text:
# Thermal Effects in Low-Temperature QED

## I Introduction

If we have a quantum field theory in equilibrium at temperature $`T`$, the abundance of particles of mass $`m`$ much larger than $`T`$ is Boltzmann suppressed. More surprisingly, perhaps, is the fact that there are additional effects that are suppressed only by powers of $`T/m`$ . The Boltzmann-suppressed terms can be associated with loop integrations that involve distribution functions of the heavy particle. On the other hand, the power-suppressed terms arise from perturbative corrections involving only distribution functions of light particles, with masses on the order of $`T`$ or less.

Effective field theory ideas suggest that one integrates out the heavy particle of mass $`m`$ to construct a low-energy effective field theory that can be used for $`Tm`$ . Such an approach was used by Kong and Ravndal  to study QED at low temperature (see also Refs. \[6-13\] and Refs. therein for various calculations in low-temperature QED). By integrating out the electron field, they constructed a low-energy effective field theory for photons. Since this procedure was carried out at zero temperature, dimensional analysis tells us that the coefficients in the effective theory are suppressed by inverse powers of the electron mass $`m`$. These higher order interactions are induced by the coupling of the photon to virtual electron-positron pairs in the vacuum. Since the momenta of the photons are on the order $`T`$ and thus much smaller than $`m`$, the electron-positron pairs are off their mass shell by an amount $`m`$. Thus they can only propagate a distance $`R1/m`$ and their effects can be mimicked by local interactions. Using this effective field theory to calculate corrections to the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the pressure, they showed that the leading correction goes like $`\alpha ^2T^8/m^4`$. This correction was obtained by a straightforward two-loop calculation in the effective theory. In full QED, it would require a three-loop calculation.

If we are interested only in power corrections, we can determine the coefficients in the effective field theory by matching at zero temperature. In the case of QED, this would lead to the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian  with additional higher order operators that can be written in terms of the field strength and its dual  (see e.g.  for such higher order operators). However, it can be shown that this effective Lagrangian leads to a vanishing Debye mass to all orders in perturbation theory. We know that this is incorrect, but one can account for Debye screening and other Boltzmann-suppressed effects in low-temperature QED by carrying out the matching at finite temperature. Alternatively, one may reorganize the usual perturbative series in QED using resummed propagators in the usual way. However, such an approach is normally more cumbersome in practical calculations than effective field theory.

If we are interested in static quantities such as the pressure or Debye mass, it proves useful to construct a second effective field theory for the zero Matsubara mode and this is done by integrating out the nonzero Matsubara modes. This effective field theory is three-dimensional and is valid at distances $`R1/T`$. It can be constructed in a two-step process by first integrating out the electron field, and then integrating out the nonzero bosonic Matsubara modes. From a calculational point of view, however, it is easier to integrate out the fermions and the nonzero Matsubara modes at the same time. In this paper, we will take the latter approach.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we discuss QED at low temperature and the construction of the three-dimensional effective field theory. In section III, we determine the coefficients in the effective field theory. In section IV, we apply the effective field theory to calculate the the free energy to order $`e^3`$ and the Debye mass to order $`e^5`$. Finally, in section V, we summarize and conclude. All necessary details are collected in three appendices.

## II QED at Low Temperature

In the imaginary-time formalism, one can view a quantum field theory in four dimensions as a field theory in three Euclidean dimensions with an infinite tower of fields, where the Matsubara frequencies act as masses in the propagators . In low-temperature QED, this implies that the fermions have masses of order $`m`$, while the nonzero bosonic modes have masses of order $`T`$. The zero-frequency bosonic modes are massless. Thus for distances $`R1/T`$, we can construct an effective three-dimensional field theory for the zero Matsubara modes by integrating out the electron field as well as the nonzero bosonic modes . The coefficients of this effective field theory then encode the physics at the momentum scales $`m`$ and $`T`$. This procedure is briefly explained in section III.

The partition function of QED can be written as a path integral

$`𝒵={\displaystyle 𝒟\overline{\eta }𝒟\eta 𝒟A_\mu 𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}\left[_0^\beta 𝑑\tau d^3x\right]},`$ (1)
where the Euclidean Lagrangian is

$`_E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+m\overline{\psi }\psi +\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \left(_\mu ieA_\mu \right)\psi +\left(_\mu \overline{\eta }\right)\left(_\mu \eta \right)+_{\text{gf}}.`$ (2)
Here, $`_{\text{gf}}`$ denotes the gauge-fixing term. In the following we work in Feynman gauge, where

$`_{\text{gf}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu A_\mu )^2.`$ (3)
However, we emphasize that physical quantities are independent of the gauge-fixing condition.

