Wilson 1970
Wilson 1970
Wilson 1970
Canonical field theory predicts that a zero-mass scalar field theory with a A+4 interaction is scale invariant.
I t is shown here that the renormalized perturbation expansion of the X44theory is not scale invariant in order
XZ. Matrix elements of the divergence of the dilation current D,(x) are computed in order XZ using Ward
identities; it is found that VPL),(x) is proportional to X2+'(x). I t is also shown that the dimension of the field
d4differs from the canonical value in order A, and that this result leads one to expect a X2+*term in V'D,.
I t is also found that matrix elements of the composite field + 4 ( x ) in perturbation theory have troublesome
singularities at short distances which force one to give careful definitions for equal-time commutators and
Fourier transforms of T products in the Ward identities involving this field.
lies; doing so would provide a check on the calculations 11. DEFINITIONS OF T PRODUCTS
of this paper. A start on such calculations has been
made by Callan, Coleman, and J a ~ k i w Direct
.~ calcula- ?'he problem of defining T products will be discussed
tions of the matrix elements of S are not made in this primarily in terms of an example, the example being
paper because there are many problems involved with the T product of two currents.* Consider in particular
such calculations which do not appear in the calculation the propagator
+
of matrix elements of alone. Some of these problems do
appear in the calculation of matrix elements of +4(x)
and will be discussed later. But as far as possible this
paper relies on uncontroversial Feynman-diagram for-
mulas; this is for simplicity and to make clear that the
breakdown of scale invariance is an inevitable conse-
auence of these formulas. where j, is a conserved current in an unspecified field
I n calculating matrix elements of the operator +4(x) theory and f , means fd4x. The problem to be dis-
and in checking Ward identities involving these matrix
elements, problems arise which can be traced to an cussed here is this: How is the integral in Ey. (2.1) to
age-old problem: What does a T product of operators be calculated, assuming the function D,,(x) is lmown?
such as T + ( z ) + ~ ( ~mean
) when x =y? Axiomatic field This is a question which does not arise much in practice
theorists answer that it is arbitrary in the sense that since one is more likely to have an explicit formula for
one is free to add any term proportional to 6"x-y) or D,,(p) (via Feyninan graphs, or whatever) than for
derivatives of a4(x-y) to the T p r ~ d u c t Other
.~ field D,,(x). However, Ward identities are derived in x space
theorists take i t for granted that the T product is and then Fourier-transformed to momentum space; if
uniquely defined, without making clear what that defi- one is deriving a Ward identity for DM,($),then D,,(p)
nition is. I n order to get consistent results in this paper, is defined by Eq. (2.1) and it becomes a legitimate ques-
it will be necessary to specify a definition of the T tion to ask whether ambiguities arise in computing the
~ r o d u c twhich eliminates the arbitrariness. There will integral, and how to avoid them if they do occur.
be a corresponding, precise definition of the equal-time
commutators which occur in Ward identities. I t will The reason that the integral in Eq. (2.1) can cause
be shown that under normal circuinstances the defini- difficulties is that D,, (x) is singular a t x = O ; the singu-
tion of equal-time commutators given in this paper larity a t x=O is such that the integral may be condi-
agrees with the customary one, but in abnormal~c~ses tionally convergent or divergent a t x =O. If the integral
(one of which occurs later in this paper) the two defini- is conditionally convergent, it can be defined by specify-
tions do not agree. There will also be circumstances ing an order of integration for the four integrations (over
where the definition of the T product given here has to the components of x), but the result may depend on
be modified to include subtractions; an example of this which order is chosen. If the integral is divergent then
..
also occurs later in this DaDer. The definition of the T i t can only be defined by subtracting the divergent
product given in this paper may or may not be one that terms.
field theorists can agree upon ; what is essential is that An example of conditional convergence is provided
in all future discussions of Ward identities the definition by a free vector-meson propagator. I n this case i t will
of the T product be stated, so that one can handle more be shown below that the integral in Eq. (2.1) gives
easily the kind of problem that arises later in this paper. different answers depending on whether the x integral
I n Sec. I1 the problem of defining T products is or the xo integral is solved first. I t will also be shown
analyzed, with examples showing the problems that that the usual noncovariant form of D,,(p) is obtained
can arise. I n Sec. 111, which is the heart of this paper, by solving thex integral first. These results will be shown
the Ward identities and explicit formulas for vacuum by using one of the standard derivations of the non-
ex~ectationvalues of d and d4 are written down. These covariant propagator and being careful when the order
fo;mulas are used to show that scale invariance holds of integration is changed. The standard derivation will
in order X and breaks down in order X2, to compute the first be stated without being careful; the careful deriva-
dimension of +4 in order A, and to infer that S(n) in tion will be given afterwards.
