime_{n,m}=b^{n+m-4}C_{n,m}\tag{2}.$$ For a reference, see Eq. 12.27, page 402 of Peskin and Schroeder.

The Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ in Eqn.(1), contains all relevant and marginal operators except $$\phi^2(\partial_\mu\phi)^2, \phi(\partial_\mu\phi)^3,\phi^3(\partial_\mu\phi),(\partial_\mu\phi)^4,\phi^3.\tag{3}$$ Even if we exclude the $\phi^3$ terms by demanding a symmetry under $\phi\to-\phi$, or by demanding the Hamiltonian to be bounded from below, one is still left with the other 4 possibilities.

If $\phi^4$ theory is regarded as a low-energy effective theory, I do not understand why the first 4 terms in (3) are they not considered? Is it just for simplicity?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ all the terms in $(3)$ are irrelevant (except for the last one, $\phi^3$). $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 29 '17 at 19:02
3
$\begingroup$

your power-counting is not correct. In $d=4$ a gradient $\partial_{\mu}$ counts like a field $\phi$. So for instance you should have $C_{m,n}'=b^{n+2m-4}C_{m,n}$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I used Peskin's formula 12.27 for $d=4$. Is that wrong there? $\endgroup$ – SRS May 29 '17 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ you misread the formula which has a number of fields $N$ and of derivatives $M$. In your monomials $N=n+m$ and $M=m$. $\endgroup$ – Abdelmalek Abdesselam May 29 '17 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ Okay. Now I understand. :-) $\endgroup$ – SRS May 29 '17 at 19:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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