In the three-dimensional effective theory, we can write the partition function as

$`𝒵=e^{f(\mathrm{\Lambda })V}{\displaystyle 𝒟\overline{\eta }𝒟\eta 𝒟\overline{A}_0𝒟\overline{A}_i\mathrm{exp}\left[d^3x_{\mathrm{eff}}\right]},`$ (4)
where the prefactor $`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is interpreted as the coefficient of the unit operator in the effective three-dimensional field theory. It depends on an ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that cancels the cutoff-dependence in the path integral in Eq. (4. $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the Lagrangian of the effective three-dimensional field theory. The effective field theory consists of a gauge field $`\overline{A}_i`$ coupled to a real massive self-interacting scalar field $`\overline{A}_0`$ ***The fact that we must allow for terms such as $`\frac{1}{2}M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\overline{A}_0^2`$ and $`\frac{\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{24}\overline{A}_0^4`$, is a direct consequence of the breakdown of Lorentz invariance at finite temperature.. These fields can up to normalizations be identified with the zero-frequency modes of the gauge field in QED. We can then schematically write

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })F_{ij}^2F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i\overline{A}_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\overline{A}_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{24}}\overline{A}_0^4+\left(_i\overline{\eta }\right)\left(_i\eta \right)`$ (6)
$`+_{\mathrm{gf}}+\delta _{\mathrm{eff}},`$
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ represents all higher order local terms that can be constructed out of $`\overline{A}_i`$ and $`\overline{A}_0`$ and respect the symmetries of the theory. Examples of such symmetries are three-dimensional gauge invariance and rotational symmetry. This includes renormalizable terms such as $`F_{ij}^2`$ as well as nonrenormalizable terms such as $`\overline{A}_0^6`$. Note also that we have suppressed the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence of the fields $`\overline{A}_i`$ and $`\overline{A}_0`$ in Eq. (6). Let us finally look at the power-counting rules for the effective theory Eq. (6) The coefficients of the operators are power series in $`e^2`$ since we are ignoring infrared divergences and are using conventional perturbation theory to determine them (see Sec. III). Physical quantities are expressed in powers of the parameters $`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,… and we must figure out at which order the operators that multiply them start to contribute. Each power of momentum in a loop integral in the effective theory gives a factor of $`M`$, in particular the measure gives a factor $`M^3`$. If we want to calculate the free energy to order $`e^3`$, it is necessary to determine $`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to order $`e^2`$. Moreover, the one-loop contribution to the free energy in the effective theory is proportional to $`M^3`$, and we therefore need to know the mass parameter to order $`e`$. (Note that the operator $`F_{ij}^2F_{ij}`$ does not contribute to the free energy at order $`e^2`$ since it involves only massless fields whose loop integral vanishes in dimensional regularization. In fact, this operator can be transformed away by a field redefinition at the expense of modifying the coeffcients of higher order operators.). On the other hand, the operator $`\overline{A}_0^4`$ starts to contribute first at order $`e^6`$; its coefficient $`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ goes like $`e^4`$ and it gives rise to a two-loop diagram in the effective theory where each loop is proportional to $`M`$. In this manner we can determine at which order in $`e`$ an operator starts to contribute to a given physical quantity, and in Eq. (6) we have explicitly displayed those operators needed to determine the free energy to order $`e^3`$ and the Debye mass to order $`e^5`$.

## III Short-distance Coefficients

In this section, we determine the short-distance coefficients in the effective Lagrangian Eq. (6). These coefficients must be tuned as functions of $`e`$, $`T`$, and the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so that the effective theory reproduces correlation functions at distances much larger than $`1/T`$. We can carry out these calculations using conventional perturbation theory, which is an expansion in powers of $`e^2`$. This expansion is plagued with infrared divergences due to long-range forces mediated by the massless photon. These divergences are Debye screened, but can only be taken into account by resummation. Although the naive perturbative expansion breaks down due to these infrared divergences, it can still be used to determine the short-distance coefficients . As long as we treat the long-distance physics in the same incorrect way using the effective theory, the infrared divergences will cancel in the matching equations and the coefficients properly encode the short-distance physics . The Lagrangian of QED is split the usual way into free and interacting pieces

$`_E^{\mathrm{free}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\psi }(m+/)\psi +\left(_\mu \overline{\eta }\right)\left(_\mu \eta \right)+_{\text{gf}},`$ (7)
$`_E^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`ie/A\overline{\psi }\psi ,`$ (8)
while the Lagrangian Eq. (6) is split according to

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{free}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i\overline{A}_0)^2+\left(_\mu \overline{\eta }\right)\left(_\mu \eta \right)+_{\mathrm{gf}},`$ (9)
$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })F_{ij}^2F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\overline{A}_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{24}}\overline{A}_0^4+\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}.`$ (10)
### A Coefficient of the Unit Operator

The matching condition that determines the coefficient of the unit operator is

$`\mathrm{log}𝒵=f(\mathrm{\Lambda })V+\mathrm{log}𝒵_{\mathrm{eff}}.`$ (11)
The contributions to $`\mathrm{log}𝒵`$ through order $`e^2`$ is given by the Feynman graphs in Figs. 1 and 2. A wavy line denotes a photon, a solid line denotes a fermion, and a dotted line denotes a ghosts. The expression is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{log}𝒵}{V}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d1){\displaystyle _P}\mathrm{log}P^2+2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\mathrm{log}(P^2+m^2)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{PQ\}}}\text{Tr}\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Q/m}{Q^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P+Q)^2}}\right],`$
where the trace is over Dirac indices. The sign $``$ is a reminder that an equality only holds in strict perturbation theory. The fermionic one-loop diagram has a pole in $`ϵ`$, which is proportional to $`m^4`$. This pole is cancelled by the one-loop vacuum counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1_0`$. The two-loop diagram also has poles in $`ϵ`$. The temperature-independent pole is cancelled by the two-loop vacuum counterterm $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2_0`$, while the temperature-dependent ones are cancelled by the one-loop counterterm diagrams. The two-loop sum-integrals is briefly discussed in appendix A. Our renormalization prescription is that the renormalized vacuum energy vanishes at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the fermionic one-loop diagram and the two-loop diagram are given by their finite-temperature pieces (See Eqs. (A.3) and (A.26) in appendix A) After renormalization, the resulting expression in the low-temperature limit is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{log}𝒵}{V}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2T^4}{45}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{5/2}e^{m/T}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2(2\pi )^3}}m^2T^2e^{2m/T}.`$ (14)
In the effective theory, all loop diagrams vanish with dimensional regularization, since there is no mass scale in the corresponding integrals Hence, $`\mathrm{log}𝒵_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ vanishes identically in strict perturbation theory. The matching equation then implies

$`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}𝒵}{V}},`$ (15)
where the right hand side is given by Eq. (14).