order X2 is proportional to +4. I n Sec. IV the operator- The non-time-ordered matrix element
+
product expansion for (x)d4(y) is discussed ; also, the
dimensions of the composite field +,(X)+~(X) in an iso- -.- ppv(x)= (Ql j,(x)jv(0) 19) (2.3)
spin-1 +4 theory are computed and shown to be different 8 The 'Lnoncovariance"of the propagator of a free vector-meson
for the isospin-0 and isospin-2 components. field is discussed in Ref. 5 , pp. 141-142. For more general cur-
-- rents, the problem is discussed in K. Johnson, Nucl. Phys. 25,
T. G. Callan, S. Coleman, and R. Jackiw, Ann. Phys. (N. Y . ) 431 (1961). For more recent discussions of the "noncovariance"
59, 42 (1970). of T products, see R. F. Dashen and S. Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. 187,
' An excellent discussion of the ambiguity in T products is 2017 (1969), and referencescited therein; D. Gross and R. Jackiw,
given in Ref. 5, pp. 144-145 and 168-191. Nucl. Phys. B14, 269 (1969).
(where j, is now the vector-meson field) is correctly before taking any other limits), + 0 second,
8 -+ 0 third, and 7 -+ 0 last. T o do the x integration
last, one takes the limits in the order e + 0 first, then
7 4 0, then a --t 0, then O -+ 0.
The integral with convergence factors present can be
conlputed explicitly when a , e, 7, and 8 are small,
neglecting srnall terms. The result is
where m is the vector-meson mass, f p means
( 2 ~ )f- ~d4p, and O(x0) is the usual 0 f u n ~ t i o nThe
.~ T
product D,,(x) =p,,(x) when xo> 0 ; for mo<O, D,,(x)
=pY,(-x). The propagator D,,(p) is
I
i.e., the region xO-ax3 1 <7(1 - . L ' ~ ) is
" ~excluded from The regions R1 and R2 are now
the range of integration. Since the scale of q does not
matter one can also specify the excluded region as R1: jxol < 7 , lxo-z\x3l > 7 , jxoj <to, and 1x1 < Y O ,
IxO-VX~~ <q. The difference between D,,(p,c) and R z : /x01> ? , / X O - C X ~ / < v , jx01 <to, and 1x1 < Y O .
D,,(p) must come from the difference in the excluded
regions. That is, The x integrations can be done explicitly; it is easily
seen that terms depending on Y o will not contribute in
the lirnit q + 0. With such terms dropped, the inte-
grals have the explicit form
always free to add finite constants times p2, P, or 1 to I t may help in understanding the problem of the
D,,(p); to keep D,,(p) covariant, the added terms il-~ust ainbiguity in U,,(p) if one can understand why it was
also be covariant. possible for nonaxioinaticists to conclude that D,,(p) is
Even for cases like the free vector-ii~esonpropagator, unique. The reason lies, I believe, in a conscious or un-
where the unsubtracted integral is finite. one is free to
u
conscious assumption that nonaxiomaticists make about
use a subtracted integral to define D,,(p). One can make the nature of field theory. The assumption is this: Any
as many subtractions as one likes, but one subtraction local operator, such as a current, becoines an observable
is sufficient to define a covariant form for D,,(P). when averaged over a region of space, the time being
Axiomatic field theorists have long asserted that the held fixed. By an "observable," I niean an operator
Fourier transforms of T products are ambiguous. There which can be multiplied by itself or by other fields,
is an excellent discussion of the role of these ambiguities without producing singularities. The best way to show
in renormalization theorv in Boeoliubov
" and Shirkov.5 that this assumption is made is to loolr a t the popularly
Nevertheless the popular view is that a Fourier trans- accepted form for an equal-time commutator. The
form such as D,,(p) is a unique and even physical equal-time comillutator of two local fields 01(x) and
quantity, a t least relative to a given Lorentz frame. The Oy(y) is expected to be a sum of 6 functions and deriva-
axiomatic view must in the end replace the popular view, tives of 6 functions in the spatial variables x and y.
