text:
# References

Disclaimer

> This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

(1) Introduction

In a classic paper Dashen and Neuberger showed in perturbation theory at one loop that the location of the Landau pole in scalar field theory implies an upper limit on the mass of the Higgs boson. The Landau pole indicates the mass scale at which the running coupling constant, $`\lambda _Q`$, diverges. In the elegantly simple DN (Dashen-Neuberger) analysis it implies an upper bound on the scale where new physics supplants the scalar field theory, which is regarded as an effective low energy description of the Higgs sector. By requiring a minimal hierarchy between the new physics scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the Higgs boson mass, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2m_H`$, DN obtained an upper bound on $`m_H`$ from the perturbative relation between the low energy coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_H`$. They proposed a space-time lattice “experiment” to confirm the bound and make it quantitative. Lattice calculations have established the bound on $`m_H`$ at about 700 GeV, not far from the $`1`$ TeV estimate of DN.

The purpose of this paper is to explore, in a similarly transparent way using one loop perturbation theory, the extent to which the new physics that must occur at or below the Landau pole can affect the relationship between the pole location and the low energy coupling constant. In this paper we consider the simplest case: $`\mathrm{O}(N)\varphi ^4`$ field theory in the symmetric phase, for which the DN analysis implies an upper bound on the coupling constant. The broken symmetry phase will be considered elsewhere.

Since new physics must exist at the Landau pole, it is not optional but essential to consider its possible effect on the analysis. The obvious method is to introduce higher dimension operators to represent the power-suppressed, low energy effects of the new physics. For instance, effects of dimension 6 operators are suppressed by $`\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}^2`$ where $`\mu `$ is the low energy renormalization scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$ is the scale of the Landau pole.333Away from the triviality limit the new physics could lie below the pole, $`M_{\mathrm{New}}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$, in which case the effects of the new physics would be larger, $`\mu ^2/M_{\mathrm{New}}^2`$. For the minimal hierarchy used to obtain the upper bound this suppression is only a factor 1/4, which could be overcome if the new physics is strongly coupled to the low energy scalar sector. We will compute the effect of such an operator on the running of the scalar coupling constant and the position of the Landau singularity.

Most lattice studies of triviality (e.g., ) considered renormalizable scalar field theories without higher dimension operators representing the possible effects of new physics and would apply literally if the new physics at the pole were actually the assumed space-time lattice. Some lattice simulations (of the Higgs phase) have explored the effects of new physics by introducing higher dimension operators, as we do here, but with a different focus. Their results agree qualitatively with ours but are not directly comparable for two reasons (in addition to the fact that different phases are considered). First, a precise comparison would require studying the same operators with carefully matched normalizations. Second, the goal in  is to establish an upper limit on $`m_H`$ such that corrections to various Higgs sector quantities (e.g., the Higgs decay width) from the higher dimension operators are limited to a few percent, whereas the focus in this paper is on the maximum allowed value, independent of the size of other corrections, which are not known experimentally and could actually be large.

The coupling constants must be defined by renormalization conditions. We define the scalar coupling constant $`\lambda `$ in terms of the $`22`$ scattering amplitude, for off-shell external momenta, as is customary in the RG (renormalization group) analysis in order to avoid mass singularities. Then the first dimension 6 operator that comes to mind, $`\varphi ^6/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, does not contribute to the running of $`\lambda _Q`$, since its one loop contribution to the scattering amplitude, shown in figure 1, is a (divergent) constant, independent of the external scale $`Q`$. For the off-shell renormalization condition adopted below there is just one other independent O(N) symmetric dimension 6 operator, which we choose to write in the form $`\kappa ((\varphi )^2)^2`$. Here $`\kappa =C/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ where $`C`$ is a dimensionless constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the mass scale of the high energy theory, which we identify with the position of the Landau pole. Using the off-shell renormalization condition, $`\kappa `$ is also defined in terms of the $`22`$ amplitude. Operator mixing occurs, resulting in coupled renormalization group equations for $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ which we compute to order $`\lambda ^2`$ and $`\lambda \kappa `$. Solving the coupled RGE’s (renormalization group equations) we find fractional corrections of order $`\kappa \mu ^2/\lambda `$ to the Landau pole postion, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$, and to the upper limit on the low energy coupling $`\lambda `$, where $`\mu `$ is the low energy renormalization scale, chosen to be the scalar mass.

While effective Lagrangians were first used strictly in tree approximation, it has long been realized that it makes sense to consider them at the quantum level. Though technically “nonrenormalizable” in the sense that they cannot be defined to all orders by a finite number of renormalization conditions, they can be renormalized to any finite order. The quantum effects of chiral effective Lagrangians have been thoroughly analyzed at the one loop level and one loop quantum corrections from dimension 6 operators have been used to study the possible consequences of new physics in electroweak gauge theories. These calculations can be carried out to useful approximations, though arbitrary precision would require arbitarily many renormalization constants. This is not a concern, since arbitrary precision is in any case not the goal in applications of effective theories. See  for an excellent review with interesting examples and additional references.

We have verified the renormalization of the effective theory considered here, first by checking explicitly that the result is independent of the choice of regulator (for dimensional regularization, Pauli-Villars regularization, or Euclidean space cutoff) and second by obtaining the same result from a renormalizable model with an additional, heavy O(N) singlet scalar field, constructed so that its low energy limit corresponds to the effective theory. Because of the dimension 6 operator the effective theory has quadratic and logarithmic divergences at one loop. The quadratic divergences are constants, independent of the renormalization scale and are absorbed into the $`\delta \lambda `$ counterterm without affecting the running of $`\lambda `$. Furthermore, as the renormalizable model makes clear, the quadratic divergences are in any case artifacts of the effective theory, dominated by the scale of the cutoff where the effective theory breaks down. In contrast the logarithmic divergences reflect the domain in which the effective theory is valid and may be reliably extracted from the effective theory. They give rise to the renormalization scale dependence from which the RGE’s follow.

Section 2 presents a brief review of the DN analysis, modified slightly to apply to the symmetric phase. In section 3 we derive the one loop coupled RGE’s for the effective theory. In section 4 the results are rederived from the renormalizable model. The coupled RGE’s are solved in section 5. In section 6 we use the solutions to estimate the corrections to the Landau pole position and to the triviality bound in the strong coupling regime. We conclude with a brief discussion in section 7.

(2) The DN analysis

We review the DN analysis, considering both the broken symmetry phase of O(4) scalar field theory (the SM Higgs sector) as considered by DN and also the unbroken phase which is the focus of this paper. For renormalizable $`\varphi ^4`$ theory the ultraviolet RG behavior of the two phases is the same and the DN analysis applies also to the symmetric phase. However we must modify the renormalization conditions slightly, since DN used the Higgs boson mass $`m_H`$ to specify the low energy coupling $`\lambda `$. In order to have a method that applies also to the symmetric phase we will define the low energy coupling constant in terms of the $`22`$ scattering amplitude.

Where $`\varphi `$ is an N component scalar field the Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^2)^2\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\varphi ^2.$$
$`(2.1)`$
We first consider the symmetric phase, $`\mu ^2>0`$. At the quantum level, with the RG analysis in mind, we define the renormalized coupling constant, $`\lambda =\lambda _\mu `$, by an off-shell scattering amplitude chosen for convenience at a symmetric, space-like scale

$$s=t=u=\mu ^2,$$
$`(2.2)`$
that is,

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)_{s=t=u=\mu ^2}=6i\lambda .$$
$`(2.3)`$
The one loop amplitude (see figure 2a) at an arbitrary space-like scale $`Q^2<0`$ is

$$_{s=t=u=Q^2}^{(1)}=3\left((6i\lambda )^2+(N1)(2i\lambda )^2\right)\frac{i^2}{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2\mu ^2)((k+Q)^2\mu ^2)}$$
$`(2.4)`$
Rewriting the integrand as a parametric integration $`𝑑x`$ and performng the $`k`$ integration by dimensional regularization in $`n`$ dimensions the integral in (2.4) becomes

$$\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)_0^1𝑑x\left(\frac{(x^2x)Q^2\mu ^2}{\mu _D^2}\right)^ϵ$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Gamma function, $`ϵ=2\frac{n}{2}`$ and $`\mu _D`$ is the regularization scale. The $`x`$ integration is then evaluated for $`Q^2\mu ^2`$, with the result

$$_Q^{(1)}=\frac{3i(N+8)\lambda ^2}{8\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{\mu _D^2}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.6)`$
where the omitted terms in (2.6) are finite constants that will be absorbed by counterterms without affecting the running of $`\lambda _Q`$.

Using the method of “renormalized perturbation theory”,  we introduce counterterms,

$$_{\mathrm{CT}}=\frac{\delta Z}{2}(\varphi )^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\delta \lambda }{\mathrm{𝟒}}(\varphi ^\mathrm{𝟐})^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\delta \mu ^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\varphi ^\mathrm{𝟐},$$
$`(\mathbf{2.7})`$
so that the amplitude through one loop is

$$_Q=6i(\lambda +\delta \lambda )+_Q^{(1)}.$$
$`(2.8)`$
The counterterm $`\delta \lambda `$ is then determined from the definition of $`\lambda `$, equation (2.3), to be

$$\delta \lambda =\frac{i}{6}_\mu ^{(1)}.$$
$`(2.9)`$
Defining the running coupling constant at scale $`Q`$ as

$$\lambda _Q=\frac{i}{6}_Q$$
$`(2.10)`$
we then find

$$\lambda _Q=\lambda +\frac{i}{6}\left(_Q_\mu \right)=\lambda +\frac{N+8}{8\pi ^2}\lambda ^2\mathrm{log}\frac{Q}{\mu }.$$
$`(2.11)`$
The wave function and mass renormalizations can be neglected because they are trivial in the $`\varphi ^4`$ model at one loop: the wave function renormalization vanishes and the mass is renormalized by a $`Q`$ independent constant that is absorbed in the mass counterterm.

From (2.11) it is easy to determine the Landau pole and the upper bound on $`\lambda =\lambda _\mu `$. Differentiating (2.11) we have the RGE

$$\frac{d\lambda _Q}{d\mathrm{log}Q}=b_N\lambda ^2=b_N\lambda _Q^2+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^3)$$
$`(2.12)`$
where

$$b_N=\frac{N+8}{8\pi ^2}.$$
$`(2.13)`$
Integrating (2.12) from $`\mu `$ to $`Q`$ we have

$$\lambda _Q=\frac{\lambda }{1b_N\lambda \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}$$
$`(2.14)`$
which exhibits the pole at

$$\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}}{\mu }\right)=\frac{1}{b_N\lambda }$$
$`(2.15)`$
The upper bound on the coupling constant then follows by requiring a minimal hierarchy between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$ and $`\mu `$. For instance,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}>2\mu $$
$`(2.16)`$
implies

$$\lambda <\frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log2}}.$$
$`(2.17)`$
In the broken symmetry phase, $`\mu ^2<0`$, the analysis proceeds as above with the low energy renormalization specified at $`m_H^2`$ instead of $`\mu ^2`$.444Since we have neglected $`\mu ^2<<Q^2`$ as noted above, the fact that we now have Goldstone boson loops in addition to the Higgs boson loop has no effect on the quoted results. Since the Higgs boson mass is proportional to the coupling,

$$m_H^2=2\lambda v^2,$$
$`(2.18)`$
where $`v^2=4m_W^2/g^2`$ is determined from the $`W`$ boson mass and SU(2) gauge coupling constant, the upper bound on $`\lambda `$ becomes an upper bound on $`m_H`$. Setting $`b_N=3/2\pi ^2`$ for N=4 we obtain the DN bound,

$$m_H^2<\frac{4\pi ^2v^2}{3\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}}{m_H}}$$
$`(2.19)`$
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}>2m_H`$ this implies $`m_H<1.08`$ TeV.