### B Field Normalization Constant

The field normalization constants for $`A_i`$ and $`A_0`$ are obtained by reading off the coefficients of $`\delta _{ij}k^2k_ik_j`$ and $`k^2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(k_0,𝐤)`$ is the one-loop polarization tensor (C.1). These are given in Eqs. (C.4) and (C.5) in appendix C, and we obtain

$`\overline{A}_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}\right]^{1/2}A_i,`$ (16)
$`\overline{A}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}\right]^{1/2}A_0.`$ (17)
Eqs. (16) and (17) have poles in $`ϵ`$ that are cancelled by the wave function renormalization counterterm

$`Z_A=1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2ϵ}}.`$ (18)
After renormalization, we obtain

$`\overline{A}_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}}\left(LJ_2\right)\right]A_i,`$ (19)
$`\overline{A}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}}\left(LJ_2J_3m^2T^2\right)\right]A_0.`$ (20)
where $`L=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}\right)`$ and the integrals $`J_n`$ are defined in appendix A. Note the different normalizations of the fields $`A_0`$ and $`A_i`$. In the low-temperature limit, this reduces to

$`\overline{A}_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}}\left(L2(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{1/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}\right)\right]A_i,`$ (21)
$`\overline{A}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24\pi ^2}}\left(L(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{1/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}\right)\right]A_0.`$ (22)
### C Mass Parameter

The mass parameter can be determined in several ways. We determine it by demanding that the screening mass in strict perturbation theory be the same in QED and the effective theory. The screening mass $`m_s`$ is defined as the location of the pole in the propagator for spacelike momentum :

$`k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,𝐤)=0,k^2=m_s^2.`$ (23)
In the effective theory, we have

$`k^2+M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,k^2=m_s^2,`$ (24)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{eff}}(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the self-energy of $`\overline{A}_0`$ in the effective theory. We can expand the self-energy function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,𝐤)`$ in powers of the external momentum $`𝐤`$. To second order in the loop expansion, the solution to Eq. (23) for the screening mass is

$`m_s^2\left[1\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(1)}(0,0)\right]\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(1)}(0,0)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(2)}(0,0).`$ (25)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(n)}`$ denotes the nth order contribution to the static polarization tensor in the loop expansion, and the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`k^2`$. The self-energy function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{eff}}(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can also be expanded in a Taylor series around $`𝐤=0`$. The corresponding loop integrals are evaluated at $`𝐤=0`$ and since there is no other mass scale, the self-energy function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}(0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ vanishes identically in strict perturbation theory. Thus the matching condition reduces to

$`M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })m_s^2.`$ (26)
The one-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,0)`$ is given by by the first term in Eq (C.5), while $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{}(0,0)`$ is given by the second term in Eq. (C.5). The two-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,0)`$ is given by Eq. (A.30), and in appendix B, we explain how one can obtain the expression for it from the two-loop contribution to the free energy. In the low-temperature limit, the mass parameter becomes

$`M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}{\displaystyle \frac{4e^4}{3(2\pi )^{7/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{1/2}Le^{m/T}+{\displaystyle \frac{10e^4}{3(2\pi )^3}}m^2e^{2m/T}.`$ (27)
Using the renormalization group equation for the running gauge coupling,

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{de^2}{d\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{e^4}{6\pi ^2}},`$ (28)
we see that the mass parameter is independent of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ to order $`e^4`$.

### D Coupling Constants

The one-loop Feynman diagram for the four-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}`$ with external time-like photons is shown in Fig 4. The matching equation is simply

$`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })=T\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(0,0,0,0),`$ (29)
where the arguments indicate that the loop diagram is to be evaluated at zero external momenta The expression for the diagram is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(0,0,0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`6e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\text{Tr}\left[\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\right]`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`24e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\left[m^4+2m^2P^28m^2p_0^2+P^48p_0^2P^2+8p_0^4\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^4}}.`$ (31)
The particular combination of sum-integrals in Eq. (31) is finite with dimensional regularization and we obtain

$`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{8e^4}{(2\pi )^2}}J_4m^4T^3.`$ (32)
The fact that this coefficient vanishes identically at zero temperature, simply reflects the gauge invariance of QED. In the low-temperature limit, Eq. (32) reduces to

$`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{4e^4}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}.`$ (33)
The coupling constant $`a_3`$ is not affected by the field redefinition Eqs. (19) to leading order in $`e`$, so its value is given directly by the coefficient of the last term in Eq. (C.4)

$`a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{60\pi ^2m^2}}\left[1m^2T^2J_3\right].`$ (35)
In the low-temperature limit, this reduces to

$`a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{60\pi ^2m^2}}\left[1(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{1/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}\right].`$ (36)
The first term is the standard zero-temperature Uehling term, while the second is a new thermal correction.