since the ambiguity in D,,(p) in examples like the Dirac These G functions can be eliminated by averaging 01(x),
current of a free fernlion field is beyond question. Un- say, over a region of space; if p(x) is an averaging func-
fortunately, much experience has been acquired with tion, then [fp(x)O~(x~,x)d3x,0~(x~,y)] is completely
the unsubtracted form of the definition of D,,(p) and free of singularities. Even more, one assumes that the
more general .transforins like M(p) in Eq. (2.27). One unequal-time commutator [fp(x)Ol(zo,~)td~x,O:!(yo,~)]
inust now distinguish two problems. The first is, given is continuous and differentiable in yo for yo=x@ This
that the standard definition of the Fourier transform assuinption is implicit in the equal-time commutator
exists, to show in practical situations that no physics forniula
is changed by using a subtracted formula instead. This
may not be trivial to demonstrate but is not a very
rewarding subject to pursue. The second question is where H i s the Hainiltonian and the double commutator
what happens to the physics when subtractions are is again expected to be a suin of 6 functions. If the
necessary. There is already one example known where unequal-time coinmutator were not differentiable in yo
the necessity for a subtraction changes a current-a!gebra a t Y O = T O , then the equal-time commutator with 0,
prediction, namely, the Adler-Bell-Jackiw-Schwinger would diverge.
anoinaly which changes the current-algebra prediction Given the assunlption that integration w-ith x niakes
of the no lifetime.I3 One must be prepared to find other operator products be sinooth in time, i t is easy to derive
applications where subtractions have nontrivial effects. the usual form of the Ward identity for D,,(p) from the
I t is certainly worth looking for such effects, especially definition (2.12). One writes
when the use of conventional Ward identities gives un-
satisfactory results, as in ?1 decay.14
(3) The definition (2.12) is capable of giving diver- The current D, nlust be conserved if scale invariance
gent results, in which case a subtracted definition, as in holds, in which case D is time independent.
Eq. (2.34), will have to be used instead. Now consider the \Yard identities. T o allow for the
(4) If the integral of a T product is defined as in I3q. brealrdown of scale invariance, let L), have a diver-
(2.12), then the equal-time comnlutators appearing in gence S ,
-- VND, (x) =S (x) , (3.7)
l6 The operator Q(0,xo) is independent of xo because j, is
conserved; therefore it automatically satisfies the smoothness l7 For more detailed discussions of scale invariance, see, for free-
assumption. But Q(p,xo) need not be smooth in xo for nonzero field theories, J. Weiss, Nuovo Cimento 18, 1086 (1960); for
p. The problem of defining equal-time commutators within the interacting-field theories (including Ward identities), G. Mack,
framework of axiomatic field theory is discussed in R. Schroer Nucl. Phys. B5, 499 (1968). See also Refs. 1, 3, and 6, and D.
and P. Stichel, Commun. Math. Phys. 3,258 (1966) ; A. H. V8lke1, Gross and J. LVess, Phys. Rev. D 2, 753 (1970). Some recent
Phys. Rev. D 1, 3377 (1970); Free University of Berlin report papers are S. P. deAlwis and P. J. O'Donnell, Phys. Rev. D 2,
(unpublished):. 1023 (1970); L. N. Chang and P. G. 0. Freund, Caltech report,
"See A. Rightman and 1,. GBrding, Arkiv Fysik 28, 129 (1970) (unpublished); P. de Mottoni and H. Genz, Nuovo Ci-
(1965), especially pp. 131-133 and 153-154, and references cited mento 67B, 1 (1970); K. G. L\'ilson, STAC Report No. S1>,4C-
therein. PUB-i37 (unpublished); M. Gell-Mann (Ref. 14).
-
2 ANOlIALOUS DIiLIENSIONS A N D THE BREAI<DO\YN O F S C A L E . . . 1485
Do(lz,A)=A2(ii"--k2-ie)-l.
A), (3.18)
(3.19)
p(q2,A2)is the Feynman graph shown in Fig. 1 (b), also
with a cutoff. Calculation of p and 2 in the limit of
By :+4(y): is meant a Heisenberg field that reduces to
large cutoff gives (see the Appendis)
the Nick product :+4(x): in the free-field limit. I n the
l8 Surface terms at t i m e y o f 0 are neglected. In a zero-mass
theory this can be a mistake; i t is assumed here that t h e neglect
is legitimate.
l9 D. Gross anti J. Wess ( R e f . 17).
u h ~ r ec and cl are i~unleric:~l
c o t ~ s t m ~ tterins
s; of order formulas are relatively silnyle because tile mais of 4
q2/A' or sillaller for large A have been dropped. These i q zero F i ~ r t h formulas
~r are
=- ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ( ~ I ) D o ( P ~ ) ~ o ( P ~ ) D o ( - P I - P ~ - P ~ )
JCc(p~l)2,p3)
x {1- 1 2 ~ ~ [ ( p l + p a ) ~ , h ~12hp[(p~+~3)',-k2]-
]- 1 2 ~ p [ ( p z + p 3 ) ~ ~ ~ " } (3.22)
.
