1
$\begingroup$

In section 11.4 of Peskin & Schroeder's "Introduction to Quantum Field Theory", the authors calculate the effective potential of the linear sigma model to one-loop order:

$$\begin{align*} V_{\text{eff}}(\phi_0)&=-\frac 1 2 \mu^2\phi_0^2 + \frac \lambda 6 \phi_0^4 \\ &\hspace{1cm}-\underset{\text{divergent term}}{\underbrace{\frac{\Gamma(-d/2)}{2(4\pi)^{d/2}}\left[(N-1)(\lambda\phi_o^2-\mu^2)^{d/2}+(3\lambda\phi_0^2-\mu^2)^{d/2}\right]}}\\ &\hspace{1cm}+\frac 1 2 \delta_{\mu}\phi_0^2 + \frac 1 6 \delta_{\lambda}\phi_0^4 \tag{11.84} \end{align*}$$

where $d$ is the spacetime dimension and $\delta_{\mu,\lambda}$ are counterterms, and $\phi_0^2\equiv \sum_i \phi_{i,0}^2$ is the minimum energy field configuration (constant in spacetime). This expression is divergent for $d=0,2,4$, since the gamma-function has a pole at those values. The authors say the following:

Thus, Eq. (11.84) becomes a finite expression in the limit $d\rightarrow 2$ if we set $$\delta_{\mu}=-\lambda (N+2) \frac{\Gamma \left(1-\frac d 2 \right)} {(4\pi)} + \text{finite.}$$

But I do not think this is true. When I evaluate the divergent term in Eq. (11.84) above in the limit $d\rightarrow 2$ and keep the divergent terms unevaluated, I get:

$$\begin{align} \frac{\Gamma(-d/2)}{2(4\pi)}\left[(N-1)(\lambda\phi_o^2-\mu^2)+(3\lambda\phi_0^2-\mu^2)\right]&=\frac{\Gamma(1-d/2)}{(-\frac d 2 )2(4\pi)}\left[(N+2)\lambda\phi_o^2- N\mu^2\right]\\ &=-\frac{\Gamma(1-d/2)}{(4\pi)}[\underset{\color{green}{\text{[A]}}}{\underbrace{(N+2)\lambda\phi_o^2}}- \underset{\color{red}{\text{[B]}}}{\underbrace{N\mu^2}}] \end{align}$$

[Question] You can see that $\color{green}{\text{[A]}}$ is the term the author cites/cancels, but what about term $\color{red}{\text{[B]}}$? That still contributes to the overall divergence.

[2$^{\text{nd}}$ Question] Note also that if we simply cancel that "additional" divergence with, say, $\delta_{\mu}$, then the counterterm will actually depend on $\phi_0^2$. Is this an issue?

And by the way, nowhere in that section does the author take the limit/case $\mu^2\rightarrow 0$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Since the term proportional to $\mu^2$ is constant in the fields, it is irrelevant in the effective potential because it is a rigid constant shift of the potential itself.

The fact that this term actually diverges is no issue - it can be reabsorbed in the normalization of the path integral, for instance. It would be relevant only in coupling the theory to gravity, but here that is not the case.

$\endgroup$

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.