## IV Free Energy and Debye Mass

In this section, we use the effective Lagrangian Eq. (6) to calculate the free energy to order $`e^3`$ and the Debye mass to order $`e^5`$, respectively. In order to take electric screening properly into account, we must include the effects of the mass term $`M`$ to all orders in perturbation theory. Thus the Lagrangian is split accordingly:

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{free}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i\overline{A}_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\overline{A}_0^2+\left(_\mu \overline{\eta }\right)\left(_\mu \eta \right)+_{\mathrm{gf}},`$ (37)
$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })F_{ij}^2F_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{24}}\overline{A}_0^4+\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}.`$ (38)
The $`e^3`$ contribution to the free energy is given by a simple one-loop calculation in the effective theory:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{log}𝒵_{\mathrm{eff}}}{V}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T{\displaystyle _p}\mathrm{log}(p^2+M^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d2)T{\displaystyle _p}\mathrm{log}p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })(d2){\displaystyle _p}p^2.`$ (39)
The total free energy is then given by

$`=f(\mathrm{\Lambda })T{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{log}𝒵_{\mathrm{eff}}}{V}},`$ (40)
where $`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is given by Eq.(14). Using Eq. (B.2) in appendix B and the expression for the mass parameter $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to leading order, Eq. (39) reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{log}𝒵_{\mathrm{eff}}}{V}}={\displaystyle \frac{4e^3m^{9/4}T^{7/4}}{3(2\pi )^{13/4}}}e^{3m/2T}.`$ (41)
The total free energy density is minus the sum of Eqs. (14) and (41):

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2T^4}{45}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{5/2}e^{m/T}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2(2\pi )^3}}m^2T^2e^{2m/T}{\displaystyle \frac{4e^3m^{9/4}T^{7/4}}{3(2\pi )^{13/4}}}e^{3m/2T}.`$ (42)
Eqs. (42) is in agreement with the result first obtained by Gell-Mann and Bruc̈kner  in nonrelativistic QED. Note the term that is non-analytic in $`e^2`$. It arises from the summation of an infinite number of infrared divergent loops (ring diagrams).

The Debye mass $`m_\mathrm{D}`$ is given by the location of the pole in the propagator

$`k^2+M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐤,\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,k=im_\mathrm{D},`$ (43)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐤,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes the self-energy function of $`\overline{A}_0`$. To leading order in $`e`$, the solution to Eq. (43) is simply $`m_\mathrm{D}^2=M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The one-loop approximation to the self-energy is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}(𝐤,\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle _𝐩}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+M^2}}.`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}(𝐤,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is independent of the external momentum, so the solution to Eq. (43) is simply

$`m_\mathrm{D}^2=M^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}(𝐤,\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$ (45)
Using Eq. (B.3) and expanding the mass parameter $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in powers of $`e`$, we obtain the Debye mass through order $`e^5`$:

$`m_\mathrm{D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T}{\displaystyle \frac{4e^4}{3(2\pi )^{7/2}}}m^{3/2}T^{1/2}Le^{m/T}+{\displaystyle \frac{10e^4}{3(2\pi )^3}}m^2e^{2m/T}`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^5}{(2\pi )^{13/4}}}m^{9/4}T^{1/4}e^{3m/2T}.`$
Eq. (47) is the main result of the present paper. Using the renormalization group equation (28) for the running gauge coupling, we see that the Debye mass is independent of the renormalization scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ up to corrections of order $`e^6`$. Note also that there is no term proportional to $`e^3`$ in the expression for the Debye mass. The reason is that there are no bosonic propagators in the one-loop self-energy graph in QED and fermions need no resummation, since their Matsubara frequencies are never zero.

## V Summary

In the present work, we have studied QED at low temperature. We have constructed an effective field theory in three dimensions that is valid at distances $`R1/T`$ by integrating out the electron field and the nonzero Matsubara modes. The three-dimensional field theory was used to calculate the pressure to order $`e^3`$ and the Debye mass to order $`e^5`$. The pressure and the Debye mass can be calculated either by resummation or by effective field theory. Not only does effective field theory simplify these calculations, but it also unravels the contributions to physical quantities from different momentum scales.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), which is supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschapplijk Onderzoek (NWO).

## A Sum-integrals

In the imaginary-time formalism for thermal field theory, the 4-momentum $`P=(p_0,𝐩)`$ is Euclidean with $`P^2=p_0^2+𝐩^2`$. The Euclidean energy $`p_0`$ has discrete values: $`p_0=2n\pi T`$ for bosons and $`p_0=(2n+1)\pi T`$ for fermions, where $`n`$ is an integer. Loop diagrams involve sums over $`p_0`$ and integrals over $`𝐩`$. With dimensional regularization, the integral is generalized to $`d=32ϵ`$ spatial dimensions. We define the dimensionally regularized sum-integral by

$`{\displaystyle _P}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^\gamma \mu ^2}{4\pi }}\right)^ϵT{\displaystyle \underset{p_0=2n\pi T}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{32ϵ}p}{(2\pi )^{32ϵ}}},`$ (A.1)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^\gamma \mu ^2}{4\pi }}\right)^ϵT{\displaystyle \underset{p_0=(2n+1)\pi T}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{32ϵ}p}{(2\pi )^{32ϵ}}},`$ (A.2)
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary momentum scale. The factor $`(e^\gamma /4\pi )^ϵ`$ is introduced so that, after minimal subtraction of the poles in $`ϵ`$ due to ultraviolet divergences, $`\mu `$ coincides with the renormalization scale of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme.

### 1 One-loop Sum-integrals

The specific one-loop fermionic sum-integrals needed are

$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\mathrm{log}(P^2+m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ(1ϵ)(2ϵ)}}m^4+J_0T^4\right],`$ (A.3)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2+m^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ(1ϵ)}}m^2J_1T^2\right],`$ (A.4)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ}}J_2\right],`$ (A.5)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)m^2J_3T^2\right],`$ (A.6)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)\left(1+ϵ\right)m^4J_4T^4\right],`$ (A.7)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_ip_j}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ(1ϵ)}}m^2J_1T^2\right],`$ (A.8)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ(1ϵ)}}m^2+(d2)J_1T^2+2J_2m^2\right],`$ (A.9)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ}}+\left(d4\right)J_2+2J_3m^2T^2\right],`$ (A.10)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)m^2+\left(d6\right)J_3T^2+2J_4m^2T^4\right],`$ (A.11)
$`{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2p_ip_j}{(P^2+m^2)^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{24(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)}{ϵ}}+\left(d4\right)J_2+2J_3m^2T^2\right].`$ (A.12)
The integrals $`J_n(\beta m)`$ can be expressed as integrals involving the Fermi-Dirac distribution function:

$`J_n(\beta m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{\gamma ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{2}nϵ)}}\beta ^{42n}m^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^{42n2ϵ}}{(k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}.`$ (A.13)
These integrals are functions of $`\beta m`$ only and satisfy the recursion relation

$`m{\displaystyle \frac{}{m}}J_n(\beta m)=2ϵJ_n(\beta m)2(\beta m)^2J_{n+1}(\beta m).`$ (A.14)
We need the integrals $`J_n`$ for $`ϵ=0`$. In the low-temperature limit, these integrals reduce to

$`J_0`$ $``$ $`8(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{3/2}T^{3/2}e^{m/T},`$ (A.15)
$`J_1`$ $``$ $`4(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{1/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T},`$ (A.16)
$`J_2`$ $``$ $`2(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{1/2}T^{1/2}e^{m/T},`$ (A.17)
$`J_3`$ $``$ $`(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{3/2}T^{3/2}e^{m/T},`$ (A.18)
$`J_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^{1/2}m^{5/2}T^{5/2}e^{m/T}.`$ (A.19)
Note that the integrals $`J_3`$ and $`J_4`$ need subtractions to remove power infrared divergences:

$`J_3(\beta m)`$ $`=`$ $`2T^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}\right],`$ (A.20)
$`J_4(\beta m)`$ $`=`$ $`3T^4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}`$ (A.22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (k^2+m^2)^{1/2}}+1}}].`$
The specific one-loop bosonic sum-integral needed is

$`{\displaystyle _P}\mathrm{log}(P^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2T^4}{45}}\left[1+𝒪(ϵ)\right].`$ (A.23)
### 2 Two-loop Sum-integral

We also need the value of the two-loop diagram in Eq. (13). The two-loop sum-integral with nonzero chemical $`\mu `$ potential was calculated in e.g. Refs. . There are $`T`$-dependent and $`\mu `$-dependent infinities in addition to the usual vacuum infinities. These are cancelled by the corresponding infinities arising from the one-loop counterterm diagrams. The vacuum infinity is cancelled by a vacuum counterterm in the usual way. If we demand that the two-loop contribution to the vacuum energy vanishes at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the diagram is given by its finite-temperature piece. The final result after renormalization is then :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{PQ\}}}\text{Tr}\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Q/m}{Q^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P+Q)^2}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2}}T^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{E_p}}\left[n_p^++n_p^{}\right]`$ (A.26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dpdq{\displaystyle \frac{p^2q^2}{E_pE_q}}[(2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{pq}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{E_pE_qm^2pq}{E_pE_qm^2+pq}})(n_p^{}n_q^{}+n_p^+n_q^+)`$
$`+(2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{pq}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{E_pE_q+m^2+pq}{E_pE_q+m^2pq}})(n_p^{}n_q^++n_p^+n_q^{})],`$
where $`E_p=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}`$ and

$`n_p^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (E_p\pm \mu )}+1}}.`$ (A.27)
In the low-temperature limit, this reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2{\displaystyle _{\{PQ\}}}\text{Tr}\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{Q/m}{Q^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P+Q)^2}}\right]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2(2\pi )^3}}m^2T^2e^{2(\mu m)/T}.`$ (A.28)
Eq. (A.26) gives the two-loop contribution to the pressure $`𝒫`$. By applying the formula

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,0)=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒫^2}{\mu ^2}},`$ (A.29)
to Eq. (A.28), we obtain the two-loop contribution to the photon polarization tensor at zero external momentum and vanishing chemical potential:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(2)}(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^4}{(2\pi )^3}}m^2e^{2m/T}.`$ (A.30)
## B Integrals

Dimensional regularization can be used to regularize both the ultraviolet divergences and infrared divergences in 3-dimensional integrals over momenta. The spatial dimension is generalized to $`d=32ϵ`$ dimensions. Integrals are evaluated at a value of $`d`$ for which they converge and then analytically continued to $`d=3`$. We use the integration measure

$$_𝐩\left(\frac{e^\gamma \mu ^2}{4\pi }\right)^ϵ\frac{d^{32ϵ}p}{(2\pi )^{32ϵ}},$$
(B.1)
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary momentum scale. The factor $`(e^\gamma /4\pi )^ϵ`$ is introduced so that, after minimal subtraction of the poles in $`ϵ`$ due to ultraviolet divergences, $`\mu `$ coincides with the renormalization scale of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme.