I t is a nuisance to write out terms which differ only by a permutation of the momenta, so in the following for-
nlulas only the number of such terms will be given:
I V c ( ~ *. .*xW,Y) = lL.l,,L
.. ~-~,,I.(.*I-u). .. TVc(pl. . .pu),
e-i~n. (~vL-u) (3.24)
.JVc(Pl,pz)= - ~ ~ X D O ( P ~ ) D O ( P Z ) [ ~ ( ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ) + L : ( P ~ ~ , ~ ~ ) ] , (3.23)
I ) o ( ~ . ~ ) ( ~ d2]+(5 permutations of the X term)) ,
[Vc($i,p2,p3,p4)= ~ ~ I ) o ( P ~ ) L ) o ( P ~ ) D o ( P ~-)12Xp[($l+$~)', (3.26)
Ml,(pl. . .PC)= -S'i6iXDo(pl). . .IJ)o(ps){Uo(p1-tp,i-p3)-t(19permutations)} . (3.27)
---
The renormalized formulas for Kc and 1;1', are ob- When L: is a first order contribution to l~t7,(pl,p2),
tained by modifying 2: and p and redefining the coupling the nlodifications have a different interpretation. If the
constant but otherwise using the fornlulas given above. unrenormalized forinula for vPc(pI,p2)is Fourier-trans-
The renorinalized Z is obtained by dropping the con- formed to x space, one obtains (see the Appendis)
stants c and cl and replacing A2 by an arbitrarily chosen
but fixed "reference momentum" K ~Likewise,
. the re- ~r',(rl,xz,y)= ( & T - ~ ) X { D o ( x 2 - Y ) [ ( x l - y ) 2 - i e ] - 2
normalized p is obtained by replacing 1i2by K ~The . re- + - D o ( x l - y ) [ ( x z - y ) 2 - i e ] - ~ -192X(c112)
normalized functions ZB and pn are
XDo(zl-y)Do(x~--y) -96hicl[Do(x2- y)P(xl-y)
ZR(q2)=-(512~4)-1q21n[(-q2-it)j~2] (3.28) S D O ( ~ L - ~ ) ~ ~ ( ~ ~(3.31) -Y)],
and
~~((1~1 (3.29) where Do(%)is the Fourier transform of Do@), and the
The rationalization of these modifications is as f o l l o ~ ~ ~first
s , term is correct only for xl-y and x2-y nonzero.
~h~ function occurs in tTvo different forlnulas; the The term proportional to c can be rewritten -96hc1i2
modifications have a different significance in the two X (Ql T@r(x1)4r(x2):$r2(y) : 1 :. Replacing c by 0 is
cases, hi^ is also true of the function p, 1\'hen 2 is a epiva.lent to subtracting -96cXii2:4'(x) : fronl the un-
correction to the propagator, the nlodifications amount renori~lalizedoperator :+4(x:):. This subtraction is one
to a lnass and wave-function renormalization, T~ par. of two needed to define a finite reilornlalized form of the
titular, replacing bJ- zero ensures that the renor.nalized Heisenberg field :qj4(x):. The other subtraction needed
l-r,ass is zero through order 12; replacing cl by 0 ~"0 define the renorrnalized form of :d4(x): is a subtrac-
by Kz are both wave.function renormalizatio,ls. ~t is tion proportional OX,:$^:. Thissubtractionis generated
necessary to introduce the arbitrary parameter K (which when one A b!- K ill the function P, P being con-
has the dimensions of a mass) into the theory because sidered as a correction to the function wC(p1,p2,p3,p4).
there is no naturally occurring parameter with the Replacing cl by 0 in TV,(pl,p2) is sinlply a redefinition
dilnensions of a mass to replace the cutoff inside the of the Fourier transforln of TI.'c(xl,xz,Y). When
logarithm. The value of K is unilnportant since challging LV.(~I,.~~,Y) Fourier transformed, the cl term in
only changes the normalization of the field 4, which is 1VC(x1,"2,y)will not contribute because by definition
arbitrary. Similarly, whenp is a correction to K,(p,pl,p,) the points x l = y and xz = y are excluded froin the region
the modification of is a coupling.constaIlt renormaliza- of integration (see Sec. 11). However, the unsubtracted
tion; when is replaced by one lnust also replace Fourier transform of FP,(xl,xz,y) diverges because of
by a renorlnalized coupling constant 1,. The renor- the singularities [(XI- y)2-ie]-2 and [(x2- yj2-i
lnalized coupling constant depends on in the sense that in the first term of Eq. (3.31).21This means that the
if ti is changed to one must A, to A,,, with Fourier transfornl must be subtracted. The unsub-
tracted Fourier transforin would be
(3.30)
of K."