(3) The effective theory

The effective theory is defined by

$$_{\mathrm{EFF}}=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{\lambda ^E}{4}(\varphi ^2)^2\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\kappa }{4}(\varphi ^2)^2.$$
$`(3.1)`$
where $`\varphi `$ is an $`N`$ component scalar field, and the superscript $`E`$, for “effective,” distinguishes $`\lambda ^E`$ from the coupling $`\lambda ^R`$ of the renormalizable theory defined in the next section. The coupling $`\kappa `$ is dimensionful, $`\kappa =C/M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the mass scale of the “new physics” that gives rise to the dimension 6 operator and $`C`$ is a dimensionless constant characterizing the strength of the interaction between the new physics and the scalar sector.

There is another independent dimension 6 operator that is quadratic in momentum, which may be written as $`\varphi ^2(\varphi )^2`$. On mass-shell it can be expressed as a linear combination of the dimension 6 operator in equation (3.1) plus the $`\varphi ^4`$ interaction. Off-shell it is in general an independent operator. However for the symmetric off-shell renormalization condition specified below in equation (3.3), its contribution is proportional to the dimension 6 operator in (3.1) and it is not considered separately in our analysis.

We define the renormalized couplings in terms of the diagonal elastic scattering amplitude $`(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)`$ so that the definition can be used for all $`N1`$. The tree approximation amplitude from $`_{\mathrm{EFF}}`$ is

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)=6i\lambda ^E+2i\kappa (s+t+u).$$
$`(3.2)`$
Since $`s+t+u=\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i^2=4\mu ^2`$ for on-shell scattering, the on-shell amplitude is indistinguishable from the amplitude due to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ interaction alone with $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`\lambda ^E\frac{4}{3}\kappa \mu ^2`$. The $`(\varphi ^2)^2`$ and $`\varphi ^4`$ interactions can however be distinguished by other means, for instance, with the off-shell four-point function or the on-shell six-point function. Since we wish in any case to consider an off-shell configuration to avoid mass singularities in the RG analysis, we will use the off-shell four-point function to define $`\kappa `$ and $`\lambda `$.

In this section we will renormalize the effective Lagrangian at one loop order and to leading order in $`\kappa `$, retaining terms of order $`\lambda ^2`$ and $`\lambda \kappa `$. We compute the running coupling constants $`\lambda _Q^E`$ and $`\kappa _Q`$, where $`Q`$ is the renormalization scale defined below. Wave function and mass renormalization can be ignored to this order, since both contribute constants, independent of $`Q`$. In the renormalizable $`O(N)`$ $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory in the symmetric phase, considered in section 2 above, the wave function renormalization vanishes and the mass renormalization is accomplished by just a $`Q`$ independent counterterm. With the addition of the dimension 6 operator in equation (3.1), the wave function renormalization does not vanish but is constant so that, as in the renormalizable $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, no anomalous dimension is induced for the field $`\varphi `$. The mass renormalization in $`_{\mathrm{EFF}}`$ also involves only a $`Q`$ independent counterterm. Neither has any effect on the running of the coupling constants and so can be ignored. These conclusions follow because the one loop integral represented by figure 3 has no dependence on the external scale other than the multiplicative factor of $`Q^2`$ from the vertex of the dimension 6 operator.

To specify the renormalization conditions for $`\lambda ^E`$ and $`\kappa `$ it is convenient to choose a symmetric, spacelike, off-shell point

$$s=t=u=Q^2<0,$$
$`(3.3)`$
corresponding to spacelike external 4-momenta with $`p_i^2=\frac{3}{4}Q^2`$ for each external leg, $`i=1,2,3,4`$. Then the low energy coupling constants $`\lambda ^E=\lambda _\mu ^E`$ and $`\kappa =\kappa _\mu `$ are defined by

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)_{Q^2=\mu ^2}=6i(\lambda ^E+\kappa \mu ^2),$$
$`(3.4)`$
and the renormalized running couplings $`\lambda _Q^E`$ and $`\kappa _Q`$ for arbitrary $`Q`$ are defined by

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)_Q=6i(\lambda _Q^E\kappa _QQ^2).$$
$`(3.5)`$
Actually we must vary $`Q^2`$ by a small amount around each given central value since at least two measurements are needed to determine both $`\lambda _Q^E`$ and $`\kappa _Q`$, e.g., $`Q^2=Q_{\mathrm{Central}}^2\pm ϵ`$ where $`ϵQ_{\mathrm{Central}}^2`$. This is a difficult task, but our excellent, highly paid gedanken experimenters have the necessary skills to carry out the measurements (e.g., using dispersion relations in the external off-shell masses).

We now compute the one loop renormalized couplings to order $`\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\lambda ^E\kappa `$. The relevant Feynman diagrams are shown in figure 2. We will regularize the loop integrals with a momentum space cutoff, since it provides the most physical description of the loop amplitudes in the effective theory. We have the luxury of this choice since we are not concerned here with gauge invariance. We have checked that the same results are obtained from dimensional and Pauli-Villars regularization.

Since regularization by cutoff is becoming a lost art (see however ), we will warm up by evaluating the three $`\mathrm{O}(\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ diagrams, which were computed by dimensional regularization in section 2. Together they contribute

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}=6(N+8)\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2\mu ^2)((k+Q)^2\mu ^2)}$$
$`(3.6)`$
or, introducing the parametric integral over $`x`$,

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}=6(N+8)\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}_0^1𝑑x\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2X)^2}$$
$`(3.7)`$
where

$$X=(x^2x)Q^2+\mu ^2$$
$`(3.8)`$
To define the integral with a cutoff we first rewrite it as a Euclidean space integral by continuing the integrand into the complex $`k_0`$ plane. By contour integration we relate the integral along the real $`k_0`$ axis to one along the imaginary axis:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0f(k_0)=_i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}𝑑k_0f(k_0)=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0^{}f(ik_0^{}),$$
$`(3.9)`$
where we define $`k_0^{}=ik_0`$. The arcs in the first and third quadrants may be neglected since they only contribute constants that are absorbed in the counterterms. The Minkowski space 4-vector $`k`$ then becomes negative definite within the domain of the $`k_0^{}`$ integration,

$$k^2=k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{k}^2.$$
$`(3.10)`$
We define a Euclidean 4-vector $`k_E`$ whose components are

$$k_E=(k_0^{},\stackrel{}{k})$$
$`(3.11)`$
so that

$$k^2=k_E^2.$$
$`(3.12)`$
The Minkowski space integral, equation (3.7), is then replaced by a Euclidean space integral,

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}=6i(N+8)\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}_0^1𝑑x\frac{d^4k_E}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k_E^2+X)^2}$$
$`(3.13)`$
which we will regulate with the O(4) symmetric cutoff $`k_E^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Equation (3.13) exhibits the advantage of choosing off-shell, spacelike external momenta: for $`Q^2<0`$ we have $`X>0`$ so that $`k_E^2+X`$ never vanishes and the integrand has no singularities.

The integrand is spherically symmetric so the angular integration yields a factor $`2\pi ^2`$ and the remaining integration over $`|k_E^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is easily done. The result is

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}=\frac{3i\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}(N+8)}{8\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)$$
$`(3.14)`$
where we omit terms of order $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Finally, for $`Q^2\mu ^2`$, we approximate $`\mathrm{log}(X)\mathrm{log}(Q^2)`$, obtaining the usual result,

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}=\frac{3i\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}(N+8)}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
$`(3.15)`$
where $`Q=\sqrt{Q^2}`$. The terms we have neglected by approximating $`\mathrm{log}(X)\mathrm{log}(Q^2)`$ are either constants that would be absorbed in counterterms or are suppressed by $`\mu ^2/Q^2`$. The logarithmic term in (3.15) agrees with the dimensional regularization result (2.6) if the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is identified with the dimensional regularization scale $`\mu _D`$.

It is straightforward to apply the same method to the O($`\lambda \kappa `$) diagrams shown in figure 2b, of which there are six, each contributing equally due to the symmetric kinematics, equation (3.3). Including a factor 6 for the number of diagrams, the Feynman rules yield

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=36\lambda ^E\kappa \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{(k+p_1)^2+(k+p_2)^2+\frac{1}{3}(N+2)Q^2}{(k^2\mu ^2)((k+Q)^2\mu ^2)}$$
$`(3.16)`$
Introducing the Feynman parameter integration and symmetrizing the $`k`$ integration, we have

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=36\lambda ^E\kappa _0^1𝑑x\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2k^2+(2x^22x+\frac{N}{3}+\frac{13}{6})Q^2}{(k^2X)^2}$$
$`(3.17)`$
where $`X`$ is defined in equation (3.8). Just as in equations (3.9 - 3.13), the $`k`$ integration is expressed as a Euclidean space integral, which after the angular integration is

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=\frac{9i\lambda ^E\kappa }{4\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}𝑑k_E^2k_E^2\frac{2k_E^2+(2x^22x+\frac{N}{3}+\frac{13}{6})Q^2}{(k_E^2+X)^2}$$
$`(3.18)`$
The term proportional to $`Q^2`$ diverges logarithmically. The term proportional to $`k^2`$ is rewritten to isolate the quadratic divergence,

$$_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}𝑑k_E^2\frac{(k_E^2)^2}{(k_E^2+X)^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}𝑑k_E^2\frac{2k_E^2X+X^2}{(k_E^2+X)^2}.$$
$`(3.19)`$
The remaining log divergent term in (3.19) is then combined with the log divergent term proportional to $`Q^2`$ in (3.18). The finite term proportional to $`X^2`$ is neglected since it contributes O($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$) to the amplitude. The result is

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=\frac{9i\lambda ^E\kappa }{4\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+_0^1𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}𝑑k_E^2k_E^2\frac{(6x^26x+\frac{N}{3}+\frac{13}{6})Q^2+4\mu ^2}{(k_E^2+X)^2}\right)$$
$`(3.20)`$
Performing the integral over $`k_E^2`$ we are left with

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=\frac{9i\lambda ^E\kappa }{4\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\left\{(6x^26x+\frac{N}{3}+\frac{13}{6})Q^2+4\mu ^2\right\}\right)$$
$`(3.21)`$
If the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chosen to be equal to the scale of the new physics, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M`$, then the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ term in (3.21) is an artifact since it is dominated by the region of the $`k`$ integration near $`M`$ where the effective theory fails. In any case, since it is independent of $`Q`$, it does not affect the running of the couplings. By contrast the log($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) term samples the entire hierarchy between $`M`$ and $`Q`$: e.g., for large log($`\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q`$) the region between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$ only contributes a small fraction, log$`(2)\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q)`$ to the logarithm while contributing 3/4 of the quadratic term. This is seen again in the renormalizable model presented in the next section.