The one-loop integrals required are

$`{\displaystyle _𝐩}\mathrm{log}(p^2+m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{6\pi }}\left[1+𝒪(ϵ)\right],`$ (B.2)
$`{\displaystyle _𝐩}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+m^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi }}\left[1+𝒪\left(ϵ\right)\right].`$ (B.3)
## C Polarization Tensor

In this appendix, we calculate the polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(\omega _n,𝐤)`$ to one loop. The Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 3 and the expression for it is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(k_0,𝐤)=e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\text{Tr}\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{P/m}{P^2+m^2}}\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{(P/+K/)m}{(P+K)^2+m^2}}\right].`$ (C.1)
Taking the Dirac trace, and using a Feynman parameter $`y`$, this can be writen as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(k_0,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2{\displaystyle _0^1}dy{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{8p_\mu p_\nu }{\left[P^2+m^2+K^2y(1y)\right]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\delta _{\mu \nu }}{\left[P^2+m^2+K^2y(1y)\right]}}`$ (C.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8y(1y)(\delta _{\mu \nu }K^2k_\mu k_\nu )}{\left[P^2+m^2+K^2y(1y)\right]^2}}].`$
First consider $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$. By virtue of Eqs. (A.4) and (A.8), the first two terms cancel identically. The remaining term is expanded to second order in a Taylor series around $`𝐤=0`$. Integrating over $`y`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^2(\delta _{ij}k^2k_ik_j){\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}e^2k^2(\delta _{ij}k^2k_ik_j){\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}.`$ (C.4)
The first term gives the one-loop correction to the field normalization constants, while the second gives the coefficient of the Uehling term. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$ vanishes in the limit $`𝐤0`$ reflects the fact that there is no screening of static magnetic fields in QED.

Consider next $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$. Expanding to second order in the external momentum $`𝐤`$ and integrating over $`y`$, yields

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(1)}(0,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`4e^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2+m^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^2k^2{\displaystyle _{\{P\}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{6}{(P^2+m^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8p_0^2}{(P^2+m^2)^3}}\right].`$ (C.5)
The first term gives the one-loop expression for the mass parameter (which coincides with the one-loop expression for the Debye mass), while the second term gives the one-loop correction to the field normalization constant.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Data from type I redshifted supernova indicate a small but non-vanishing value of the cosmological constant . The cosmic microwave background and its anisotropy support this experimental evidence.111These data are subject to error bars, and we fit to the quoted value, even though the cosmological constant is arguably consistent with zero experimentally. A non-vanishing value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is a theoretical challenge to reconcile with supergravity and superstring (M-) theory, and in this letter we examine this problem in the context of maximal supersymmetry, both spontaneously broken  and generally broken. In the former theories a quartic mass relation found by tuning the moduli of the compactification may enforce the leading cancellation to all loop orders. In the latter theories, breaking supersymmetry in a manner in which there are eight independent supersymmetry breaking scales excludes the quartic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ and sextet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6`$ term in the expansion of the cosmological constant as we examine in this work; the remaining terms in the expansion are in agreement with data.

There are two forms of the cosmological constant problem: string scale and low scale. In this work we analyze the issue of breaking supersymmetry and solving the cosmological constant problem at the order of a TeV.

The cosmological constant in maximally supersymmetric gravity theories has been examined in detail up to one loop . Spontaneously broken supergravity theories are parameterized by four real numbers, characterizing the mass spectrum ; we also consider more general scenarios, as this susy breaking does not contain eight independent scales in four-dimensions in association with the number of supercharges. The former example contains several mass relations such that the graded trace up to cubic order of the particle masses ,

$`{\displaystyle ()^Fm_i}={\displaystyle ()^Fm_i^2}={\displaystyle ()^Fm_i^3}=0,`$ (1.1)
must be equal to zero. There is a fourth relation  beyond that in ,

$`{\displaystyle ()^Fm_i^4}=0.`$ (1.2)
The cosmological constant is finite to one-loop order and has the form ,

$`A={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}()^F\left(m_j^4\mathrm{ln}(m_j^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_j^4\right)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}()^Fm_j^4\mathrm{ln}m_j^2.`$ (1.3)
A further relation of the mass spectrum sets this also to zero. This work will derive similar results on the ultraviolet nature of the cosmological constant with very mild analyticity requirements imposed on the functional form of the cosmological constant in the loop expansion. The series is given and the form is shown to agree remarkably well with astrophysical data.