X,p=A,+ (9h,2/4~9ln(~"/'K~)+[order (X:)],
in order that K,(pl,pz,p3) be independent of the choice
-
-
il',(pl,p2) = llL2 c"71Llei~"Ti7 ,(~l,xa,O).
. (3.32)
20 For further discussion of the dependence of the coupling con- 21 These singularities cause a logarithmic divergence; this can
stant on the parameter K, see Ref. 4. be shown using the methods of Sec. 11.
2 ANOiVTALOUS D I M E N S I O N S A N D TI-IE B R E A K D O i T ' N OF SCALE... 1487
The singular term for s1-i 0 in the integrand has the part of K by the same ecluation. One can also define
Form
~"""'""&T-~)XD~(xz) (x12- i ~ ) + .
The singular term in xl is present for any xz so onc
cannot approximate the x2 dependence of the singular
term. One cannot subtract this term unchanged because
it does not go to zero fast enough when x l + = . To avoid and obtain
an infrared divergence, one subtracts
where K ,is
, any four-vector with magnitude K ~ K @ = -K?.
Putting in the factor e f K . " l does not change the depen-
dence of the subtraction on pl and $2, and so i t is a
legitimate modification. The renorn~alized,subtracted
formula for TY,(pl,pz) is
I t is straightforward to obtain explicit formulas for the
connected parts of M to second order in A, and the
connected parts of V to first order in A,. The dimensions
ii and dl will be left as unknowns for the moment. For
example,
Mc(p) =i(2d-4-p.vp)D(p)
=i(2d-4-p.~,)Xi(p~+i~)-'
~ { 1 (3X,2/167i4)
+ ln[(-p2--i~)/~2]}. (3.40)
with X replaced by A, in W,(xl,xz,O) (and the c and CI
terms dropped). This formula reproduces the renor- Separating the tern1 where V, acts on (p2+ie)-l from
nlalized form of FV, (p1,pS) [given by Eq. (3.25) with A, the term where V, acts on the logarithm, this becomes
replacing X and ZR replacing 81. M L ( p )=i(2il--2)D(p) -i(6X,Z/16a4)Do(p). (3.41)
The subtractions in Eq. (3.33) depend on pl and $2
in the form [Do(pz)+Do(pl)]; hence one is always free Hut to order XK2, one can replace Do@) by D(p) in the
to change the formula for W,(pl,pz) by adding a finite second term. The resulting formula for M,(p) and
constant times [Do(pl)+Do(pz)]. Changing Z n back ~~nalogousformulas for other M , and V , functions are
towards 2 by replacing K by A and adding the cl term
M , (pi =i[2tl-2 -3XK2/8rr4]D(p) , (3.42)
is exactly a change in I.V,(pl,pz) of this type. Hence cl
is a subtraction constant which one is free to set equal
to zero.
iYow study the matrix elements of the divergence of . .ps) =i(6d--6)RC(pl..
AWzir,(p~. .pd, (3.44)
the dilat.ion current, using the Ward identity (3.11). V,(pl,pz) =i(2d+dr-6)pV,(pi,pz)
First note that +3X,(8~9-~[Do(pi)+Do(pa)], (3.45)
V,(pl. . .p4) =i(4d+dr-8-9h,/7r2)
x rr ,(p, . .p4) , (3.46)
iT,(p1. . .p6) =i(htdfd~--10)TV,(pl.. ' ~ 6 ) . (3.47)
Using Eqs. (3.11) and (3.14) and an integration by Equation (3.45) for V, (pl,pz) is incorrect because its
parts, one gets derivation assumes that 11',(p~,p2)is unsuhtracted. Thc
~ o r r e c fornlula
t will be derived later.
