2
$\begingroup$

On Peskin & Schroeder's QFT pages 353-355, the book uses the Linear sigma model to illustrate the renormalization and symmetry.

We can write the Lagrangian of Linear sigma model with

$$ \begin{aligned} & \mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_\mu \phi^i\right)^2+\frac{1}{2} \mu^2\left(\phi^i\right)^2-\frac{\lambda}{4}\left[\left(\phi^i\right)^2\right]^2 \\ &+\frac{1}{2} \delta_Z\left(\partial_\mu \phi^i\right)^2-\frac{1}{2} \delta_\mu\left(\phi^i\right)^2-\frac{\delta_\lambda}{4}\left[\left(\phi^i\right)^2\right]^2 . \end{aligned} \tag{11.14} $$ Written in term of $\pi$ and $\sigma$ fields, the second line take the form $$ \begin{aligned} \frac{\delta_Z}{2}\left(\partial_\mu \pi^k\right)^2 & -\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_\mu+\delta_\lambda v^2\right)\left(\pi^k\right)^2+\frac{\delta_Z}{2}\left(\partial_\mu \sigma\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_\mu+3 \delta_\lambda v^2\right) \sigma^2 \\ & -\left(\delta_\mu v+\delta_\lambda v^3\right) \sigma-\delta_\lambda v \sigma\left(\pi^k\right)^2-\delta_\lambda v \sigma^3 \\ & -\frac{\delta_\lambda}{4}\left[\left(\pi^k\right)^2\right]^2-\frac{\delta_\lambda}{2} \sigma^2\left(\pi^k\right)^2-\frac{\delta_\lambda}{4} \sigma^4. \end{aligned} \tag{11.15} $$

Now, let's consider the renormalization conditions. One of the conditions is to set the tadpole diagram equal to zero.

I think this condition leads to (11.16)

$$ \left\langle\phi^N\right\rangle=\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \tag{11.16} $$ which is satisfied to all orders in pertubation theory.

This is where I am troubled. Why setting all the tadpole terms equal to zero can guarantee the vacuum expectation value (vev, $v$) $\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$ in all orders?

I think $v=\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$ only holds for the first line of (11.14). In the counter terms, there are two-points, three-points and four points interactions of the $\sigma$ field. Shouldn't all these counterterms will affect the potential shape and then affect the vev?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

That's a good question.

  1. The linear sigma model (11.14) has 3 terms, and hence 3 counterterms, and hence needs 3 renormalization conditions (11.17a+b+c).

  2. Yes, since the $N$th component $$\phi^N(x)~=~ v +\sigma(x) \tag{11.8}$$ and the definition of the VEV$^1$ $$ v~:=~\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{\lambda}},\tag{11.7}$$ then condition (11.16) for a connected 1-point function is equal to $$\langle \sigma \rangle^c_{J=0}~=~0,$$ i.e. that the tadpoles for the $\sigma$ field vanish$^2$ $$ \left(\fbox{1PI}==\stackrel{\sigma}{=}==\right)_{\text{amputated}}~=~0,\tag{11.17a}$$ cf. e.g. my Phys.SE answer here.

  3. Yes, diagrams with more and more interaction terms do enter on the LHS of eq. (11.17a). For explicit calculations at one-loop, see eqs. (11.31) & (11.32).

  4. It is important to realize that the field $\phi~=~\phi_0/\sqrt{Z_{\phi}}$ and the VEV (11.7) scale differently under the RG flow. In particular, since both sides of eq. (11.7) should remain$^3$ finite/physical, one should not try to e.g. introduce infinite $Z$-factors and/or counterterms into eq. (11.7), cf. Refs. 1 & 2.

References:

  1. M.E. Peskin & D.V. Schroeder, An Intro to QFT, 1995; p. 353-355.

  2. M. Srednicki, QFT, 2007; chapter 31. A prepublication draft PDF file is available here.

--

$^1$ Here the mass parameter $\mu$ in the Lagrangian (11.14) is the renormalized mass. It should not to be conflated with the physical mass $m$, which satisfies
$$ \left(==\stackrel{\sigma}{=}==\fbox{1PI}==\stackrel{\sigma}{=}==\right)_{\text{amputated}}~=~m^2-\mu^2\quad \text{at}\quad p^2=m^2.$$

$^2$ The tadpoles for the $\pi^k$ fields vanish automatically, due to a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry.

$^3$ Later in dimensional regularization one typically makes the coupling constant $\lambda\to\lambda\tilde{\mu}^{\epsilon}$ dimensionless, cf. Ref. 2.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Hello, may I ask you a related question about this post? I summarize my new thoughts in this post: physics.stackexchange.com/q/761623. But I don't think the question is solved! I would be appreciate it if you can look that! $\endgroup$
    – Daren
    May 5, 2023 at 8:43

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.