The running couplings $`\lambda _Q^E`$ and $`\kappa _Q`$ receive contributions from the terms in (3.21) proportional to $`\mu ^2`$log($`Q`$) and $`Q^2`$log($`Q`$) respectively. However, the contribution proportional to $`\mu ^2`$log($`Q`$) is not given simply by the coefficient of the term proportional to $`\mu ^2`$ in (3.21), since an additional $`\mu ^2`$ contribution is hidden in the term proportional to $`Q^2`$. Evaluating the integrals over $`x`$ through order $`\mu ^2/Q^2`$, we have

$$_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)=\left(12\frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+\mathrm{O}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}\right)^2+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.22)`$
and for integer $`n1`$

$$_0^1𝑑xx^n\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)=\frac{1}{n+1}\left(1(n+1)\frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)+\mathrm{O}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{Q^2}\right)^2+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.23)`$
where we also omit constant terms that are independent of log($`Q`$) and do not affect the running of $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$. Substituting (3.22 - 3.23) into (3.21) we have

$$\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}=\frac{3i\lambda ^E\kappa }{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\left\{2(2N+1)\mu ^2(2N+7)Q^2\right\}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.24)`$
where $`Q=|Q|=\sqrt{Q^2}`$ and we again omit all terms (including the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ term) that do not contribute to the running of $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$.

We can now derive the renormalized couplings and the RGE’s. The counterterm Lagrangian for the effective theory is

$$_{\mathrm{CT}}=\frac{\delta Z}{2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{\delta \kappa }{4}(\varphi ^2)^2\frac{\delta \lambda ^E}{4}(\varphi ^2)^2\frac{\delta \mu ^2}{2}\varphi ^2,$$
$`(3.25)`$
As noted above, $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \mu `$ have no $`Q`$ dependence and can be ignored. Combining the relevant tree, counterterm, and one loop contributions, the amplitude is

$$_Q=6i(\lambda ^E+\delta \lambda ^E)+6i(\kappa +\delta \kappa )Q^2+\delta _Q^{(1)}$$
$`(3.26)`$
where

$$\delta _Q^{(1)}=\delta _Q^{(\lambda ^2)}+\delta _Q^{(\lambda \kappa )}.$$
$`(3.27)`$
It is convenient to write $`\delta _Q^{(1)}`$ as

$$\delta _Q^{(1)}=(A\mu ^2+BQ^2)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.28)`$
where we omit terms that are constant or small. The coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by

$$A=\frac{3i}{4\pi ^2}[(N+8)\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}+2(2N+1)\lambda ^E\kappa \mu ^2]$$
$`(3.29)`$
and

$$B=\frac{3i}{4\pi ^2}(2N+7)\lambda ^E\kappa Q^2.$$
$`(3.30)`$
The counterterms are determined at $`Q^2=\mu ^2`$ (or, more precisely, in a small neighborhood around $`Q^2=\mu ^2`$) from equation (3.4), which implies

$$6i(\delta \lambda ^E\delta \kappa Q^2)|_{Q^2=\mu ^2}=\delta _{Q^2=\mu ^2}^{(1)}.$$
$`(3.31)`$
Equating powers of $`Q^2`$ the counterterms are then

$$\delta \lambda ^E=\frac{i}{6}A\mu ^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
$`(3.32)`$
and

$$\delta \kappa =+\frac{i}{6}B\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
$`(3.33)`$
Then from (3.3) and (3.26) the running couplings are

$$\lambda _Q^E=\lambda ^E+\frac{i}{6}A\mu ^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)$$
$`(3.34)`$
and

$$\kappa _Q=\kappa \frac{i}{6}B\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right).$$
$`(3.35)`$
or explicitly

$$\lambda _Q^E=\lambda ^E+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\left\{(N+8)\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}+2(2N+1)\lambda ^E\kappa \mu ^2\right\}$$
$`(3.36)`$
and

$$\kappa _Q^E=\kappa ^E+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)(2N+7)\lambda ^E\kappa .$$
$`(3.37)`$
To one loop and to leading order in $`\kappa `$, the coupled RGE’s are then

$$\frac{d\lambda _Q^E}{d\mathrm{log}Q}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left\{(N+8)\lambda _{Q}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}+2(2N+1)\lambda _Q^E\kappa _Q\mu ^2\right\}$$
$`(3.38)`$
and

$$\frac{d\kappa _Q^E}{d\mathrm{log}Q}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(2N+7\right)\lambda _Q^E\kappa _Q.$$
$`(3.39)`$
(4) A Renormalizable Model

In this section we construct a renormalizable model with a heavy scalar of mass $`M\mu `$, which replicates the effective theory defined in equation (3.1) at low energy, $`\mu <QM`$, and then use the renormalizable model to verify the RGE’s obtained in the previous section. In the renormalizable model the one loop, log($`Q`$) dependent terms arise both from the low energy limit of finite Feynman diagrams as well as from log divergent diagrams reflecting the divergences of the original $`\varphi ^4`$ theory. The results are of course regulator independent. For convenience we use dimensional regularization here. The renormalizable model provides a very useful check on the calculation because the result arises in a rather different way from the effective theory — in particular, the order $`\mu ^2/Q^2`$ terms from equations (3.22 - 3.23) contribute differently, so that the results disagree if those terms are overlooked (as the author learned the hard way).

In addition to the O$`(N)`$ vector field $`\varphi `$ we now add an O$`(N)`$ singlet scalar field $`\sigma `$. The relevant terms in the renormalizable Lagrangian are

$$_R=\frac{1}{2}\left((\varphi )^2+(\sigma )^2\right)\frac{\lambda ^R}{4}(\varphi ^2)^2\frac{G}{2}\sigma \varphi ^2\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\varphi ^2\frac{M^2}{2}\sigma ^2,$$
$`(4.1)`$
where $`M\mu `$ and $`G`$ is a coupling constant with the dimension of a mass. Interaction terms involving more than a single heavy field $`\sigma `$, such as $`\sigma ^2\varphi ^2`$, $`\sigma ^3`$ or $`\sigma ^4`$ are neglected since they give rise to diagrams that are suppressed by additional powers of $`M^2`$, inducing corrections beyond the leading order in $`\kappa `$ in the effective low energy theory. We will see that even in tree approximation the coupling $`\lambda ^R`$ is not equal to the analogous coupling $`\lambda ^E`$ of the effective theory.

Despite our misleading notation, the renormalizable model is not a “sigma model” since in general the interactions do not have an $`O(N+1)`$ symmetry. In order for $`_R`$ to be embedded in a sigma model (i.e., one with its symmetry softly broken by the explicit “pion” mass $`\mu `$) the parameters would have to be related by $`\lambda ^R=G^2/2M^2`$. This is not a relevant limit for us since it implies $`\lambda ^E=0`$ (see equation (4.4) below), as required by the low energy theorem for “$`\pi \pi `$” scattering.

In tree approximation the $`\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1`$ scattering amplitude is

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)=6i\lambda ^RiG^2\left(\frac{1}{sM^2}+\frac{1}{tM^2}+\frac{1}{uM^2}\right)$$
$`(4.2)`$
Expanding for $`M^2>>|s|,|t|,|u|`$ this is

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1)=6i\lambda ^R+3i\frac{G^2}{M^2}+i\frac{G^2}{M^4}(s+t+u)$$
$`(4.3)`$
which is equivalent to the tree approximation amplitude of the effective theory, equation (3.2), if we identify

$$\lambda ^E=\lambda ^R\frac{G^2}{2M^2}$$
$`(4.4)`$
and

$$\kappa =\frac{G^2}{2M^4}.$$
$`(4.5)`$
The first term in the expansion of the $`\sigma `$ propagator induces a tree level shift in $`\lambda `$ while the second term reproduces the dimension 6 operator in $`_{\mathrm{EFF}}`$.

We now consider the one loop corrections to the $`\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1`$ scattering amplitude in the renormalizable model. Each of the six Feynman diagrams in the effective theory, shown in figure 2b, is replaced by three diagrams in the toy model. The first of these, shown in figure 4a, contains precisely the same logarithmically divergent integral that renormalizes lambda in the original $`\varphi ^4`$ theory, shown in figure 2a. In figure 4a it corresponds to a $`\sigma \varphi \varphi `$ vertex correction. Using the $`\overline{MS}`$ prescription and the symmetric, off-shell external momenta defined in equation (3.3), the six diagrams of type figure 4a together contribute

$$_a=\frac{3i\lambda ^RG^2}{8\pi ^2(Q^2M^2)}(N+2)_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{\mu _D^2}\right)$$
$`(4.6)`$
where $`\mu _D`$ is the regulator scale. Using equation (3.22) and expanding for $`M^2Q^2\mu ^2`$ this becomes

$$_a=\frac{3i\lambda ^RG^2}{4\pi ^2}(N+2)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu _D}\right)\left\{\frac{1}{M^2}2\frac{\mu ^2}{M^4}+\frac{Q^2}{M^4}\right\}$$
$`(4.7)`$
In addition to $`_a`$ there are 12 finite diagrams of the type shown in figure 4b which together contribute

$$_b=36\lambda ^RG^2_k\frac{1}{((kp_1)^2\mu ^2)(k^2M^2)((k+p_2)^2\mu ^2)}$$
$`(4.8)`$
or, introducing Feynman parameters and symmetrizing,

$$_b=72\lambda ^RG^2_0^1𝑑x_0^{1x}𝑑y_k\frac{1}{(k^2Y)^3}$$
$`(4.9)`$
where

$$Y=yM^2+(1y)\mu ^2+\left[\frac{3}{4}(y^2y)+x^2x+xy\right]Q^2$$
$`(4.10)`$
After the $`d^4k`$ integration the result is

$$_b=\frac{9i\lambda ^RG^2}{4\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑x_0^{1x}𝑑y\frac{1}{Y}$$
$`(4.11)`$
Performing the $`y`$ integration and retaining only the terms proportional to log($`Q`$) for $`MQ`$, we find

$$_b=\frac{9i\lambda ^RG^2}{4\pi ^2M^2}_0^1𝑑x\left\{\left[1+\frac{\mu ^2}{M^2}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right]x\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right\}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{M^2}\right)$$
$`(4.12)`$
where $`X`$ is defined in equation (3.8). The terms that are omitted in (4.12) are either constants that are absorbed in counterterms or are of higher order in small ratios. Applying equations (3.22 - 3.23) the final result for $`_b`$ is

$$_b=\frac{3i\lambda ^RG^2}{4\pi ^2M^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{M}\right)\left\{6+3\frac{\mu ^2}{M^2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right\}$$
$`(4.13)`$
The complete one loop amplitude is given by combining (4.7) and (4.13),

$$\delta _R^{(1)}=\frac{3i\lambda ^RG^2}{4\pi ^2M^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)\left\{(N+8)(2N+1)\frac{\mu ^2}{M^2}+\left(N+\frac{7}{2}\right)\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right\}$$
$`(4.14)`$
where again we drop terms that do not vary as log($`Q`$) and will be absorbed in counterterms.

The term proportional to (N+8) in (4.14) provides an interesting consistency check. Since it is proportional to $`G^2/M^2\kappa M^2`$ it seems to imply a nondecoupling contribution to the low energy theory which would invalidate the effective Lagrangian of section 3. But it actually provides just the appropriate renormalization of the tree level shift encountered in equation (4.4),

$$\delta \lambda _{\mathrm{Tree}}=\frac{G^2}{2M^2},$$
$`(4.15)`$
to give $`\lambda _Q^E=\lambda _Q^R+\delta \lambda _{\mathrm{Tree}}`$ the correct order $`\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ renormalization. That is, in the effective theory the order $`\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ renormalization, from (3.30), is555 The shift in the scale of the logarithm from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`\mu `$ is absorbed by the counterterm in the renormalization procedure.

$$\delta \lambda _Q^E=\frac{N+8}{8\pi ^2}\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right).$$
$`(4.16)`$
Substituting

$$\lambda _{}^{E}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\lambda ^R\delta \lambda _{\mathrm{Tree}}$$
$`(4.17)`$
we see, using (4.15), that the contribution of the second term in (4.17) to (4.16) is

$$\frac{N+8}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\lambda ^RG^2}{M^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right).$$
$`(4.18)`$
But this is precisely equal to $`i/6`$ times the first term in (4.14), as required for consistency with equation (2.10).