Maximal supergravity theories  possess thirty-two conserved components or eight Weyl supercharges in four dimensions. The cosmological constant induced after breaking supersymmetry is generically large in gravitational theories, and of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the Wilsonian ultra-violet cutoff.222A review of the cosmological constant in gravitational theories may be found in  However, if we demand that the leading order term in the coupling expansion of the constant vanishes upon restoration of any two amounts of the supersymmetry ($`N=1`$ supersymmetry without matter contains a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6/m_{pl}^2`$ term from the D-terms), then the leading unique polynomial describing the cosmological constant is,

$`={\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}\underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j},`$ (1.4)
in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ defines the scale of non-conservation of the independent supercharges. The cancellations of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6/m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$ terms are associated with approximate supersymmetry restoration at high-energies together with the extraction of eight powers of loop momentum in the tensor integrations of the $`𝒩=8(32)`$ theory. The particle masses are taken to be fractions of the supersymmetry breaking scale, $`m_j=\alpha _j\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the scales as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=\beta _j\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The two distinct energy scales are associated with : 1) the supersymmetry breaking scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$, 2) the gravitational coupling constant which is taken to be the Planck mass (with the same for the UV cutoff in the field theory).

The term in (1.4) vanishes upon restoration of any two (or one) of the conserved supercharges. Having only seven independent supersymmetry breaking scales would allow the function

$`(c_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6+\mathrm{perms})/m_{pl}^2`$ (1.5)
which would not vanish upon taking one of the supersymmetry breaking scales to be zero. This is compatible with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6/m_{pl}^2`$ term in $`N=1`$ supergravity. If there are eight independent scales (all of which are present in the expansion), then this sextet term would vanish upon restoration of any two supersymmetries.

The numerical value, modulo a suppressed coefficient of order unity, agrees very well with the experimental value of the cosmological constant when the supersymmetry breaking is at the TeV scale,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}^3,`$ (1.6)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }3\times 10^3`$ GeV (and $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}=10^{19}`$ GeV). The constant is sensitive to the supersymmetry breaking scale, which receives a $`2^8`$ factor from doubling all the scales. The naive leading order terms,

$`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^4\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}},`$ (1.7)
generically present, are absent in this supersymmetry breaking. In the spontaneously broken $`𝒩=8`$ theory, mass relations enforce these terms to vanish.

We consider next the series expansion of the cosmological constant in the general maximal supersymmetric theories with multiple supersymmetry breaking scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$; we do not give the explicit mechanism in this work, however explicit supersymmetry breaking terms. The effective action we consider is obtained by integrating modes up to the highest energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$, with no particular range of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ (such as holding all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$). Then the physics of the theory is governed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ together with, in the field theory, the ultra-violet Wilsonian cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the masses $`m_j`$ of the particles (if considering the string). The gravitational coupling constant is $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. In the string models, we may simply induce the supersymmetry breakings below the string scale.

We analyze the form according to the two sectors : 1) loop diagrams containing a propagating gravitational mode with coupling $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$ and 2) loop diagrams containing only the matter degrees of freedom. (Theories with spontaneously broken supersymmetries of the Scherk-Schwarz type, possessing four scales may, up to the $`L^{\mathrm{th}}`$-loop order have canceled quartic and sextet terms if we consider mass relations similar to the one in (1.3). This mass relation is the only condition we impose on the spontaneously broken expansions, and we assume that a solution exists for mass parameters in these breaking scenarios.)

Inverse powers of the susy breaking scale do not occur in the expansions of diagrams containing massive particles, as analyzed below. The primitive divergences of multi-loop diagrams are polynomials in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, modified by logarithms, and upon taking the particle masses to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, there are no dimensionless expansion parameters; the ratios $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ within logarithms are of order unity upon taking the scales to be the same and do not produce an expansion variable. At values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=\beta _j\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ this enforces the general expansion to be of the form, (with the parameters $`\alpha _j`$ labeling masses in terms of scales)

$`_{N=8}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}c_n(\beta _j,\alpha _j)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{2n}},`$ (1.8)
in which supersymmetry breaking is parameterized by eight independent scales. Incorporating a particle mass $`M`$ into the expansion alters the form of the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ coefficient into the expansion and generates contributions,

$`c_n\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}}\right)^n\left[\alpha _0^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}+\alpha _1^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}\mathrm{ln}^L{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M}}+\mathrm{}+\beta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3M}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}+\mathrm{}\right]+\mathrm{}`$
$`+c_nM^4[\beta _0^{(n)}({\displaystyle \frac{M}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}})^{(2+2n)}\mathrm{ln}^L{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M}}+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{modifications})]+\mathrm{}.`$ (1.9)
with $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$. The form of the expansion is controlled by the fact that every diagram is multiply differentiable in the masses of the internal propagators,

$`{\displaystyle \left\{\frac{}{m_{\sigma (j)}}\right\}A_{Lloops}}|_{M=0},`$ (1.10)
which exists and has the structure in field theory of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\sigma (j)}}{m_{pl}^{\rho _1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\rho _2}}},`$ (1.11)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the ultra-violet cutoff. In field theory we take this scale to be of order of the $`m_{pl}`$. In string theory the form is the same with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_{pl}`$. This form in (1.11) shows that the loop expansion of the cosmological constant is a Taylor series expansion in the supersymmetry breaking scales.

