DESY 97-252 HUB-EP-97/88 December 1997 Is there a Landau Pole Problem in QED? M. G¨ockelera, R. Horsleyb, V. Linkec, P. Rakowd, G. Schierholzd,e and H. St¨ubenf a Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany b Institut f¨ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit¨at zu Berlin, D-10115 Berlin, Germany c Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Freie Universit¨at Berlin, D-14195 Berlin, Germany d Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, HLRZ and Institut f¨ur Hochenergiephysik, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany e Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany f Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum f¨ur Informationstechnik Berlin, D-14195 Berlin, Germany 2 remains positive for all eR, and the Landau pole is dis- We investigate a lattice version of QED by numerical simu- placed to lower values lations. For the renormalized charge and mass we find results β2 which are consistent with the renormalized charge vanishing 1 2 2 2 β1 β1e β2eR in the continuum limit. A detailed study of the relation be- ΛL = mRe R 2 . (5) tween bare and renormalized quantities reveals that the Lan- β1 + β2eR dau pole lies in a region of parameter space which is made QED is not the only theory with a Landau pole prob- inaccessible by spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. lem. Every theory which is not asymptotically free suf- 227 fers from this problem. While ΛL ≃ 10 GeV if only the electron is considered, Λ ≃ 1034 GeV in the Standard I. INTRODUCTION L Model. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model 20 (MSSM) ΛL ≃ 10 GeV, and in the MSSM with four QED is the best tested of all quantum field theories. Higgses, which offers a solution to the strong CP prob- 17 But all its success is in the context of perturbation theory. lem, the Landau pole moves down to ΛL ≃ 10 GeV [2]. It has long been known that there are potential problems Thus the Landau pole is by no means academic. in the foundations of the theory due to the existence of To find a solution to this problem, one must consider a the so-called Landau pole [1]. In the leading logarithmic non-perturbative formulation of QED. Thus it is natural calculation one finds to investigate the problem on the lattice. On the lattice 1 1 Λ Nf the inverse lattice spacing takes over the role of the ultra- − = β1 ln , β1 = , (1) −1 e2 e2 m 6π2 violet cut-off, a ∼ Λ. Early calculations have shown R R that the non-compact formulation of the theory using where e (eR) is the bare (renormalized) charge, mR is the staggered fermions undergoes a second order chiral phase renormalized fermion mass, Nf is the number of flavors transition at strong coupling [3,4]: and Λ is the ultra-violet cutoff. When one attempts to send the cutoff to infinity while keeping eR fixed, one finds that e diverges at 1 2 β1e arXiv:hep-th/9712244v1 29 Dec 1997 Λ=ΛL ≡ mRe R , (2) the location of the Landau pole. The problem can also be seen by looking at the gauge invariant part of the photon propagator The solid line am = 0, m being the bare mass, e2 > 2 ec is a line of first order chiral phase transitions, where D(k) 1 3 2 = 2 2 2 , (3) amR, a hψψ¯ i 6= 0, even though the bare mass is zero. k k [1 − (β1/2) ln(k /mR)] 2 2 The dashed line am = 0, ec > e is a line of second 2 2 order phase transitions on which am , a3hψψ¯ i =0. A which has a ghost pole at k =ΛL. This would mean that R the entire theory is only applicable for momenta smaller meaningful continuum limit can be taken at the tricritical 2 2 than ΛL. On the other hand, when one keeps e fixed and point am = 0, e = ec, because here we can take a to sends the cut-off to infinity, the renormalized charge goes zero while keeping mR fixed. to zero, meaning that the theory is trivial. The situation To understand the continuum limit of the theory, we in two-loop perturbation theory is much the same. The need to know the renormalized charge as a function of the (renormalized) β function cut-off in the critical region. We have recently computed the chiral condensate on large lattices [5]. In this letter 2 ∂eR 4 6 we compute amR and eR in order to understand the fate βR ≡ mR = β1eR + β2eR + · · · (4) ∂m 2 of the Landau pole in QED. R e 1 FIG. 1. The renormalized mass against the bare coupling FIG. 2. The chiral condensate against the renormalized 4 4 4 4 on 12 and 16 lattices. mass on 12 and 16 lattices. and 12 in our case). To extrapolate to k = 0 we need to II. FERMION MASS make a fit to the photon propagator. The k dependence of the photon propagator is given by We obtain the renormalized mass from the fermion 1 1 propagator as outlined in Ref. [6]. We are using stag- 2 − 2 = −Π(k,mR,L) , (7) gered fermions which in the continuum limit correspond e D(k) e to N = 4 flavors of dynamical Dirac fermions. The re- f where Π is the polarization function. In the infinite vol- sults are shown in Fig. 1. ume limit we then have Fitting and extrapolating this data it greatly helps that 3 the chiral condensate σ = a hψψ¯ i is a function of amR 1 1 2 − 2 = −Π(0,mR, ∞) . (8) only [6]. In Fig. 2 we plot σ as a function of amR. We eR e observe that σ is well described by the polynomial 3 5 We have already seen that the non-perturbative Π is ac- σ =0.6197amR − 0.321(amR) +0.169(amR) tually very close to the result of one-loop renormalized 7 −0.040(amR) , (6) perturbation theory [6]. So it is reasonable to make an ansatz which is inspired by renormalization group im- where the first coefficient is given by the one-loop result. proved two-loop perturbation theory. In Ref. [7] it is This helps because we have already found an equation of shown that to next-to-leading logarithmic order the po- state (EOS) that describes the σ data [5]. Combining the larization function can be written EOS with the polynomial (6) gives the curves shown in V Fig. 1 and the extrapolation to am = 0. (Here we have Π= U − ln(1 − e2U) , (9) used fit 1 of Ref. [5]. Our results do not change quali- U tatively if we use any of the other fits described there.) 2 2 where U is the one-loop perturbative result, and V the For 1/e < 1/e chiral symmetry is broken, and even at c two-loop one. The lattice result for U is known [6]. For am = 0 the renormalized mass is non-zero. This means V we make the ansatz there is an excluded region shown in white in Fig. 1 (the accessible region being shown in gray). V = v0 + v1U . (10) 2 2 This is motivated by the small k and mR limits. For III. RENORMALIZED CHARGE 2 2 2 2 2 2 a mR ≪ a k ≪ 1 we should have V ≃ (β2/2) ln a k , 2 2 2 2 and for a k ≪ a mR ≪ 1 we should have V ≃ 2 2 The renormalized charge is obtained from the residue (β2/2) ln a mR. The one-loop result U has these proper- 2 2 of the photon propagator, eR = Z3 e and Z3 = ties. We fit this ansatz to a total of 52 photon propaga- 4 4 2 limk→0 limV →∞ D(k). We can compute D(k) on the lat- tors on 16 and 12 lattices for various values of am, e tice, but not at k = 0. The smallest momentum that we in the range 0.005 ≤ am ≤ 0.16, 0.16 ≤ 1/e2 ≤ 0.22 close 2 can reach is 2π/aL, where L is the lattice size (L = 16 to the critical point at 1/ec =0.19040(9) [5]. A plot for 2 FIG. 3. The residue of the photon propagator against the 2 4 momentum for 1/e = 0.20,am = 0.005 on the 16 lattice. The open symbols are the data, the solid symbols are the fit. one particular parameter set is shown in Fig. 3. For the fit parameters we obtain v0 = −0.00207(2) and v1 = −0.0328(7), giving χ2/d.o.f. = 1.7. Two-loop continuum 2 perturbation theory would give v1 ≡ β2/β1 = 3/16π = 0.0190. In Fig. 4 we show the resulting β function for 2 2 e = ec. We compare this with the one-loop result. We see that the β function is a little smaller than the one- loop value and is positive. In particular this means that there is no ultra-violet stable zero in the β function out 2 2 2 to eR = ec, the maximal value eR can take because Z3 ≤ 1 [8,9]. As amR → ∞ fermion loops are suppressed and 2 2 eR → e , so that the β function vanishes. But this is of course not an interesting zero of the β function. FIG. 5. A sketch of the mapping from the bare parameter plane (top) to the renormalized parameter plane (bottom). IV. THE LANDAU POLE Having calculated the renormalized mass and charge, we are now able to discuss the mapping from the bare parameters am, e to the renormalized parameters amR, eR.