The remaining two terms in (4.14), proportional to $`G^2\mu ^2/M^4`$ and $`G^2Q^2/M^4`$, agree precisely with the corresponding terms proportional to $`\kappa \mu ^2`$ and $`\kappa Q^2`$ in the effective theory, as may be seen by comparing (4.14) with equations (3.14) and (3.24) using the expression for $`\kappa `$ in (4.5). Therefore the renormalization of $`\lambda ^E`$ and $`\kappa `$ computed in the effective theory in section 3 is verified by the results obtained here from the renormalizable model. We see that renormalization effects which arise in the effective theory from a combination of quadratically and logarithmically divergent diagrams arise in the renormalizable model in a rather different way, with some log($`Q`$) terms arising from diagrams with the usual ultraviolet logarithmic divergences of the original $`\varphi ^4`$ theory (figure 4a) while others arise from the low energy limit of finite diagrams (figure 4b).

(5) Solution of the RGE’s

We now solve the coupled RGE’s of the effective theory, first rewriting the RGE’s, equations (3.32 - 3.33), in a more compact notation with the superscript $`E`$ suppressed,

$$\lambda _Q^{}=b_N\left(\lambda _Q^2+\frac{2(N+2)}{N+8}\lambda _Q\gamma _Q\right)$$
$`(5.1)`$
and

$$\gamma _Q^{}=\frac{2N+7}{8\pi ^2}\lambda _Q\gamma _Q$$
$`(5.2)`$
where $`b_N`$ was given in equation (2.13), and we have defined

$$\gamma _Q=\kappa _Q\mu ^2.$$
$`(5.3)`$
The quantity $`\gamma _Q`$ has the same log($`Q`$) dependence as $`\kappa _Q`$ since $`\mu `$ has no log($`Q`$) dependence at one loop order.

We solve the coupled equations by constructing a quantity $`f_Q`$ that obeys the usual one loop RGE,

$$f_Q=\lambda _Q+c_N\gamma _Q,$$
$`(5.4)`$
where $`c_N`$ is determined by requiring

$$f_Q^{}=b_Nf_Q^2.$$
$`(5.5)`$
Working to first order in $`\gamma _Q`$ we find

$$c_N=\frac{2}{9}(2N+1).$$
$`(5.6)`$
Integrating (5.5) from $`\mu ^2`$ to $`Q^2`$ we have the familiar solution

$$f_Q=\frac{f_\mu }{1b_Nf_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}.$$
$`(5.7)`$
To solve for $`\lambda _Q`$ and $`\gamma _Q`$ we replace $`\lambda _Q`$ in (5.2) by $`f_Q`$, valid to first order in $`\gamma _Q`$, obtaining

$$\gamma _Q^{}=\frac{2N+7}{8\pi ^2}f_Q\gamma _Q.$$
$`(5.8)`$
Substituting (5.7) into (5.8) and integrating we then find

$$\gamma _Q=\gamma _\mu \left[\frac{1}{1b_Nf_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\right]^{\frac{2N+7}{N+8}}$$
$`(5.9)`$
and, from (5.4), (5.6), and (5.9),

$$\lambda _Q=\frac{\lambda _\mu }{1b_Nf_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}+\frac{c_N\gamma _\mu }{1b_Nf_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\left\{1\left[\frac{1}{1b_Nf_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\right]^{\frac{N1}{N+8}}\right\}.$$
$`(5.10)`$
We consider two special cases. For $`N=1`$ the solutions take a particularily simple form,

$$\gamma _Q|_{N=1}=\frac{\gamma _\mu }{1b_1f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)},$$
$`(5.11)`$
and

$$\lambda _Q|_{N=1}=\frac{\lambda _\mu }{1b_1f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}.$$
$`(5.12)`$
We also consider $`N=4`$ which would correspond to the Higgs sector of the Standard Model if we were to consider the broken symmetry phase. Then $`c_4=2`$ and the running couplings are

$$\gamma _Q|_{N=4}=\gamma _\mu \left[\frac{1}{1b_4f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\right]^{\frac{5}{4}}.$$
$`(5.13)`$
and

$$\lambda _Q|_{N=4}=\frac{\lambda _\mu }{1b_4f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}+\frac{2\gamma _\mu }{1b_4f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\left\{1\left[\frac{1}{1b_4f_\mu \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{Q}{\mu }\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{4}}\right\}.$$
$`(5.14)`$
From these solutions to the RGE’s we see that “new physics” represented by the dimension 6 operator has two effects on the Landau pole. First, as we will discuss in the next section, it changes the relationship between the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and the position of the pole. Second it also affects the strength of the singularity at the pole, making the leading singularity stronger for all $`N>1`$. From (5.10) we see that since $`c_N`$ is proportional to $`N`$, the correction proportional to $`c_N\gamma _\mu `$ would dominate $`\lambda _Q`$ for sufficiently large $`N`$. Our perturbative approximation then breaks down in the large $`N`$ limit, which would require a separate analysis.

(6) The Landau pole and the low energy coupling constant

We now consider the effect of the dimension 6 operator on the relationship between the low energy coupling constant and the location of the Landau pole. Without the dimension 6 operator, i.e., for $`\kappa =0`$, we see from equation (2.15) that the pole location is fixed by the low energy coupling constant and mass,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}=\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{b_N\lambda _\mu }\right).$$
$`(6.1)`$
Equivalently, the low energy coupling is determined by the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}/\mu `$,

$$\lambda _\mu =\frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}}{\mu }\right)}.$$
$`(6.2)`$
New physics must intervene at or below the pole. Defining $`M`$ to be the new physics mass scale, (6.1) implies

$$M\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{b_N\lambda _\mu }\right).$$
$`(6.3)`$
In order that the low energy theory have some domain of validity we require a minimal hierarchy $`R`$ between $`M`$ and the mass scale of the low energy theory,

$$\frac{M}{\mu }R,$$
$`(6.4)`$
which implies the upper limit on the low energy coupling constant,

$$\lambda _\mu \frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log}R}.$$
$`(6.5)`$
These are simple but powerful relations. They are accurate in the perturbative domain, for small coupling $`\lambda _\mu `$ and large hierarchy $`R`$. At strong coupling and small $`R`$, the domain of the triviality bound, lattice simulations have found them to be qualitatively correct and, beyond that, accurate to about $`30\%`$.

The dimension 6 operator considered in section 3 modifies these relations, due to the effect of the high scale physics on the running of the scalar coupling constant. The result is simply to replace $`\lambda _\mu `$ in the above equations with $`f_\mu `$ defined in (5.5). Then (6.1) and (6.2) become

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}=\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{b_N(\lambda _\mu +c_N\kappa _\mu \mu ^2)}\right).$$
$`(6.6)`$
and

$$\lambda _\mu =\frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}}{\mu }\right)}c_N\kappa _\mu \mu ^2.$$
$`(6.7)`$
The upper bound on the low energy coupling constant becomes

$$\lambda _\mu \frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log}R}c_N\kappa _\mu \mu ^2.$$
$`(6.8)`$
The sign of the new physics correction depends then on the sign of $`\kappa _\mu `$. If $`\kappa _\mu >0`$ the Landau pole position is lowered for fixed $`\lambda _\mu `$ and $`\mu `$, and the upper bound on $`\lambda _\mu `$ becomes stronger for given hierarchy $`R`$. Conversely for $`\kappa _\mu <0`$ the Landau pole moves to higher energy and the upper bound on $`\lambda _\mu `$ is weakened. In the renormalizable model considered in section 4, in which the new physics arises from the exchange of a heavy singlet scalar, equation (4.5) implies $`\kappa _\mu >0`$. In general the sign may be positive or negative.

If the dimension 6 operator arises from a dimension 4 interaction with dimensionless coupling $`g`$ between high-scale quanta of mass $`M`$ and the light scalar fields $`\varphi `$, then $`\kappa `$ will be of order $`\mathrm{O}(g^2/M^2)`$ where for strong coupling $`g^2`$ would be of order O($`4\pi `$). If the underlying interaction has dimension 3 with dimensionful coupling $`G`$, then $`\kappa \mathrm{O}(G^2/M^4)`$, as in equation (4.5). For strong coupling we would then expect $`G^2/M^2\mathrm{O}(4\pi )`$, and, again, $`\kappa \mathrm{O}(4\pi /M^2)`$.

In general the strength of the dimension 6 operator is characterized by a dimensionless quantity $`C`$, defined by

$$\kappa _\mu =\frac{C}{M^2}.$$
$`(6.9)`$
Assuming now that $`M`$ is as heavy as it can be, $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$, and that the hierarchy inequality (6.4) is also saturated, i.e.,

$$\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}^2}{\mu ^2}=R$$
$`(6.10),`$
then (6.7) becomes

$$\lambda _\mu =\frac{1}{b_N\mathrm{log}R}c_N\frac{C}{R^2}.$$
$`(6.11)`$
Defining $`r_\lambda `$ as the ratio of the value of $`\lambda _\mu `$ determined from (6.11) to the corresponding value, equation (6.2), for $`C=\kappa _\mu =0`$, we have

$$r_\lambda =1b_Nc_NC\frac{\mathrm{log}R}{R^2}.$$
$`(6.12)`$
Similarly, we define $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$ determined for $`\kappa _\mu 0`$ from (6.6) relative to the value for $`\kappa _\mu =0`$ from (6.1), for the same values of $`\lambda _\mu `$ and $`\mu `$, and find

$$r_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{c_NC}{b_NR^2}\frac{1}{\lambda _\mu (\lambda _\mu +c_N\frac{C}{R^2})}\right).$$
$`(6.13)`$
Expanding to leading order in $`\kappa _\mu \mu ^2/\lambda _\mu `$, $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is approximately

$$r_\mathrm{\Lambda }1b_Nc_NC\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}R}{R}\right)^2,$$
$`(6.14)`$
which is enhanced by an additional factor of $`\mathrm{log}R`$ relative to the correction to $`r_\lambda `$ in (6.12).

The value of $`\lambda _\mu `$ from equation (6.11) for $`N=4`$ is plotted in figure 5 for $`C=0,\pm 4\pi `$ as a function of the hierarchy $`R`$. Numerical values for the ratios $`r_\lambda `$ and $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from equations (6.12) and (6.13) are given in tables 1 and 2 for $`N=4`$ and $`N=1`$ respectively with $`C=\pm 4\pi `$. For $`N=1`$ the corrections are approximately four times smaller than for $`N=4`$. For $`N=4`$ the corrections to the coupling constant are sizeable, reaching 66% for the hierarchy $`R=2`$ at which the triviality bound is customarily obtained in lattice calculations. The value of such a large correction cannot be taken literally since it exceeds the domain of validity of the perturbative approximation, but it suggests that large corrections, potentially even of order one, are possible. At larger values of $`R`$ the corrections become smaller and are therefore more reliably known. We may for instance consider where the approximation (6.14) becomes a good description of (6.13). From table 1 we find that this occurs at $`R=5`$, where (6.14) implies a 40% correction to $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in good agreement with the result shown in the table, and for which the correction to the triviality bound is 25%.