Next we comment on the loop expansion and the tower of terms in (1.8) for the gravitational sector followed by the matter sector. The iteration of a $`L`$-loop contribution to $`L+1`$-loops follows by inserting an additional propagator and two graviton three-point vertices, or by higher-point vertices. The gravitational vertices are found by expanding the Einstein-Hilbert term, $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2d^4x\sqrt{g}R`$, and we do not list the diagrammatic rules here. The insertion of two three-point vertices introduces four-derivatives into the loop integration (the graviton $`n`$-point vertices contain two derivatives), two propagators, and an additional loop integration. This iteration is

$`A_{L+1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}A_{\mathrm{L}1}^{\mu _1\nu _1,\mu _2\nu _2}(l,l+p)}\times `$
$`V_{\mu _1\alpha _1\beta _1,\nu _1\gamma _1\delta _1}(l,l+p)V_{\mu _2\alpha _2\beta _2,\nu _2\gamma _2\delta _2}(l,lp)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha _1\gamma _1;\alpha _2\gamma _2}(l+p)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\beta _1\delta _1;\beta _2\delta _2}(l).`$ (1.12)
and with a four-point vertex is,

$`A_{L+1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}A_\mathrm{L}^{\mu \nu ;\alpha \beta }(l,l)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu ;\alpha \beta }(l)}.`$ (1.13)
The integral in (1.12) generates $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{46+4}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ additional occurences of the ultra-violet cutoff. The two graviton three-point vertices come with $`1/m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$ as the gravitional coupling constant is in terms of the Planck mass. Thus the relative weight between $`L`$-loops and $`L+1`$ loops differs by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$. The power series in (1.8) reflects the loop expansion in this manner. Higher point vertices do not change the form in (1.8), but rather mix different loop orders in the coefficients $`c_n`$, as may be deduced by similar counting. For example, the four-point vertex iteration in (1.13) gives the power count $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2+44}`$, with two powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the derivatives from the vertex, four from the loop integration, and minus two from the propagator. Higher-point vertices and other particle modes do not change the analysis.

The pure matter sector, which does not contain explicit occurences of the gravitational coupling, may be similarly analyzed. The expansion of the diagrams in the pure matter sector, however, do possess inverse powers of the gravitational coupling upon expanding the diagrams at low-energy about an ultra-violet cutoff on the order of the Planck mass, as in (1.11). We consider iterating an $`L`$-loop scalar field theory graph in $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k+\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{ijkl}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k\varphi _l`$ theory. Gluing two cubic vertices and three propagators iterates a $`L`$-loop graph to $`L+1`$ loops, but does not raise the degree of primitive divergence. The logarithmic factors increase by one unit, however, in the primitive divergence. The form of the result is

$`c_L\left(m_i^4\mathrm{ln}^Lm_i+\mathrm{}+m_i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (1.14)
and subleading powers in the cutoff, generating terms containing factors of $`m_{pl}^{4+k}`$. The indices on the masses represent arbitrary combinations. The four-point vertices in the scalar field theory give the same result. An iteration to higher loop order containing a gravitational mode with two couplings and a factor $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2`$; these terms are classified in (1.9) and are explicitly suppressed by an acceptable power of the Planck mass. The functions (1.14) to $`L`$ loop orders are in principle computable.

The expansion parameter in the quantum series is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ and is a small dimensionless number, $`10^{15}`$. The series in (1.8) makes sense as an expansion in loops or coupling for this reason, and the leading value in (1.6) is stable under quantum corrections.

For comparison we discuss the form of the cosmological constant in general non-supersymmetric examples (for example, breaking $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry). The loop expansion contains the series with the two additional terms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6`$,

$`={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^4+\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right]}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}c_n\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{2n}}.`$ (1.15)
These two additional terms do not agree with experimental values of the cosmological constant without renormalization.

The loop expansion of the supersymmetrically broken $`𝒩=8`$ supergravity or IIB superstring theory naturally produces values of the cosmological constant, and a loop expansion, that is in agreement with current astrophysical data if the susy scales are of the order of a TeV. This analysis carries through in the two scenarios: 1) susy breaking scales are all independent, in which case (1.8) holds by imposing analytic requirements, and 2) in spontaneous susy breaking in which mass relations are required to have (1.8). In the former approach no tuning is required. In both examples, the non-vanishing cosmological constant arises from both the gravitational and matter sector.

M-theory has $`𝒩=1`$, $`d=11`$ supergravity as its low-energy limit, which describes M-theory graviton scattering to high orders in the derivative expansion, and contains $`𝒩=8`$ supergravity upon toroidal compactification or dimensional reduction. The symmetries of the maximally supersymmetric theory are responsible for the leading order cancellations of terms that spoil cosmological predictions of supergravity theories. Furthermore, the quantum corrections do not alter the semi-classical prediction.

The $`𝒩=8`$ maximally supersymmetric theory, and the IIB superstring (M-) theory that contains it as its massless sector, have two properties that have been explored recently:

1) The theory appears finite in perturbation theory according to the modular properties of the scattering inherited from S- and U-duality and the AdS/CFT duality  (after decoupling of the massive modes). The cancelations resulting in finiteness may occur in a string inspired regulator preserving these properties, and are beyond the cancelations at two-loops in the expansion of the graviton scattering .

2) Upon breaking supersymmetry at the TeV scale, the theory produces a cosmological constant that agrees with current experimental data and which is stable under quantum corrections.

The two properties warrant further phenomenological investigations of both IIB superstring (and M-) and $`𝒩=8`$ theories, and in particular to answer if the standard model may be accomodated in its low-energy physics.

## Acknowledgements

The work of GC is supported in part by the US Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, contract W-31-109-ENG-38. GC thanks Gia Dvali and Emil Martinec for relevant discussions and correspondence.