The first application of Eqs. (3.42)- (3.47) is to show
that scale invariance breaks down in order A?. TOdeter-
mine the validity of scale invariance the equations for
M e will be discussed order by order (the equations for
V, will be discussed later). I n the free-field limit, the
only nonzero M , is M , (p) and i t too is zero if d = 1. This
agrees with the known result that the free-field theory
is scale invariant and 4 has dimension 1. T o first order
in A,, M,(p) and Mc(pl,p2,p3)do not trivially vanish,
The connected part of iCf is related to the connected but by setting d = l , both are zero. So we infer that
1488 K E N N E T H C . IYILSOl\r
scale invariance holds to order A, and d is 1 to this order. grate by parts, getting
I n order XX2 the situation is as follows. M c ( p l . ..p6)
vanishes because Kc(pl. . .p5) is already of order X,2 and V,(pl,p2) =lim i(2d+dr--8--ps. V,, -92%V p 2 )
?,-*O
6d-6 is zero to order 1. 'The function iMc(pl,pz,p3)
cannot vanish: Kc(pl,p2,p3)is of order A, and d is al-
ready determined to be l through order A,, so
The function Me($) vanishes to order A:, if d is where the integral over xl and xz still excludes xlo;
<7, / xzo / <7, and I xlo-x~, I <s. The term E (q,pl,pg) is
the sum of surface ternls. I t turns out that the surface
The nonvanishing of Mc(pl,p2,p3) in order X,2 ineans terms a t Ixlo-x~ol=s are negligible but the surface
that S(x) is nonzero in order X,2, SO scale invariance terms a t xlo=+7 or x z o = f q have to be computed
breaks down in this order. I t does not help to change d giving
in order to make Mc(pl,pz,p3)vanish in order X,2; this
wonld require a change in d of order A, which would
rnalie M,(p) nonzero in order A,, which would be even
~(q,p1,92) =ill [-~so*(xIo-~)+~Io~(xIo+~)
vC(pl,pz)=lirn
q-0 'i4x1iz20,
iZlO,
>? >v
d4X2ei~~.r~
T o complete the construction of the Ward identity one
must replace the unsubtracted Fourier transform of TIT',
in Eq. (3.54) by its subtracted form. The result is
The region ~ x l o - x z o<q~ is also excluded from the
integral. By analogy with Eq. (3.16).
with
When this is substituted in Eq. (3.52), one can inte-
22 I t was suggested by S. Coleman (private communication via
I<. Jackiw) that 4 has a dimension in second order despite the
breakdown of scale invariance. See the end of Sec. 111 for further
discussion.
23 There are many aspects of the derivation of the Ward identity
, ) should be examined carefully. In practice, only
for V , ( p ~ ~ pthat
one problem seems to cause difficulties, namely, the singularity
in the product T+(x) :+4(y) : for x + y, and only this problem will with i xlo/< q , etc., omitted from the integral. The inte-
be discussed. grals give 7-dependent constants multiplying the func-
2 A N O M A L O U S DIi?IENSIOhTS A N D THE BREAKDOTVN OF S C A L E 1489
tions Do(p2) and Do(pl). Using the values d = l and The operator D must contain an explicit time depen-
d1=4 to lowest order, one finds that F(~,pl,pz)=O. dence proportional to xJZ, where H is the Hamil-
Using these values for d and d l in Eq. (3.58), one has tonian17; this is necessary to give the xoVo+(x)term in
(correct through order A,) the commutator of D with 4. Therefore, let
in order AZY. This is because the integral (3.8) which given by the Eeynman rules is a term which in a space
defines M(x1,x2)diverges in order h,3 if S(x) is h,2 : + 4 ( ~: ;) involves 6 functions of xl or xz, which one is always
this in turn is a consequence of the nonintegrable sin- allowed to add to a T product, even if one of the opera-
gularity of IV(xl,x2,y) for y --t X I or 2 2 in order h,. tors in the T product vanishes. While there is nothing
Given that the interaction :+4(x): changes its dimen- wrong with adding S functions to the T product, it is
sion in order A,, why does not the free part of the not a sensible thing to do. I n any case, cl is a subtraction
Hamiltonian also change its dimension in order A,? If constant in a Fourier integral. I t does not matter
this were to happen, then scale invariance would break whether it is recognized as such or sneaked in by the
down in order A, instead of A.: This is another question device of subtracting :+V,C"+: from :+4(x): and using
that will not be discussed here. the Feynman rules to introduce a subtraction in the
The analysis of this section has been carried through definition of integrals of T products involving :+V,Vp+ :.
for the zero-mass theory. One may ask: Why not
work with the finite-mass theory instead? The reason IV. MISCELLANY
for not using the nonzero-mass theory is that when the
mass is nonzero the divergence S(x) contai~lsa term I n Sec. 111,it was necessary to know the behavior of
proportional to : # ~ ~ (:,x )which is nonzero in the free- the matrix elenlent (b2 I T+(xl)+(xz) : 4 ~ ~ (:yQ)
) for XI --t y
field limit. This means that the matrix elements or x z + y. This behavior was detein~inedby explicit
il.l(xl . .s,) will be nonzero in the free-field limit. T o calculation. This is a problenl which can be understood
show that S ( a ) contains a term proportional to A,L :+I~(x) :
in general in ternls of operator-product e ~ p a n s i o n s . ~ ~
in addition, one must cdlculate matrix elerrients of I n this section, the operator-product expansion for
:@(x): to order A?; one must also arglle that terms T+(x) :+4(y): will be discussed through order A, using
proportional to : + 4 ( ~ )are: not permitted to occur as the matrix element TV(x1,x,y) of :+4(y):. At the end of
part of the renortllalizatiorl of : + 2 ( ~:.) The argument this section, the dinlension of the field :@(x) : will be
cannot be rigorous, for if one is flexible enough about calculated through order X, for the case of an isospin-1
how one renormalizes, there is no argument that foibids field +: it will be shown that the isospin-2 component
the use of finite : + 4 ( ~: )counteitelms in renormalizing of :@: has a different dinlension (in order A,) than the
: + 2 ( ~:.) Furthennore, the zero-mass case is discussed isospin-0 component of :@(x) :. A similar isospin split-
because it is only for the zero-mass case that the can- ting was postulated in a previous paper1 to explain the
onical Lagrangian fornlulation of the theory predicts A I = g rule in weak interactions.