(7) Conclusion

We have studied the effect of new physics on the RG analysis of the Landau pole and the triviality bound in the unbroken phase of O($`N`$) $`\varphi ^4`$ theory. Including a dimension 6 operator to represent the low energy effects of the new physics that must exist at the Landau pole, we find that the pole position and the upper bound on the coupling constant can be modified by substantial amounts, if the new physics is strongly coupled to the O($`N`$) scalars and if the O($`N`$) scalars are themselves strongly coupled. The analysis is performed in the spirit of the original Dashen-Neuberger analysis, to explore the possible order of magnitude of the effects in a simple approximation.

Quantitative results for the strong coupling regime would require lattice simulations. As discussed in the introduction, the related lattice simulations carried out in  had a different goal than ours — to see the effect of dimension 6 operators subject to the constraint that the low energy Higgs sector resemble the SM Higgs sector to within a few percent — and is not directly comparable to the calculation presented here since different phases are considered and the required operator matching has not been done. Here, within the limitations of one loop perturbation theory, we explored the maximum effect on the bound without regard to the size of other corrections to the low energy physics. It would be interesting to study this regime with lattice simulations.

To check the RG analysis of the effective theory we also considered a simple renormalizable model of the new physics, consisting of a heavy O($`N`$) singlet scalar field which in its low energy limit gives rise to the dimension 6 operator. The model provides a computational check and a measure of physical insight. We saw that in addition to giving rise to the dimension 6 operator, the exchange of the heavy scalar causes a tree-level shift $`\delta \lambda _{\mathrm{Tree}}`$ in the $`\varphi ^4`$ coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and that apparently dangerous one loop corrections, proportional to $`\kappa M^2`$ (where $`M`$ is the mass of the heavy scalar) conspire to give $`\delta \lambda _{\mathrm{Tree}}`$ precisely the usual O($`\lambda ^2`$) renormalization.

The sign of $`\kappa `$ determines whether the triviality limit is increased or decreased by new physics. For the model considered here with a heavy O($`N`$) singlet scalar, $`\kappa `$ is positive, in which case the Landau pole position and the triviality bound on the coupling are both lowered. For negative $`\kappa `$ the opposite occurs. It is then very interesting to exhibit theories with $`\kappa <0`$ or to prove that none exist. The lattice studies of dimension 6 operators in the Higgs phase reported possible increases of the triviality bound, but they too introduced dimension 6 operators by hand and so also did not address this issue. Since $`\kappa `$ is a parameter of an effective theory with a limited domain of validity, which might furthermore arise from the low energy limit of another effective theory with a still limited (though higher energy) domain of validity, it is likely that no general theorem exists.

In the renormalizable O($`N`$) $`\varphi ^4`$ scalar theory it is easy to see that the RG flow of the coupling constant is the same in the symmetric and Higgs phases of the theory. Because the dimension 6 $`\varphi ^4`$ interaction gives rise to dimension 5 $`\varphi ^3`$ interactions in the Higgs phase, it is not immediately apparent that the same is true of the effective theory. This question is under study and will be reported elsewhere.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Korkut Bardakci, Sidney Coleman, Mary Gaillard, Lawrence Hall, and Hitoshi Murayama for helpful discussions.

Table 1. Tabulation of $`r_\lambda `$ and $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, from equations (6.12 - 6.13), for the $`N=4`$ theory with $`C=\pm 4\pi `$.

|  | $`C=`$ | $`4\pi `$ | $`C=`$ | $`4\pi `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`R`$ | $`r_\lambda `$ | $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`r_\lambda `$ | $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ |
| 2 | 0.34 | 0.26 | 1.66 | 1.32 |
| $`e`$ | 0.48 | 0.34 | 1.52 | 1.41 |
| 5 | 0.75 | 0.59 | 1.25 | 1.37 |
| 7 | 0.85 | 0.71 | 1.15 | 1.29 |
| 10 | 0.91 | 0.80 | 1.09 | 1.20 |

Table 2. Tabulation of $`r_\lambda `$ and $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, from equations (6.12 - 6.13), for the $`N=1`$ theory with $`C=\pm 4\pi `$.

|  | $`C=`$ | $`4\pi `$ | $`C=`$ | $`4\pi `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`R`$ | $`r_\lambda `$ | $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`r_\lambda `$ | $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ |
| 2 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 1.17 | 1.10 |
| $`e`$ | 0.87 | 0.86 | 1.13 | 1.12 |
| 5 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 1.06 | 1.10 |
| 7 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 1.04 | 1.07 |
| 10 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 1.05 |


format: text

text:
# 𝑞-deformed dynamics and Josephson junction

## Abstract

We define a generalized rate equation for an observable in quantum mechanics, that involves a parameter $`q`$ and whose limit $`q1`$ gives the standard Heisenberg equation. The generalized rate equation is used to study dynamics of current biased Josephson junction. It is observed that this toy model incorporates diffraction like effects in the critical current. Physical interpretation for $`q`$ is provided which is also shown to be $`q`$ deformation parameter.

$`q`$-deformed algebras  and their various realizations have been subject of intense study in the past years. They provide a platform to study alternative schemes of quantization  whereby issues like generalized statistics  can be discussed. The effect of deformation has been studied also for different quantum mechanical toy models  and these algebras are finding applications as dynamical symmetry algebras of various physical systems. Roughly speaking, $`q`$-deformed version of a theory corresponds to its formulation on a lattice and $`q`$ parameter may be interpreted as equivalent to lattice spacing . Appropriately, it is also interesting to observe that some theories can be viewed as intrinsically $`q`$-deformed, and thus use of $`q`$-deformed algebras appears naturally in certain contexts, like Barnett-Pegg theory of rotation angle , nonextensive entropy within generalized statistical mechanics , Bloch electron problem  and so on.

Apart from the $`q`$-deformation of the algebraic structure for model physical systems, attempts have been made to $`q`$-generalize Schrödinger equation , Dirac equation  as well as Heisenberg equation of motion . In this paper, we focus on the deformation of Heisenberg equation, which gives the rate of change of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ as

$$\dot{\widehat{A}}\frac{d\widehat{A}}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{A},\widehat{H}].$$
(1)
Now a simple $`q`$-deformation of this equation, would be to make the rate of change proportional to modified commutator $`[\widehat{A},\widehat{H}]_q=\widehat{A}\widehat{H}q\widehat{H}\widehat{A}`$. However, in this approach the hamiltonian is no longer constant of motion, as pointed out in .

Our purpose here is to propose a generalized rate equation for an observable in quantum mechanics. We apply it to study the dynamics of Josephson tunnel junction (JJ) . The new definition involves a parameter which will be interpreted as $`q`$-deformation parameter and it will be discussed that it does lead to a physical effect.

We first present a brief summary of the standard way of writing Heisenberg equation of motion for a JJ. Following , the time dependent hamiltonian of a current biased JJ is given by

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2C}\{2e\widehat{n}+It\}^2E_J\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi }.$$
(2)
$`C`$, $`e`$, $`I`$ respectively are the junction capacitance, electronic charge, current through the junction and $`E_J`$ is the Josephson coupling energy between two superconductors across the junction. $`\widehat{n}`$ measures the number of cooper pairs transferred across the junction and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is the phase operator canonically conjugate to $`\widehat{n}`$, in the sense that $`[\widehat{n},\widehat{\varphi }]=i`$, which may be satisfied by the differential realization, $`\widehat{n}=i\frac{}{\varphi }`$. It may be remarked that $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ are hermitian operators and $`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi }`$ may be written in terms of unitary exponential operators as $`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi }=(e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}+e^{i\widehat{\varphi }})/2`$.

Now applying Eq. (1) for the case of $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{n}`$ (and using alongwith $`[\widehat{n},e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}]=e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}`$), we get

$$2e\dot{\widehat{n}}=I_J\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi },(\mathrm{}C/2e)\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}=2e\widehat{n}+It,$$
(3)
where $`I_J=2eE_J/\mathrm{}`$ is the critical value of current, beyond which a finite voltage appears across the junction.

Combining the two equations in (3), we write

$$(\mathrm{}C/2e)\ddot{\widehat{\varphi }}+I_J\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi }=I.$$
(4)
In case, $`E_J`$ is quite larger than the electrostatic charging energy $`E_C=2e^2/C`$ (due to transfer of one cooper pair across the junction), we can replace the operators by their expectation values and so the ”classical” equation of motion corresponding to Eq. (4) is

$$(\mathrm{}C/2e)\ddot{\varphi }+I_J\mathrm{sin}\varphi =I,$$
(5)
which implies motion of a classical particle in a washboard potential

$$U(\varphi )=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}e}(I_J\mathrm{cos}\varphi +I\varphi ).$$
(6)
In the absence of fluctuations, $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$, and we have a minimum in potential energy, $`\frac{U}{\varphi }=0`$ obtaining

$$I=I_J\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(7)
In the following, we generalize the definition of rate of change of an operator with respect to time. Let us illustrate for an arbitrary observable $`\widehat{A}`$. Define

$$𝒟_t\widehat{A}=\frac{q^{\widehat{A}}}{\mathrm{ln}q}\frac{dq^{\widehat{A}}}{dt}.$$
(8)
The operator defined above is not equal to $`d\widehat{A}/dt`$ if $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`d\widehat{A}/dt`$ do not commute. This can be seen by expanding $`q^{\widehat{A}}`$ as power series. However, as $`q1`$, the above operator approaches $`d\widehat{A}/dt`$. Also $`dq^{\widehat{A}}/dt`$ is given by the standard Heisenberg equation of motion

$$\frac{dq^{\widehat{A}}}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[q^{\widehat{A}},\widehat{H}].$$
(9)
Thus we obtain

$$𝒟_t\widehat{A}=\frac{q^{\widehat{A}}}{i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}q}[q^{\widehat{A}},\widehat{H}].$$
(10)
So as $`q1`$, the right hand side approaches $`[\widehat{A},\widehat{H}]/i\mathrm{}`$ and in this sense, Eq. (10) can be considered as $`q`$-generalization of the standard Heisenberg equation. We later on identify the parameter $`q`$ as the one appearing in $`q`$-deformation theory.

To apply the new rate equation to Josephson junction, we alternately consider $`\widehat{A}`$ to be operator $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{n}`$. Also from now on we take $`q=\mathrm{exp}(is)`$ with $`s`$ real. As a consequence, we obtain

$$(\mathrm{}C/2e)𝒟_t\widehat{\varphi }=2e\widehat{n}+It+es,$$
(11)
and

$$2e𝒟_t\widehat{n}=I_J\frac{\mathrm{sin}(s/2)}{s/2}\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi }s/2).$$
(12)
Compare these two equations with the original Heisenberg equations, Eq. (3). Naturally, the above Eqs. reduce to the latter, as $`s0`$ (or $`q1`$). Following the similar arguments (as after Eq. (3)), we can identify the critical current of the modified problem as following

$$I=I_J\frac{\mathrm{sin}(s/2)}{s/2}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi s/2).$$
(13)
There are two consequences of $`s`$ being not equal to zero; 1) there is phase shift, that in standard JJ may be produced by, for example, external magnetic field. It is this phase shift that accounts for interference in SQUID devices, where more than one JJs are coupled, 2) more remarkably, we see that the maximum critical current $`I_J`$ is modified by a Fraunhoffer like diffraction term. This pattern is observed in junctions with rectangular geometry in the presence of applied magnetic field . This is a consequence of the finite width of the junction and is analogous to the effect in optics. Comparing with the standard result, we have $`s=2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\varphi _0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the effective flux linked with the junction and $`\varphi _0=\pi \mathrm{}/e`$.

Next, we would like to interpret parameter $`q`$ as the one occuring in $`q`$-analysis. Note that using the realization $`\widehat{n}=i/\varphi `$, we can show

$$q^{\widehat{n}}e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}=qe^{i\widehat{\varphi }}q^{\widehat{n}}.$$
(14)
Now in the theory of $`q`$-calculus , the relation $`\widehat{X}\widehat{Y}=q\widehat{Y}\widehat{X}`$ plays important role. Working in the eigenspace of $`\widehat{X}`$, we have $`\widehat{X}|n=x|n`$, where $`n`$ labels the eigenstates. On this space, $`\widehat{Y}`$ acts like a shift operator, $`\widehat{Y}|n=|n+1.`$ For the present case, we identify $`X=q^{\widehat{n}}`$ and $`|n`$ as the pair-number difference states. Here $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`n`$ counts the number of cooper pairs transferred across the junction and the sign $`\pm `$ refers to the direction (positive for transfer in one direction and negative for opposite direction). Also $`|n`$ is the appropriate basis in which the present hamiltonian Eq. (2), describes tunnelling of cooper pairs. Now the dual basis to the above is given by

$$|\varphi =(2\pi )^{1/2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in\varphi }|n,$$
(15)
and the eigenvalue equation, $`e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}|\varphi =e^{i\varphi }|\varphi `$, implies $`e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}|n=|n+1`$. Thus it is natural to identify $`\widehat{Y}=e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}`$, satisfying Eq. (14). Also, $`e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}`$ transfers the cooper pair in the opposite direction. It may be remarked that incorporating negative eigenvalues of $`\widehat{n}`$ is important to maintain unitarity of the shift operator $`e^{i\widehat{\varphi }}`$, and hence the hermiticity of operator $`\widehat{\varphi }`$.

In the above, we used the standard JJ hamiltonian with a generalized definition of rate of change of an observable and arrived at generalized rate equations for the JJ. It may be asked whether same generalized dynamics can be obtained by using a modified or deformed hamiltonian in the standard Heisenberg equation. For the JJ case, it is easy to give such a hamiltonian as follows

$$\widehat{H}_s=\frac{1}{2C}\{2e(\widehat{n}+s/2)+It\}^2E_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }s/2),$$
(16)
where now the coupling energy becomes $`s`$ dependent as

$$E_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=E_J\frac{\mathrm{sin}(s/2)}{s/2}.$$
(17)
We note that $`\widehat{H}_s`$ involves operators $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ both shifted by $`s/2`$ (with opposite signs). To interpret the parameter $`s`$ in the modified hamiltonian, we consider the hamiltonian for a charged particle moving on a ring in the xy-plane

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{L}_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2M}V_0\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi },$$
(18)
where $`M`$ is the moment of inertia. Angular momentum operator $`\widehat{L}_z`$ is the analogue of operator $`\widehat{n}`$ in the case of JJ above and satisfies $`[\widehat{L}_z,\widehat{\varphi }]=i\mathrm{}`$. Now the standard equation of motion for $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is given by $`\dot{\widehat{\varphi }}=\widehat{L}_z/M.`$ The generalized rate of change comes out to be

$$𝒟_t\widehat{\varphi }=(2\widehat{L}_z+s)/2M.$$
(19)
It is clear that the following hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_s=\frac{(\widehat{L}_z+s/2)^2}{2M}V_0\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi },$$
(20)
when employed in the standard rate of change, gives the generalized dynamics. Now the deformed hamiltonian Eq. (20) is just the one for a charged particle moving on a ring at whose center is magnetic flux proportional to $`s`$. Thus once again, we get the same interpretation of parameter $`s`$ as representing a fictitious flux.

Concluding, we have considered a generalized rate equation for an observable in quantum mechanics, which goes over to standard Heisenberg equation as the parameter $`q=\mathrm{exp}(is)`$ goes to unity. To study its implications, we have applied it to current biased Josephson tunnel junction. We saw that this toy model can incorporate the diffraction like effects of critical current for rectangular JJs. This allows to interpret parameter $`s`$ as equivalent to magnetic flux through the junction. Also we were able to represent $`q`$ as deformation parameter occuring in the theory of $`q`$-analysis. Finally, we considered deformation of the system hamiltonian and again could infer that $`s`$ represents a magnetic flux threading the Josephson junction or the analogue system of charged particle on a ring.

Acknowledgement

The author gratefully acknowledges Prof. K.N. Pathak for discussion and encouragement. This work was supported by Department of Science and technology, India.


text:
# Quantum Phase Transitions

## 1 Introduction: From the melting of ice to quantum criticality

When a piece of ice is taken out of the freezer, in the beginning its properties change only slowly with increasing temperature. At $`0^{}`$C, however, a drastic change happens. The thermal motion of the water molecules becomes so strong that it destroys the crystal structure. The ice melts, and a new phase of water forms, the liquid phase. This process is an example for a phase transition. At the transition temperature of $`0^{}`$C the solid and the liquid phases of water coexist. A finite amount of heat, the so-called latent heat, is necessary to transform the ice into liquid water. Phase transitions which involve latent heat are usually called first-order transitions.

Another well known example of a phase transition is the magnetic transition of iron. At room temperature iron is ferromagnetic, i.e. it possesses a spontaneous magnetization. With increasing temperature the magnetization decreases continuously. It vanishes at the Curie temperature of $`770^{}`$C, and above this temperature iron is paramagnetic. This is a phase transition from a ferro- to a paramagnet. In contrast to the previous example there is no phase coexistence at the transition temperature, the two phases rather become indistinguishable. Consequently, there is no latent heat. This type of phase transitions are called continuous transitions or second-order transitions. They are the result of a competition between order and thermal fluctuations. When approaching the transition point the typical length and time scales of the fluctuations diverge, leading to singularities in many physical quantities. The diverging correlation length at a continuous phase transition was first observed in 1869 in a famous experiment by Andrews Andrews1869 . He discovered that the properties of the liquid and the vapor phases of carbon dioxide became indistinguishable at a temperature of about 31 C and 73 atmospheres pressure. In the vicinity of this point the carbon dioxide became opaque, i.e. it strongly scattered visible light, indicating that the length scale of the density fluctuations had reached the wave length of the light. Andrews called this special point in the phase diagram the critical point and the strong light scattering in its vicinity the critical opalescence.

More formally one can define a phase transition as the occurrence of a singularity in the thermodynamic quantities as functions of the external parameters. Phase transitions have played, and continue to play, an essential role in shaping our world. The large scale structure of the universe is the result of a sequence of phase transitions during the very early stages of its development. Even our everyday life is unimaginable without the never ending transformations of water between ice, liquid and vapor. Understanding the properties of phase transitions and in particular those of critical points has been a great challenge for theoretical physics. More than a century has gone by from the first discoveries until a consistent picture emerged. However, the theoretical concepts established during this development, viz., scaling and the renormalization group Wilson71 , now belong to the central paradigms of modern physics.

In the last decade considerable attention has concentrated on a class of phase transitions which are qualitatively very different from the examples discussed above. These new transitions occur at zero temperature when a non-thermal parameter like pressure, chemical composition or magnetic field is changed. The fluctuations which destroy the long-range order in these transitions cannot be of thermal nature since thermal fluctuations do not exist at zero temperature. Instead, they are quantum fluctuations which are a consequence of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. For this reason phase transitions at zero temperature are called quantum phase transitions, in contrast to thermal or classical phase transitions at finite temperatures. (The justification for calling all thermal phase transitions classical will become clear in Sec. 3)

As an illustration of classical and quantum phase transitions we show the magnetic phase diagram of the transition metal compound MnSi in Fig. 1.

At ambient pressure MnSi is a paramagnetic metal for temperatures larger than $`T_c=30`$ K. Below $`T_c`$ it orders ferromagnetically111Actually, the ordered state is a spin spiral in the (111) direction of the crystal. Its wavelength is very long (200 Å) so that the material behaves like a ferromagnet for most purposes. but remains metallic. This transition is a thermal continuous phase transition analogous to that in iron discussed above. Applying pressure reduces the transition temperature, and at about 14 kBar the magnetic phase vanishes. Thus, at 14 kBar MnSi undergoes a quantum phase transition from a ferro- to a paramagnet. While this is a very obvious quantum phase transition, its properties are rather complex due to the interplay between the magnetic degrees of freedom and other fermionic excitations (for details see us\_fm ).

At a first glance quantum phase transitions seem to be a purely academic problem since they occur at isolated parameter values and at zero temperature which is inaccessible in an experiment. However, within the last decade it has turned out that the opposite is true. Quantum phase transitions do have important, experimentally relevant consequences, and they are believed to provide keys to many new and exciting phenomena in condensed matter physics, such as the quantum Hall effects, the localization problem, non-Fermi liquid behavior in metals or high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity.

These lecture notes are intended as a pedagogical introduction to quantum phase transitions. In section 2 we first collect a few basic facts about phase transitions and critical behavior. In section 3 we then investigate the importance of quantum mechanics for the physics of phase transitions and the relation between quantum and classical transitions. Section 4 is devoted to a detailed analysis of the physics in the vicinity of a quantum critical point. We then discuss two examples: In section 5 we consider one of the paradigmatic models in this field, the Ising model in a transverse field, and in section 6 we briefly discuss quantum phase transitions in itinerant electron systems and their connection to non-Fermi liquid behavior.

Those readers who want to learn more details about quantum phase transitions and the methods used to study them, should consult one of the recent review articles, e.g. Refs. sgcs97 ; kb97 ; vojta2000 , or the excellent text book on quantum phase transitions by Sachdev sachdev00 .

## 2 Basic concepts of phase transitions and critical behavior

In this section we briefly collect the basic concepts of continuous phase transitions and critical behavior which are necessary for the later discussions. For a detailed exposure the reader is referred to one of the text books on this subject, e.g., those by Ma Ma76  or Goldenfeld Goldenfeld92 ).

A continuous phase transition can usually be characterized by an order parameter, a concept first introduced by Landau Landau37 . An order parameter is a thermodynamic quantity that is zero in one phase (the disordered) and non-zero and non-unique in the other (the ordered) phase. Very often the choice of an order parameter for a particular transition is obvious as, e.g., for the ferromagnetic transition where the total magnetization is an order parameter. Sometimes, however, finding an appropriate order parameter is a complicated problem by itself, e.g., for the disorder-driven localization-delocalization transition of non-interacting electrons.

While the thermodynamic average of the order parameter is zero in the disordered phase, its fluctuations are non-zero. If the phase transition point, i.e., the critical point, is approached the spatial correlations of the order parameter fluctuations become long-ranged. Close to the critical point their typical length scale, the correlation length $`\xi `$, diverges as

$$\xi |t|^\nu $$
(1)
where $`\nu `$ is the correlation length critical exponent and $`t`$ is some dimensionless measure of the distance from the critical point. If the transition occurs at a non-zero temperature $`T_c`$, it can be defined as $`t=|TT_c|/T_c`$. The divergence of the correlation length when approaching the transition is illustrated in Fig. 2 which shows computer simulation results for the phase transition in a two-dimensional Ising model.

