Let us work in dimension $D = 4-2\epsilon$.

In 4-dimension, we can write $\text{Tr}[A B]$, where $A$ and $B$ are string of gamma matrices, as

$\sum_m \text{Tr}[A~\Gamma^m]\text{Tr}[B~\Gamma^m]$, where $\Gamma^m = \{1,\gamma_5,\gamma^\mu,\gamma_5\gamma^\mu,\sigma_{\mu\nu}\}$ are complete set of gamma matrices spanning the dirac space in 4-dim.

As it is well-known, generalizing this to non-integer $D$ dimension causes difficulties since $\gamma_5$ (defined as $\gamma_5= i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3$ in 4-dim.) cannot be well-defined.

One often does not need to work with the explicit form of $\gamma_5$, but uses the two relations to evaluate the trace:



However, in $D$ dimension, the two relations cannot be satisfied simultaneously; and people use different $\gamma_5$-schemes to treat $\gamma_5$ in $D$-dimension.

However, when you evaluate both of the traces $\text{Tr}[A B]$ and $\sum_m \text{Tr}[A~\Gamma^m]\text{Tr}[B~\Gamma^m]$ in $D$-dimension by using different $\gamma_5$-schemes they do not necessarily agree.

As an example,

take $A = (\gamma\cdot p_1)\gamma^\alpha(\gamma\cdot p_2)$ and $B =\gamma^\beta(\gamma\cdot p_1)(\gamma\cdot p_2)$.

Then evaluation of $\sum_m \text{Tr}[A~\Gamma^m]\text{Tr}[B~\Gamma^m]$ requires $\gamma_5$ scheme choice.

Then $\text{Tr}[A B] = -4~(D-2)~(2~(p_1\cdot p_2)^2 - p_1^2~ p_2^2)$

$\left(\sum_m \text{Tr}[A~\Gamma^m]\text{Tr}[B~\Gamma^m]\right)_{\text{t'Hooft-Veltman}} = -4~(D-2)~\left((D-2)~(p_1\cdot p_2)^2 - (D-3)p_1^2~ p_2^2\right)$

$\left(\sum_m \text{Tr}[A~\Gamma^m]\text{Tr}[B~\Gamma^m]\right)_{\text{NDR}} = -4D~(p_1\cdot p_2)^2 + 8p_1^2~ p_2^2$

where 'NDR' is naive dimensional regularization scheme and 't'Hooft-Veltman' is t'Hooft-Veltman-scheme.

All three results agree when $D$ is taken to be 4, but do not agree in $\epsilon$ terms. Is there a way to ensure agreement down to $\epsilon$ piece?


The answer to your question is laid out here:

I have a question though: given that you sound privy to the essence of the issue, do you happen to be the author of one of the above papers?

  • $\begingroup$ Hi, I am not an author of one of these papers, and from what I can tell I do not think these papers address the question I am asking. $\endgroup$ Nov 27 '18 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ The papers tried to look at this DR related issue via a different angle: a regularization staying with the fixed dimension. Since you are familiar with the topic, do you think these papers lead to blind alleys? $\endgroup$
    – MadMax
    Nov 28 '18 at 14:52

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.