Progress in Particle Physics pp 737-766 | Cite as

# Review of Recent Work on Finite Quantum Electrodynamics

## Abstract

According to Pauli [1], Ehrenfest was perhaps the first to note that Dirac’s 1927 version of quantum electrodynamics must lead to a divergent electron self-energy. Opinion in the literature since then on the consistency of finite quantum electrodynamics has been conspicuously inconsistent. Notable, in the sense of commanding widespread attention, are the papers of Källén [2], Gell-Mann and Low [3], Landau and collaborators [4], Johnson, Baker, and Willey [5], and Adler [6]. Here we will review in some detail the work of Johnson, Baker, and Willey (JBW) and Adler. This will serve as an introduction to and motivation for some work to be discussed later on. A very readable account of the assumptions underlying Källén’s result that at least one of the renormalization constants must be infinite, together with a summary of the criticism of his result and his reply to it, may be found in his lectures at Schladming in 1965 [7]. Bjorken’s summary of the conference proceedings is also relevant [8]. Gell-Mann and Low’s work on the small-distance behavior of quantum electrodynamics, although not directly concerned with the full problem of the finiteness of quantum electrodynamics, is mentioned here because of its profound influence on later developments in the subject. An excellent review of their work is given by Wilson [9]. Discussion of the result of Landau and co-workers that the photon wave function renormalization constant Z_{3} is infinite may be found in a lecture of Källén [10] and a paper of Kamefuchi [11].