In addition to the long-range correlations in space there are analogous long-range correlations of the order parameter fluctuations in time. The typical time scale for a decay of the fluctuations is the correlation (or equilibration) time $`\tau _c`$. As the critical point is approached the correlation time diverges as

$$\tau _c\xi ^z|t|^{\nu z}$$
(2)
where $`z`$ is the dynamical critical exponent. Close to the critical point there is no characteristic length scale other than $`\xi `$ and no characteristic time scale other than $`\tau _c`$.222Note that a microscopic cutoff scale must be present to explain non-trivial critical behavior, for details see, e.g., Goldenfeld Goldenfeld92 . In a solid such a scale is, e.g., the lattice spacing. As already noted by Kadanoff Kadanoff66 , this is the physics behind Widom’s scaling hypothesis Widom65 , which we will now discuss.

Let us consider a classical system, characterized by its Hamiltonian

$$H(p_i,q_i)=H_{kin}(p_i)+H_{pot}(q_i)$$
(3)
where $`q_i`$ and $`p_i`$ are the generalized coordinates and momenta, and $`H_{kin}`$ and $`H_{pot}`$ are the kinetic and potential energies, respectively.333Velocity dependent potentials like in the case of charged particles in an electromagnetic field are excluded. In such a system statics and dynamics decouple, i.e., the momentum and position sums in the partition function

$$Z=dp_ie^{H_{kin}/k_BT}dq_ie^{H_{pot}/k_BT}=Z_{kin}Z_{pot}$$
(4)
are completely independent from each other. The kinetic contribution to the free energy density $`f=(k_BT/V)\mathrm{log}Z`$ will usually not display any singularities, since it derives from the product of simple Gaussian integrals. Therefore one can study phase transitions and the critical behavior using effective time-independent theories like the classical Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson theory. In this type of theories the free energy is expressed as a functional of the order parameter $`M(𝐫)`$, which is time-independent but fluctuates in space. All other degrees of freedom have been integrated out in the derivation of the theory starting from a microscopic Hamiltonian. In its simplest form Wilson71 ; Landau37 ; Ginzburg60  valid, e.g., for an Ising ferromagnet, the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }[M]`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[M]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^drM(𝐫)\left(\frac{^2}{𝐫^2}+t\right)M(𝐫)}+u{\displaystyle d^drM^4(𝐫)}B{\displaystyle d^drM(𝐫)},`$ (5)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D[M]e^{\mathrm{\Phi }[M]}},`$ (6)
where $`B`$ is the field conjugate to the order parameter (the magnetic field in case of a ferromagnet).

Since close to the critical point the correlation length is the only relevant length scale, the physical properties must be unchanged, if we rescale all lengths in the system by a common factor $`b`$, and at the same time adjust the external parameters in such a way that the correlation length retains its old value. This observation gives rise to the homogeneity relation for the free energy density,

$$f(t,B)=b^df(tb^{1/\nu },Bb^{y_B}).$$
(7)
Here $`y_B`$ is another critical exponent and $`d`$ is the space dimensionality. The scale factor $`b`$ is an arbitrary positive number. Analogous homogeneity relations for other thermodynamic quantities can be obtained by differentiating the free energy. The homogeneity law (7) was first obtained phenomenologically by Widom Widom65 . Within the framework of the renormalization group theory Wilson71  it can be derived from first principles.

In addition to the critical exponents $`\nu ,y_B`$ and $`z`$ defined above, a number of other exponents is in common use. They describe the dependence of the order parameter and its correlations on the distance from the critical point and on the field conjugate to the order parameter. The definitions of the most commonly used critical exponents are summarized in Table 1.

Note that not all the exponents defined in Table 1 are independent from each other. The four thermodynamic exponents $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ can all be obtained from the free energy (7) which contains only two independent exponents. They are therefore connected by the so-called scaling relations

$`2\alpha =2\beta +\gamma ,2\alpha =\beta (\delta +1).`$ (8)
Analogously, the exponents of the correlation length and correlation function are connected by two so-called hyperscaling relations

$`2\alpha =d\nu ,\gamma =(2\eta )\nu .`$ (9)
Since statics and dynamics decouple in classical statistics the dynamical exponent $`z`$ is completely independent from all the others.

The set of critical exponents completely characterizes the critical behavior at a particular phase transition. One of the most remarkable features of continuous phase transitions is universality, i.e., the fact that the critical exponents are the same for entire classes of phase transitions which may occur in very different physical systems. These classes, the so-called universality classes, are determined only by the symmetries of the Hamiltonian and the spatial dimensionality of the system. This implies that the critical exponents of a phase transition occurring in nature can be determined exactly (at least in principle) by investigating any simplistic model system belonging to the same universality class, a fact that makes the field very attractive for theoretical physicists. The mechanism behind universality is again the divergence of the correlation length. Close to the critical point the system effectively averages over large volumes rendering the microscopic details of the Hamiltonian unimportant.

The critical behavior at a particular transition is crucially determined by the relevance or irrelevance of order parameter fluctuations. It turns out that fluctuations become increasingly important if the spatial dimensionality of the system is reduced. Above a certain dimension, called the upper critical dimension $`d_c^+`$, fluctuations are irrelevant, and the critical behavior is identical to that predicted by mean-field theory (for systems with short-range interactions and a scalar or vector order parameter $`d_c^+=4`$). Between $`d_c^+`$ and a second special dimension, called the lower critical dimension $`d_c^{}`$, a phase transition still exists but the critical behavior is different from mean-field theory. Below $`d_c^{}`$ fluctuations become so strong that they completely suppress the ordered phase.

## 3 How important is quantum mechanics?

The question of to what extent quantum mechanics is important for understanding a continuous phase transition is a multi-layered question. One may ask, e.g., whether quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the existence and the properties of the ordered phase. This question can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, and very often quantum mechanics is essential as, e.g., for superconductors. A different question to ask would be how important quantum mechanics is for the asymptotic behavior close to the critical point and thus for the determination of the universality class the transition belongs to.

It turns out that the latter question has a remarkably clear and simple answer: Quantum mechanics does not play any role for the critical behavior if the transition occurs at a finite temperature. It does play a role, however, at zero temperature. In the following we will first give a simple argument explaining these facts. To do so it is useful to distinguish fluctuations with predominantly thermal and quantum character depending on whether their thermal energy $`k_BT`$ is larger or smaller than the quantum energy scale $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$. We have seen in the preceeding section that the typical time scale $`\tau _c`$ of the fluctuations diverges as a continuous transition is approached. Correspondingly, the typical frequency scale $`\omega _c`$ goes to zero and with it the typical energy scale

$$\mathrm{}\omega _c|t|^{\nu z}.$$
(10)
Quantum fluctuations will be important as long as this typical energy scale is larger than the thermal energy $`k_BT`$. If the transition occurs at some finite temperature $`T_c`$ quantum mechanics will therefore become unimportant for $`|t|<t_x`$ with the crossover distance $`t_x`$ given by

$$t_xT_c^{1/\nu z}.$$
(11)
We thus find that the critical behavior asymptotically close to the transition is entirely classical if the transition temperature $`T_c`$ is nonzero. This justifies to call all finite-temperature phase transitions classical transitions, even if the properties of the ordered state are completely determined by quantum mechanics as is the case, e.g., for the superconducting phase transition of mercury at $`T_c=4.2`$ K. In these cases quantum fluctuations are obviously important on microscopic scales, while classical thermal fluctuations dominate on the macroscopic scales that control the critical behavior. This also implies that only universal quantities like the critical exponents will be independent of quantum mechanics while non-universal quantities like the critical temperature in general will depend on quantum mechanics.

If, however, the transition occurs at zero temperature as a function of a non-thermal parameter like the pressure $`p`$, the crossover distance $`t_x`$ equals zero since there are no thermal fluctuations. (Note that at zero temperature the distance $`t`$ from the critical point cannot be defined via the reduced temperature. Instead, one can define $`t=|pp_c|/p_c`$.) Thus, at zero temperature the condition $`|t|<t_x`$ is never fulfilled, and quantum mechanics will be important for the critical behavior. Consequently, transitions at zero temperature are called quantum phase transitions.

Let us now generalize the homogeneity law (7) to the case of a quantum phase transition. We consider a system characterized by a Hamiltonian $`H`$. In a quantum problem kinetic and potential part of $`H`$ in general do not commute. In contrast to the classical partition function (4) the quantum mechanical partition function does not factorize, i.e., statics and dynamics are always coupled. The canonical density operator $`e^{H/k_BT}`$ looks exactly like a time evolution operator in imaginary time $`\tau `$ if one identifies

$$1/k_BT=\tau =i\mathrm{\Theta }/\mathrm{}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the real time. This naturally leads to the introduction of an imaginary time direction into the system. An order parameter field theory analogous to the classical Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson theory (6) therefore needs to be formulated in terms of space and time dependent fields. The simplest example of a quantum Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson functional, valid for, e.g., an Ising model in a transverse field (see section 5), reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[M]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/k_BT}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^drM(𝐫,\tau )\left(\frac{^2}{𝐫^2}\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}+t\right)M(𝐫,\tau )}+`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`u{\displaystyle _0^{1/k_BT}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^drM^4(𝐫,\tau )}B{\displaystyle _0^{1/k_BT}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^drM(𝐫,\tau )}.`$ (14)
Let us note that the coupling of statics and dynamics in quantum statistical mechanics also leads to the fact that the universality classes for quantum phase transitions are smaller than those for classical transitions. Systems which belong to the same classical universality class may display different quantum critical behavior, if their dynamics differ.

The classical homogeneity law (7) for the free energy density can now easily be adopted to the case of a quantum phase transition. At zero temperature the imaginary time acts similarly to an additional spatial dimension since the extension of the system in this direction is infinite. According to (2), time scales like the $`z`$th power of a length. (In the simple example (14) space and time enter the theory symmetrically leading to $`z=1`$.) Therefore, the homogeneity law for the free energy density at zero temperature reads

$$f(t,B)=b^{(d+z)}f(tb^{1/\nu },Bb^{y_B}).$$
(15)
Comparing this relation to the classical homogeneity law (7) directly shows that a quantum phase transition in $`d`$ spatial dimensions is equivalent to a classical transition in $`d+z`$ spatial dimensions. Thus, for a quantum phase transition the upper critical dimension, above which mean-field critical behavior becomes exact, is reduced by $`z`$ compared to the corresponding classical transition. Note, however, that the mapping of a quantum phase transition to the equivalent classical transition in general leads to unusual anisotropic classical systems. Furthermore, the mapping is valid for the thermodynamics only. Other properties like the real time dynamics at finite temperatures require more careful considerations (see, e.g., Ref. sachdev00 ).

Now the attentive reader may again ask: Why are quantum phase transitions more than an academic problem? Any experiment is done at a non-zero temperature where, as we have explained above, the asymptotic critical behavior is classical. The answer is provided by the crossover condition (11): If the transition temperature $`T_c`$ is very small quantum fluctuations will remain important down to very small $`t`$, i.e., very close to the phase boundary. At a more technical level, the behavior at small but non-zero temperatures is determined by the crossover between two types of critical behavior, viz. quantum critical behavior at $`T=0`$ and classical critical behavior at non-zero temperatures. Since the ‘extension of the system in imaginary time direction’ is given by the inverse temperature $`1/k_BT`$ the corresponding crossover scaling is equivalent to finite size scaling in imaginary time direction. The crossover from quantum to classical behavior will occur when the correlation time $`\tau _c`$ reaches $`1/k_BT`$ which is equivalent to the condition (11). By adding the temperature as an explicit parameter and taking into account that in imaginary-time formalism it scales like an inverse time (12), we can generalize the quantum homogeneity law (15) to finite temperatures,

$$f(t,B,T)=b^{(d+z)}f(tb^{1/\nu },Bb^{y_B},Tb^z).$$
(16)
Once the critical exponents $`z`$, $`\nu `$, and $`y_B`$ and the scaling function $`f`$ are known this relation completely determines the thermodynamic properties close to the quantum phase transition.