scale invariance, and, therefore, it is only for the zero- I n the free-field theory the operator-product expan-
nlass case that there is a contradiction between the pre- sion for the product T+(x) :~$~(y) : is derived from the
diction and perturbation-theory calculations. IVicli expansion of this product:
I n the renormalization of TV,(pl,pz), the constant cl T+(x) :+4(y): =4Do(z-y) :@(y) :+:+(x)+~(Y) :
was interpreted as a subtraction constant. I t is possible
to give the constant c1 a different interpretation. If one
:+
=4Do(x- y) :@(y) :+"y) :$(XP- yfi)
defines the renonnalized form of : + 4 ( ~ )to : include a x : m 4 ( y ) v n ( y ) : + . . . . (4.1)
subtraction proportional to cl:+VpV,C$:, this will also I n the final foi-nl of this formula, functions of (x-y)
eliminate the cl teim from TV,(pl,pz). This is because multiply local operators a t the point y ; any such for-
the matrix elenlent mula is called an operator-product expansion. The ex-
pansion is an expansion in terms of x-y and makes
sense when x-y is small. I n perturbation theory, one
looks for a generalization of Eq. (4.1) in the form
(3.69) should vanish since the integrand vanishes. How- therein. Ideas completely analogous to operator-product espan-
sions and scale invariance have bcen developed independently
ever, the FeJmman rules give a nonzero result for this for classical statistical mechanics by L. Kadanoff, Phys. T2ev.
integral. There is nothing wrong with this; the term Letters 23, 1430 (1969), and references cited therein.
2 ANOR/IAI,OUS DIMENSIONS AND T H E BIZEAKDOIVN OF SCALE... 1491
element of T+(x) :+4(y): one studies. T o first order in The first matrix element is in lo~vestorder the free
A,, perturbation theory is scale invariant, which restricts propagator; comparing with Eq. (4.9) gives
the behavior of the functions C,(x--y). As shown in a
previous paper,l Cn(x) must scale as
The nlatrix element (Q 1 T+(XI):+3(y) :1 Q) vanishes in
order 1 and has not been computed here to order A,;
where d, is the dimension of the operator On(%).If the function Cz(z) is linown in order 1 from Eq. (4.1)
to be 4D0(z). Comparison of Eqs. (4.8) and (4.1 1) gives
d, =d,o+A,d,,1 (4.4)
and
cn (x) = C ~ O ( Z ) + L C ~ I ( X )
7 (4.5)
then the expansion of Eq. (4.2) to order A, gives The most singular term in the operator-product ex-
pansion of T + ( z ):d4(y): is the term Cl(x-y)4(y) be-
cause +(y) is the field of lowest dimension in the expan-
sion. I t is this t e ~ mthat has caused all the troubles with
[The dimensio~~s ( I and (11 are tnlten f~ 0111 Eqs. (3.49) subtractions and breakdown of conventional Ward
and (3.51).] identities in Sec. 111. To order A,, this term does not
To learn s o m e t h i ~ ~about
g the functions C', (.L- y) anci affect the other connected functions W,(n-l,xz,x,,x,y),
the operators O,(y) in order A,, we study the matrix etc., because Cl(z) is of order A, and the connected parts
element W(xl,r,y) for n- near y. The function IV(xl,x,y) of (D I T+(?cl)+(n2)+(xd)+(y)Is), etc., vanish in order 1.
has no disconnected diagrams [given that the vacuunl The analysis of the other connected matrix elements
:
expectation value (D / :+*(y): 0) is renormalized to l l ~ , ( ~ ~ , x 2 , ~ ~etc.,
xvill not be given.