## Keywords

Quantum Electrodynamic Goldstone Boson Ultraviolet Divergence Photon Propagator Electron Propagator## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.W. Pauli, Naturwiss. 21, 841 (1933)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Jost, in Aspects of Quantum Theory, edited by A. Salam and E. P. Wigner (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1972 ), p. 73.Google Scholar
- 2.G. Källén, K. Dan Vidensk. Selsk, Mat.-Fys. Medd. 27, No. 12 (1953)Google Scholar
- G. Källén, K. Dan Vidensk. CERN Report No. CERN/T/GK/3, 1955 (unpublished)Google Scholar
- G. Källén, K. Dan Vidensk. in Proc. of the CERN Symposium on High Energy Accelerators and Pion Physics ( CERN, Geneva, 1956 ), Vol. 2, p. 187Google Scholar
- G. Källén, K. Dan Vidensk. Handbuch der Physik V /1 (1958)Google Scholar
- G. Källén, K. Dan Vidensk. Acta Phys. Austr., Suppl. 2, 133 (1965).Google Scholar
- 3.M. Gell-Mann, F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954).MATHADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.L. D. Landau, in Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, edited by W. Pauli (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955), and references cited therein.Google Scholar
- 5.K. Johnson, M. Baker, R. Willey, Phys. Rev. Letters 11, 518 (1963).MATHADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- This preliminary account of their work is further developed in K. Johnson, M. Baker, R. Willey, Phys. Rev. 136, 1111 (1964)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- K. Johnson, R. Willey, M. Baker, ibid. 163, 1699 (1967)ADSGoogle Scholar
- K. Johnson, R. Willey, M. Baker, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 52, 318 (1967)Google Scholar
- K. Johnson, R. Willey, M. Baker, Sov. Phys.-JETP 25, 205 (1967)ADSGoogle Scholar
- M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. 183, 1292 (1969)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- This work, as well as that of S. L. Adler Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972); 7, 1948 (E) (1973)Google Scholar
- K. Johnson and M. Baker, Phys. Rev. D8, 1110 (1973).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 6.S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972); 6, 3445 (1972); 7, 1948(E) (1973); 7, 3821(E) (1973); 8, 2400 (1973).Google Scholar
- 7.G. Källén, Acta Phys. Austr., Suppl. 2, 133 (1965).Google Scholar
- 8.J. D. Bjorken, Acta Phys. Austr., Suppl. 2, 239 (1965)Google Scholar
- 9.K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D3, 1818 (1971), Sec. II and the Appendix.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 10.G. Källén, in Proc. of the CERN Symposium on High Energy Accelerators and Pion Physics ( CERN, Geneva, 1956 ), Vol. 2, p. 187.Google Scholar
- 11.S. Kamefuchi, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat.-Fys. Medd. 31, No. 6 (1957).Google Scholar
- 12.Therefore, this eliminates from consideration here open theories of the sort proposed by T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D2, 1033 (1970)Google Scholar
- A. Salam, J. Strathdee, Nuovo Cimento Letters 4, 101 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972), Sec. 2.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 14.M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D3, 2541 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 15.Much of the work in this section was suggested by K. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Reports (to be published), especially Secs. I, II, and X, and by K. Johnson, talk delivered at the University of Maryland (1972) (unpublished).Google Scholar
- 16.L. P. Kadanoff, Nuovo Cimento 44B, 276 (1966).Google Scholar
- 17.T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. 149, 380 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.See, for example, H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1971 ), Ch. 8 and references cited therein.Google Scholar
- 19.F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 85, 631 (1952).MATHADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.K. Johnson, R. Willey, M. Baker, Phys. Rev. 163, 1699 (1967) Sec. IV and Appendix A.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D3, 2516 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 22.
- 23.See Ref. 21, Sec. VI.Google Scholar
- 24.K. Johnson, in 9th Latin American School of Physics, Santiago, Chile, 1967, edited by I. Saavedra (Benjamin, New York, 1968 ), Sec. 8;Google Scholar
- M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D3, 2516 (1971), Sec. VII. We note that Eq. (10) implies that. This would seem to imply that the triangle anomaly would be sufficient to avoid potential Goldstone bosons. However, since it gives no contribution to the Ward identity (9) at qu = 0, it cannot prevent r5u(p + q,p) from developing a singularity at qu = 0.Google Scholar
- 25.H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. Letters 28, 1482 (1972)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. D7, 3689 (1973).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 26.R. Jackiw, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D8, 2386 (1973) Sec. II. D. The argument at the beginning of this section has immediate application to quantum electrodynamics.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 27.K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D2, 1478 (1970)ADSGoogle Scholar
- S. Coleman, R. Jackiw, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 67, 552 (1971).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.
- 29.K. Johnson, R. Willey, M. Baker, Phys. Rev. 163, 1699 (1967);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D3, 2541 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 30.Unitarity may place a constraint on the possible summation procedures. See R. J. Crewther, S. S. Shei, and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D8, 3396 (1973) Footnote 45.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 31.See Ref. 28, Secs. 3.B. and 4.Google Scholar
- 32.K. Johnson, M. Baker, Phys. Rev. D8, 1110 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
- 33.M. Bernardini et al., Phys. Letters 45B, 510 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
- V. Alles-Borelli et al., Nuovo Cimento 7A, 345 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.R. J. Crewther, S. S. Shei, T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D8, 3396 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
- See also the remarks of S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972)ADSGoogle Scholar
- 35.M. Baker, K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. 183, 1292 (1969)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972) Sec. 3.A. The function c
_{1}(α_{o}) is JBW’s f(α_{o}).ADSGoogle Scholar - 36.One technical assumption made throughout the work of JBW and Adler is that terms that vanish asymptotically in each order of perturbation theory do not, when summed up, become asymptotically dominant, as briefly discussed in Sec. I. G. Marques and C.H.Woo (Phys. Rev. (to be published)) have illustrated with a simple model the failure of this assumption when the physical coupling constant coincides with one of the zeros of the Callen-Symanzik function β. This is the situation in Adler’s case: β(α) = 0∞ implies β(α) = 0∞ (S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D5, 3021 (1972), Sec. 4). The need to check this assumption has also been stressed by K. Symanzik, Comm. Math. Phys. 23, 49 (1971).Google Scholar
- 37.R. A. Abdellatif, Ph. D. thesis, University of Washington, 1970 (unpublished)Google Scholar
- H.J. Schnitzer, Phys. Rev. D8, 385 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
- N. Christ, Phys. Rev. D9, 946 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 38.S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D8, 2400 (1973).ADSGoogle Scholar
- For a third approach, see K. Johnson and M. Baker, Phys. Rev. D8, 1110 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
- 40.The use of Eq. (14) as the starting point for the calculation of F was first suggested by M. Baker and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D3, 2541 (1971).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 41.M. P. Fry, Acta Phys. Austr. (to be published).Google Scholar
- 42.S. Mandelstam, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 19, 1 (1962)MATHADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. 175, 1580 (1968)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- A. Q. Sarker, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 19 (1963).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar