Codex @codex  0

Dynamical supersymmetry breaking occurs when quantum dynamics produces a vacuum that does not preserve supersymmetry. An asymptotically free hidden sector can generate the displayed exponentially small scale through dimensional transmutation. This supplies a possible origin of a hierarchy, but strong coupling by itself does not prove breaking: the vacuum equations and dynamics must exclude a supersymmetric vacuum.

// Target: supersymmetry.bigb

With ${\beta }_0>0$, differentiating ${\alpha }_s=g^2/(4\pi )$ under $\mu dg/d\mu =-{\beta }_0{g}^3/(16{\pi }^2)$ gives $d(1/{\alpha }_s)/d\ln \mu ={\beta }_0/(2\pi )$. Integration defines the strong-coupling scale $\Lambda$ and gives the displayed positive branch for $\mu >\Lambda$. The pole signals breakdown of perturbative quantum field theory. The equivalence between specifying ${\alpha }_s$ and specifying $\Lambda$ is dimensional transmutation.

A loop integral in a theory with dimensionless classical couplings can contain a logarithmic ultraviolet divergence. After subtraction, an expression such as $\log (-p^2/{\mu }^2)$ remains; one must specify the momentum scale at which the measured or renormalized coupling is fixed. A logarithm of a dimensionful momentum alone is not meaningful. In dimensional regularization, the same necessity appears through ${\lambda }_{\mathrm{bare}}={\mu }^{d_{\lambda }}{Z}_{\lambda }\lambda (\mu )$ in the continued dimension, with $d_{\lambda }$ tending to zero in the physical dimension.

Thus the renormalization prescription introduces an arbitrary renormalization scale, even when no mass or length occurs in the classical action. Physical quantities cannot depend on its arbitrary choice: explicit logarithms cancel the implicit change of the running coupling, governed by $\mu d\lambda /d\mu =\beta (\lambda )$. A nonzero renormalization-group beta function is a quantum scale anomaly. An integration constant may encode the same data as a dimensionful scale, which is dimensional transmutation. The scale labels a renormalization condition, not a new arbitrary measurable parameter. At a true fixed point the coupling need not run; the use of a subtraction scale is then a convention rather than an intrinsic generated physical scale.

A renormalized coupling is specified by a renormalization condition at an auxiliary momentum scale $\mu$. Loop corrections contain logarithms of momentum ratios; changing that scale changes the part called the coupling and the part left in the explicit loop correction. The bare theory and exact physical amplitudes do not change. This is the meaning of a running coupling, rather than an actual dependence of a physical observable on an arbitrary prescription.

For the dimensionless gauge coupling relevant here, the one-loop vertex and wave-function corrections shift $g$ at order $g^3$. For example a regulated relation has the schematic formDifferentiating at fixed bare parameters gives $dg/d\ln {\mu }^2=a{g}^3+O(g^5)$, or $\mu dg/d\mu =c{g}^3+O(g^5)$ with $c=2a$. The gauge-coupling beta function in logarithmic squared scale follows by the chain rule:Here $\alpha =g^2/(4\pi )$. The reality of the coefficient reflects the real renormalization of a real gauge coupling. The leading cubic power for $g$ is a gauge-coupling statement, not a universal rule for every type of coupling in every quantum field theory.

At one loop, separate variables or differentiate the inverse coupling:When $b_0=-{\beta }_0<0$, define the strong-coupling scale byLogarithms of dimensionful scales here use the same fixed units; the equivalent ratio equation $\ln ({\mu }_0^2/{\Lambda }^2)=1/({\beta }_0{\alpha }_0)$ is dimensionless. The one-loop running of the strong coupling is thereforeThis trades a dimensionless reference coupling for a dimensionful integration constant, an example of dimensional transmutation.

As ${\mu }^2\to \infty$, the coupling decreases logarithmically to zero: asymptotic freedom makes short-distance strong-interaction processes perturbatively accessible. As $\mu$ decreases toward $\Lambda$ from above, the coupling grows, and omitted higher orders become important before the formal pole. These are the infrared limitations of one-loop QCD running. The pole is not a trustworthy prediction of an infinite physical interaction, and continuation below $\Lambda$ to negative $\alpha$ is invalid. Low-energy QCD instead needs nonperturbative descriptions of confinement, hadrons and related dynamics; the one-loop pole alone does not prove confinement. This interpretation and the dependence of $\Lambda$ on the running prescription are explained in the QCD review, section 9.1.1.

Physically the QCD scale is of hadronic order, conventionally a few hundred MeV rather than an electroweak mass. However, ${\beta }_0=O(1)$ alone cannot determine any absolute mass: ${\mu }_0$ and ${\alpha }_0$ or an empirical reference are also necessary. The exponential relation shows how a much smaller scale can arise; for illustrative inputs ${\mu }_0=100\mathrm{GeV}$, ${\alpha }_0=0.12$ and ${\beta }_0=0.6$, it gives $\Lambda \simeq 0.096\mathrm{GeV}$. Different flavour counts, schemes and perturbative orders change the numerical value, so this is an order-of-magnitude illustration, not a parameter-free prediction.