## 4 Quantum-critical points

We now use the general scaling picture developed in the last section to discuss the physics in the vicinity of the quantum critical point. There are two qualitatively different types of phase diagrams depending on the existence or non-existence of long-range order at finite temperatures. These phase diagrams are schematically shown in Fig. 3.

Here $`p`$ stands for the (non-thermal) parameter which tunes the quantum phase transition. In addition to the phase boundary the phase diagrams show a number of crossover lines where the properties of the system change smoothly. They separate regions with different characters of the fluctuations.

The first type of phase diagrams describes situations where an ordered phase exists at finite temperatures. As discussed in the last section classical fluctuations will dominate in the vicinity of the phase boundary (in the hatched region in Fig. 3). According to (11) this region becomes narrower with decreasing temperature. An experiment performed along path (a) will therefore observe a crossover from quantum critical behavior away from the transition to classical critical behavior asymptotically close to it. At very low temperatures the classical region may become so narrow that it is actually unobservable in an experiment. In the quantum disordered region ($`p>p_c`$, small $`T`$) the physics is dominated by quantum fluctuations, the system essentially looks as in its quantum disordered ground state at $`p>p_c`$. In contrast, in the thermally disordered region the long-range order is destroyed mainly by thermal fluctuations.

Between the quantum disordered and the thermally disordered regions is the so-called quantum critical region CHN89 , where both types of fluctuations are important. It is located at the critical $`p`$ but, somewhat counter-intuitively, at comparatively high temperatures. Its boundaries are also determined by (11) but in general with a prefactor different from that of the asymptotic classical region. The physics in the quantum critical region is controlled by the quantum critical point: The system ’looks critical’ with respect to $`p`$ (due to quantum fluctuations) but is driven away from criticality by thermal fluctuations (i.e., the critical singularities are exclusively protected by the temperature $`T`$). In an experiment carried out along path (b) the physics will therefore be dominated by the critical fluctuations which diverge according to the temperature scaling at the quantum critical point.

The second type of phase diagram occurs if an ordered phase exists at zero temperature only (as is the case for two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets). In this case there will be no true phase transition in any experiment. However, an experiment along path (a) will show a very sharp crossover which becomes more pronounced with decreasing temperature. Furthermore, the system will display quantum critical behavior in the above-mentioned quantum critical region close to the critical $`p`$ and at higher temperatures.

## 5 Example: Transverse field Ising model

In this section we want to illustrate the general ideas presented in sections 3 and 4 by discussing a paradigmatic example, viz. the Ising model in a transverse field. An experimental realization of this model can be found in the low-temperature magnetic properties of LiHoF4. This material is an ionic crystal, and at sufficiently low temperatures the only magnetic degrees of freedom are the spins of the Holmium atoms. They have an easy axis, i.e. they prefer to point up or down with respect to a certain crystal axis. Therefore they can be represented by Ising spin variables. Spins at different Holmium atoms interact via a magnetic dipole-dipole interaction. Without external magnetic field the ground state is a fully polarized ferromagnet.444In the case of the dipole-dipole interaction the ground state configuration depends on the geometry of the lattice. In LiHoF4 it turns out to be ferromagnetic.

In 1996 Bitko, Rosenbaum and Aeppli BRA96  measured the magnetic properties of LiHoF4 as a function of temperature and a magnetic field which was applied perpendicular to the preferred spin orientation. The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. 4.

In order to understand this phase diagram we now consider a minimal microscopic model for the relevant magnetic degrees of freedom in LiHoF4, the Ising model in a transverse field. Choosing the $`z`$-axis to be the Ising axis its Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=J\underset{ij}{}S_i^zS_j^zh\underset{i}{}S_i^x.$$
(17)
Here $`S_i^z`$ and $`S_i^x`$ are the $`z`$ and $`x`$ components of the Holmium spin at lattice site $`i`$, respectively. The first term in the Hamiltonian describes the ferromagnetic interaction between the spins which we restrict to nearest neighbors for simplicity. The second term is the transversal magnetic field. For zero field $`h=0`$, the model reduces to the well-known classical Ising model. At zero temperature all spins are parallel. At a small but finite temperature a few spins will flip into the opposite direction. With increasing temperature the number and size of the flipped regions increases, reducing the total magnetization. At the critical temperature (about 1.5 K for LiHoF4) the magnetization vanishes, and the system becomes paramagnetic. The resulting transition is a continuous classical phase transition caused by thermal fluctuations.

Let us now consider the influence of the transverse magnetic field. To do so, it is convenient to rewrite the field term as

$$h\underset{i}{}S_i^x=h\underset{i}{}(S_i^++S_i^{})$$
(18)
where $`S_i^+`$ and $`S_i^{}`$ are the spin flip operators at site $`i`$. From this representation it is easy to see that the transverse field will cause spin flips. These flips are the quantum fluctuations discussed in the preceeding sections. If the transverse field becomes larger than some critical field $`h_c`$ (about 50 kOe in LiHoF4) they will destroy the ferromagnetic long-range order in the system even at zero temperature. This transition is a quantum phase transition driven exclusively by quantum fluctuations.

For the transversal field Ising model the quantum-to-classical mapping discussed in section 3 can be easily demonstrated at a microscopic level. Consider a one-dimensional classical Ising chain with the Hamiltonian

$$H_{cl}=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i^zS_{i+1}^z.$$
(19)
Its partition function is given by

$$Z=\mathrm{Tr}e^{H_{cl}/T}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{J_{i=1}^NS_i^zS_{i+1}^z/T}=\mathrm{Tr}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_{i,i+1},$$
(20)
where $`𝐌`$ is the so called transfer matrix. It can be represented as

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{J/T}& e^{J/T}\\ e^{J/T}& e^{J/T}\end{array}\right)=e^{J/T}(1+e^{2J/T}S^x)\mathrm{exp}(J/T+e^{2J/T}S^x).$$
(21)
Except for a multiplicative constant the partition function of the classical Ising chain has the same form as that of a single quantum spin in a transverse field, $`H_Q=hS^x`$, which can be written as

$$Z=\mathrm{Tr}e^{H_Q/T_Q}=\mathrm{Tr}e^{hS^x/T_Q}=\mathrm{Tr}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{hS^x/(T_QN)}.$$
(22)
Thus, a single quantum spin can be mapped onto a classical Ising chain. This considerations can easily be generalized to a $`d`$-dimensional transversal field (quantum) Ising model which can be mapped onto a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional classical Ising model. Consequently, the dynamical exponent $`z`$ must be equal to unity for the quantum phase transitions of transverse field Ising models. Using a path integral approach analogous to Feynman’s treatment of a single quantum particle, the quantum Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson functional (14) can be derived from (22) or its higher-dimensional analogs.

## 6 Quantum phase transitions and non-Fermi liquids

In this section we want to discuss a particularly important consequence of quantum phase transitions, viz. non-Fermi liquid behavior in an itinerant electron system. In a normal metal the electrons form a Fermi liquid, a concept developed by Landau in the 1950s Landau56 . In this state the strongly (via Coulomb potential) interacting electrons essentially behave like almost non-interacting quasiparticles with renormalized parameters (like the effective mass). This permits very general and universal predictions for the low-temperature properties of metallic electrons: For sufficiently low temperatures the specific heat is supposed to be linear in the temperature, the magnetic susceptibility approaches a constant, and the electric resistivity has the form $`\rho (T)=\rho _0+AT^2`$ (where $`\rho _0`$ is the residual resistance caused by impurities).

The Fermi liquid concept is extremely successful, it describes the vast majority of conducting materials. However, in the last years there have been experimental observations that are in contradiction to the Fermi liquid picture, e.g. in the normal phase of the high-$`T_c`$ superconducting materials HighTc  or in heavy fermion systems HeavyF . These are compounds of rare-earth elements or actinides where the quasiparticle effective mass is up to a few thousand times larger than the electron mass.

Fig. 5 shows an example for such an observation, viz. the specific heat coefficient $`C/T`$ of the heavy-fermion system von CeCu6-xAux as a function of the temperature $`T`$.

In a Fermi liquid $`C/T`$ should become constant for sufficiently low temperatures. Instead, in Fig. 5 $`C/T`$ shows a pronounced temperature dependence. In particular, the sample with a gold concentration of $`x=0.1`$ shows a logarithmic temperature dependence, $`C/T\mathrm{log}(1/T)`$, over a wide temperature range.

In order to understand these deviations from the Fermi liquid and in particular the qualitative differences between the behaviors at different $`x`$ it is helpful to relate the specific heat to the magnetic phase diagram of CeCu6-xAux, which is shown in Fig. 6. Pure CeCu6 is a paramagnet, but by alloying with gold it can become antiferromagnetic. The quantum phase transition is roughly at a critical gold concentration of $`x_c=0.1`$ (and $`T=0`$).

Let us first discuss the specific heat at the critical concentration $`x_c=0.1`$. A comparison with the schematic phase diagram in Fig. 3 shows that at this concentration the entire experiment is done in the quantum critical region (path (b)). When approaching the quantum critical point, i.e. with decreasing temperature the antiferromagnetic fluctuations diverge. The electrons are scattered off these fluctuations which hinders their movement and therefore increases the effective mass of the quasiparticles. In the limit of zero temperature the effective mass diverges and with it the specific heat coefficient $`C/T`$.

In an experiment at a gold concentration slightly above or below the critical concentration the system will be in the quantum critical region at high temperatures. Here the specific heat agrees with that at the critical concentration. However, with decreasing temperature the system leaves the quantum-critical region, either towards the quantum disordered region (for $`x<x_c`$) or into the ordered phase (for $`x>x_c`$). In the first case there will be a crossover from the quantum critical behavior $`C/T\mathrm{log}(1/T)`$ to conventional Fermi liquid behavior $`C/T=\mathrm{const}`$. This can be seen for the $`x=0`$ data in Fig. 5. In the opposite case, $`x>x_c`$ the system undergoes an antiferromagnetic phase transition at some finite temperature, connected with a singularity in the specific heat. In Fig. 5 this singularity is manifest as a pronounced shoulder.

In conclusion, the non-Fermi liquid behavior of CeCu6-xAux can be completely explained (at least qualitatively) by the antiferromagnetic quantum phase transition at the critical gold concentration of $`x_c=0.1`$. The deviations from the Fermi liquid occur in the quantum critical region where the electrons are scattered off the diverging magnetic fluctuations. Analogous considerations can be applied to other observables, e.g. the magnetic susceptibility or the electric resistivity.

## 7 Summary and Outlook

Quantum phase transitions are a fascinating subject in todays condensed matter physics. They open new ways of looking at complex situations and materials for which conventional methods like perturbation theory fail. So far, only the simplest, and the most obvious cases have been studied in detail which leaves a lot of interesting research for the future.

This work was supported in part by the DFG under grant Nos. Vo659/2 and SFB393/C2 and by the NSF under grant No. DMR–98–70597.