Quantum Field Theory vs Effective Field Theory

In summary, the conversation discusses the differences between QFT and EFT, specifically in terms of renormalizability. While QFT requires renormalizability, EFT does not have this constraint and allows for a larger number of terms in the Lagrangian. However, in order to calculate amplitudes beyond the leading order in EFT, counterterms must still be added for renormalization. This leads to the question of why EFT is called non-renormalizable if renormalization is still necessary. The response explains that while any theory can be made finite by adding enough counterterms, a renormalizable theory only requires a finite number of terms, while EFT requires an increasing number of terms for each order. The
  • #1
Luca_Mantani
36
1
Hi everyone,
I'm approaching the study of EFT but I'm facing some problems. While in QFT usually we want renormalizable theories, in EFT we don't want this costraint anymore and this opens up space for a lot more terms in the Lagrangian.

My problem is that when we want to calculate amplitudes, if we want to go beyond the leading order, we have to deal with loops that, as usually, diverge and we have to renormalize adding counterterms. So, what's the point if we still have to renormalize? Why are they called non-renormalizable if we still renormalize the theory?

Thanks for the help,
Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, I think basically any theory can be made finite by just adding enough counterterms, in the worst case you will need infinitely many. When one says that a theory is renormalizabel one usually means that it becomes finite to all orders by adding only a finite number of terms. In the case of effective field theories calculations only become finite up to some fixed order by adding a finite number of terms. So every time you want to go to a higher order you have to add more terms and more parameters, and still the next order will diverge.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
Oh ok, thanks! I was thinking that way too more or less, but I wasn't sure and I didn't find a confirmation. So renormalization is a tool that is still useful, even for theory that are not renormalizable!
 
  • #4
Definitely. Effective theories and not dissimilar to normal theories like qcd or whatever.

The higher order you can calculate in the EFT the better, since this gives you more accuracy for any predictions.

Ultimately, people struggle beyond NNLO in qcd, so you won't do better in an EFT framework which extends qcd for example. Therefore, although in principle the theory requires more and more counter terms for new operators etc., you can't even calculate far enough to require them.

So in the end, calculating to one loop in an EFT (like a dimension 6 extension of the SM) gives you higher precision, provides you sensitivity to correlations between operators which appear beyond tree level (through operator mixing), and can be quite fun figuring out how the one loop calculations actually work in the EFT.
 
  • #5
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Also note that in effective field theories you usually do an low-energy/momentum expansion, i.e., you have a "large scale" in the problem, and the small expansion parameter are energies/momenta compared to that large scale. E.g., in chiral perturbation theory the large scale is ##4 \pi f_{\pi} \simeq 1 \; \mathrm{GeV}##. Usually effective theories are not Dyson-renormalizable but based on symmetries to constrain the possible terms in the Lagrangian. It can be shown that the theory can be renormalized at any order of the low-energy expansion, introducing more and more "low-energy constants" with any order, corresponding to the allowed terms in the Lagrangian.
 
  • Like
Likes MrRobotoToo

Related to Quantum Field Theory vs Effective Field Theory

What is the difference between Quantum Field Theory and Effective Field Theory?

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines quantum mechanics and special relativity to describe the behavior of particles at a fundamental level. It is used to understand the behavior of particles and their interactions at a very small scale, such as in the subatomic world. On the other hand, Effective Field Theory (EFT) is a more simplified version of QFT that is used to describe the behavior of particles at larger scales, such as in the macroscopic world.

How do Quantum Field Theory and Effective Field Theory differ in their approach?

QFT uses a rigorous mathematical framework to describe the behavior of particles at a fundamental level, while EFT uses a more simplified approach that is based on symmetry principles and approximations. QFT is more complex and requires advanced mathematical techniques, while EFT is more intuitive and easier to apply.

Can Quantum Field Theory and Effective Field Theory be used together?

Yes, QFT and EFT are complementary theories that can be used together to describe different scales of behavior. In fact, many physicists use EFT as an effective description of the behavior of particles at larger scales, while using QFT to understand the underlying fundamental interactions.

What are the main applications of Quantum Field Theory and Effective Field Theory?

QFT has many applications in particle physics, cosmology, and condensed matter physics. It is used to understand the behavior of fundamental particles and their interactions. EFT, on the other hand, has a wider range of applications and is used in fields such as nuclear physics, astrophysics, and materials science to describe the behavior of systems at larger scales.

What are the limitations of Quantum Field Theory and Effective Field Theory?

QFT is limited in its ability to describe systems at very high energies, such as those found in the early universe or in black holes. EFT is limited in its accuracy and can only provide approximate descriptions of systems. Both theories also have limitations in their applicability to certain types of systems, such as those with strong interactions or in extreme conditions.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
324
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
17K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
766
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top