3
$\begingroup$

Let us consider the vacuum energy of a scalar field in $d+1$-dimensional spacetime. We have the integral $$I=\int\frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{E_k}{2},$$ where $E_k=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}$ and $k$ is a $d$-dimensional vector. Now this integral is apparently divergent. We will employ the dimensional regularzation. We have a useful formula (see arXiv:1701.01554 , page 20) $$\Phi(m,d,A)=\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^A}=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}\frac{\Gamma(A-d/2)}{\Gamma(A)}\frac{1}{(m^2)^{A-d/2}}.$$

If we consider a 4-dimensional spacetime, then we take $d=3-2\epsilon$ and the integral has a contribution proportional to $1/\epsilon$ which comes from $\Gamma(-1/2-3/2+\epsilon)=\Gamma(-2+\epsilon)$, indicating the divergence for $d=3$. Now, if we take $d=4-2\epsilon$, we have $$\Gamma(-5/2+\epsilon)=\frac{\Gamma(1/2+\epsilon)}{(-5/2+\epsilon)(-3/2+\epsilon)(-1/2+\epsilon)}=\frac{\Gamma(1/2)+\Gamma(1/2)'\epsilon}{(-5/2+\epsilon)(-3/2+\epsilon)(-1/2+\epsilon)}.$$ The above expression, however, has no pole for $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. Why isn't the integral divergent? Shouldn't one expect worse behavior for convergence with larger $d$? Is there anything wrong with the above mathematics or a physical reason to explain it?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the formula for $\Phi$ is only valid for $A > d/2$, so I dont think that you can regularize $I$ with dimensional regularization... $\endgroup$
    – jkb1603
    Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ Edit: One could view it as an analytical contiuation of $\Phi$ to $A-d/2 < 0$ (the $\Gamma$ function is finite for negative non-integers) but then the integral would not be equal to this expression in the same sense. $\endgroup$
    – jkb1603
    Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ @lomby Thank you very much for your comment. However, the formula for $\Phi$ was used for $A=-1/2$, $d=3-2\epsilon$ in arxiv.org/abs/1701.01554. See page 20. $\endgroup$
    – Wein Eld
    Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I think that as explained that it is meant in the sense that you analytically continue the result to "non-allowed" values of $A,d$ to in this way obtain a "regularized" expression with which you can calculate further (for example this divergence could be cancelled by a counterterm-type contribution). But of course the integral $I$ is truly divergent of course for any integer $d$ for the usual Lebesgue integral... $\endgroup$
    – jkb1603
    Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ ....I guess it is similar to the statement $1+2+3+... = -1/12$, which is of course not true in the usual mathematical sense, but it is still useful e.g. in String theory or for the description of the Casimir effect (see e.g. Schwartz QFT section 15.1). $\endgroup$
    – jkb1603
    Commented Sep 1, 2020 at 16:07

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The fact that the dimensionally-regularized integral does not have a divergent part in 4+1 dimensions is not a problem. In general, one expects that if you use an arbitrary UV regulator $\Lambda$, that the integral will have the form $$ I = \left(\#\right) \Lambda^{d+1} + \mathrm{finite} $$ where $\left(\#\right)$ is some constant which depends on your regulator. It happens that this constant turns out to be zero in dimensional regularization sometimes. If anything, this is useful! You don't need counter-terms in this case.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Dimensional regularization (DimReg) is insensitive to odd divergences. DimReg replaces every even divergence by $1/\epsilon$, but it does give any info about odd divergences. Consider more general integral, $$\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{k^{2n}}{(k^2+m^2)^A}\rightarrow I=\int_{0}^{\infty}dk\frac{k^{d-1}k^{2n}}{(k^2+m^2)^A}.$$ It is clear that in IR everything is OK and divergence comes from UV region. In UV, we can write $$I\sim\int_{0}^{\infty}dk\,k^{d-1+2n-2A},$$ where $\sim$ means that now we are interested only in divergence. Statement: for even divergences, this integral can be regularized with help of DimReg, whereas in case any of odd divergence one should be more accurate and consider PDS (power divergence substraction) or just use regularization with hard cut-off.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

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