, x , yfor
) , small x-y is complicated and
~ero], so W(xl,x,y) =W,(xl,x,y) which is given by the
renormalized form of Eq. (3.31) : I n a previous paper1 it was postulated that there
xvould be specific local fields of isospin $ and $ involved
in nonleptonic weak interactions, and that these fields
have different dimensions, the isospin-3 field being of
lower dimension than the isospin-2 field. If this is true,
I n terms of z=x-y, this is'"
it was shown that the A I = $ rule is universal, with all
AI=$ decays being suppressed by a power of (mlmw),
where m is a strong interaction mass (-1 BeV) and
m v is the weak boson mass or the equivalent. The
There are only two terins when TV(xl,n-,y) is expanded assumption is not true of the free-quark model. I n the
in z. Comparing with the operator-product expansion, free-quark model, the relevant local fields are the iso-
one should h u e spin-4 and # parts of the Wick product :j,, (x) jPst(x) :
~ v i t hjpn(x) being the chiral SU(3) currents of the
nlodel; both A I = + and AI =# components of the Wick
product have dimension 6. So it is worthwhile to con-
From the scaling law (4.6) the tern1 proportional to sider how perturbation theory changes the dimensions
( 9 - i ~ ) - ~n u s t involve an operator 0, of dimension of such a Q'ick product. T o simplify the calculation, a
d,,"= 1, while the term proportional to (z2-ie)-' nlust simple Wick product :+, (x)+, (x) : is discussed, where
involve an operator O,, of dinlension 3. There is only +$(x) (i= 1, 2, or 3) are the components of an isospin-1
one operator of dimension 1, namely, 4 itself. The co- scalar field. The interaction Lagrangian density will be
efficient (z2-ie)-l is a Lorentz scalar so it must in- -A[C,+,2(~)]2. Consider the matrix element
+
volve a scalar field 0,. 0, must be odd in since $ : + 4 :
is odd. The only possibilities are V,Vp+(x) and :@(z) :.
These are not linearly independent because they are 'I'o order A, this matrix elenlent (before renormalization)
related by the field equation of the d4 theory; it is con- is given by
venient to regard V,V"+ as the dependent field, so the
only field left is $3:. Therefore, the evpansion for
TB(xl,x,y) should heJb
rv(x1,x,y) =c,( 2 ) (Q I w ( x l ) + ( y ) I Q )
~ -
- +C2(z)(QI T + ( z ~ ):+"y) :1$1). (4.11)
" The zero-mass propagator Do(z) behaves as (zZ)-I for all z.
I t seems a bit strange that other local fields such as V,Vr:@(y) :
'b
do not occur in this expansion; presuinably they will i ~ involveti
e where p is defined by Eq. (3.18). The field :+i(x)+,(x) :
in higher orders i11 A., has isospin-0 and isospin-2 components. The isospin-0
1492 K E N N E T H G. W I L S O N
component is Ci:+i2 :; the isospia-2 conlpoiients can be tailled euactly in closed fornl, the result being
written as the traceless tensor :4i4j--$6ijCk:+k2:.
There is a corresponding decomposition of Nijkl(p,q) :
When p2 is small compared to A2, the integrals can be o>O, Po, . . . , p3 being the components of p. Then one
computed using the approximate form for p [Eq. (A2)] writes
except in a constant term (the second integral with p
replaced b y 0). The reslllt is Eq. (3.21) with
A method is presented for obtaining an asymptotic series, for large values of the energy, of a four-dimen-
sional Fourier translorm, using only one analyticity assumption. I t is show11 that this method iinplies (1)
asymptotic constancy of hadron total cross sections, as an "upper bound," and ( 2 ) the Pomeranchuk
theorem. h consisteilcy check, which lends some plausibility lo our assumption, is made. The calculations
are done within the contevt of frame-dependent cutoff rluantum field theory.
alomentum q is on some mass shell. \Ye shall describe fashion, asymptotic constancq of totdl cross section>
---
herein a very simple method for obtaining an as>mptoiic
expansion of such a quantity, for large values (this theI Tconsiderably
h e same asymptotic expansion can be obtained also fiom
weaker assurllption that J,([) admit power series
will be made inore precise below) of the energy q4, and in some interval 4=[O,a), for some a>O, and independent of hon
shall apply this method to the prohlenl of hadron total small a may be, by the use of Watson's lemma [E. T. Copson,
Tlzeory of Fzlnctions of a Conzplex Variable (Oxford U . P., Oxford,
cross sections. 1935), p. 2181. Ko~vever,if one uses this method, the physical
amplitudes must be defined by a diffelent limit than the one uied
*Present address: School of Theoretical Physics, Dublin in the present paper [see Eq (5) J. The limit defined by Eq (5,
Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin 2, Ireland. reduces to the conventional one for local field theory.