In the Standard Model, $N=3$ and the six quark flavours are $u,d,s,c,b,t$. Above all six thresholds the supplied coefficient givesThe count is six Dirac flavours, not eighteen colour states or twelve Weyl fields. In lower-energy effective theories the active flavour count changes: near the bottom threshold ${\beta }_0^{(5)}=23/(12\pi )$ and ${\beta }_0^{(4)}=25/(12\pi )$; below charm the three-flavour value is $9/(4\pi )$.

For matching the QCD scale across a quark threshold, impose the leading-order continuity at $\mu =m_b$:Thus $\ln (m_b/{\Lambda }_5)=(25/23)\ln (m_b/{\Lambda }_4)$, and exponentiation givesThe five- and four-flavour expressions apply on the respective sides near this threshold, before the next heavy-flavour threshold is crossed. The matched coupling is continuous at the order being used even though its one-loop slope changes. Higher-order decoupling corrections modify the matching beyond the question's approximation.

There are two distinct parts of the hierarchy problem. The first asks why the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking is so much smaller than a fundamental scale such as the Planck mass. The second, the technical hierarchy problem, asks why that separation survives quantum corrections once it is chosen. With a fundamental Higgs boson, a mass term $m_H^2{H}^{†}H$ is allowed by the ordinary gauge symmetry, so heavy thresholds can contribute additive terms of order a heavy mass squared. This is different from the chiral protection of a fermion mass and the gauge protection of a vector mass.

For example, a cutoff description of the Standard Model gives the schematic one-loop sensitivityThe regulator-dependent quadratic term is not itself an observable, but a physical heavy particle of mass $M$ coupled to the Higgs likewise produces a matching correction of order coupling squared times $M^2/(16{\pi }^2)$. Maintaining $|m_H^2|\ll M^2$ then generically requires cancellation between large unrelated terms. This is the naturalness concern; changing the regulator does not eliminate the heavy-threshold issue.

Exact supersymmetry relates bosonic and fermionic couplings and masses. Their loop contributions have opposite signs, and the relations enforce supersymmetric cancellation of quadratic divergences. Boson-fermion degeneracy in a supermultiplet also transfers fermionic mass protection to its scalar partners. It is not sufficient merely to add arbitrary scalars: the supersymmetric coupling relations are what make the cancellation persist. Perturbative superpotential non-renormalization further protects holomorphic mass parameters, although wave-function renormalization still makes canonically normalized couplings run.

For a realistic separation between ordinary particles and their partners, supersymmetry must be broken. Soft supersymmetry breaking introduces masses and selected positive-mass-dimension interactions without reinstating the original ultraviolet quadratic divergence. A paired propagator difference behaves at high Euclidean momentum asso a residual scalar correction is of the orderThis soft scalar-mass sensitivity controls the technical problem if the relevant soft masses and thresholds are not too far above the weak scale. Very heavy partners can still require tuning through finite and logarithmic terms. Supersymmetric cancellations alone therefore do not guarantee a naturally small weak scale for an arbitrary broken spectrum.

The origin of the hierarchy needs further dynamics. In dynamical supersymmetry breaking, an asymptotically free hidden supersymmetry-breaking sector can generate an exponentially smaller scale by dimensional transmutation,If that sector actually has no supersymmetric vacuum, its breaking can be communicated to the visible sector to produce small soft terms. The exponential creates a hierarchy without specifying a tiny dimensionless coupling at the high scale, but the existence of breaking and its mediation are additional model-building requirements. In the MSSM, running Higgs soft masses can trigger electroweak symmetry breaking. The supersymmetric mu problem remains: the allowed superpotential mass $\mu H_u{H}_d$ must also be near the soft scale, and non-renormalization protects a chosen small $\mu$ without explaining its origin.

Extra-dimensional proposals use geometry to explain why observable gravitational and weak scales differ. In large extra dimensions, assume gravity propagates in $4+n$ dimensions with fundamental scale $M_{\ast }$, while ordinary fields are localized on a brane. Integrating the Einstein-Hilbert action over compact volume $V_n$ gives the Planck mass from compactification volume relationHere $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ denotes the four-dimensional reduced Planck mass. A sufficiently large internal volume lets $M_{\ast }$ be near the weak scale even though $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ is enormous. The Higgs need then be stable only up to the lower fundamental cutoff. This explains the weakness of long-distance gravity geometrically but trades the scale question for the origin and stabilization of a large compact volume. Ordinary matter is localized to avoid an unwanted low-mass tower of its own Kaluza-Klein modes; gravitational modes, departures from four-dimensional gravity and bulk energy loss impose phenomenological requirements.

The Randall–Sundrum model instead uses a warped five-dimensional interval, conventionally the doubled $S^1/{\mathbb{Z}}_2$ orbifold with fixed branes at $0$ and $L$:For a scalar confined to the distant brane, the kinetic and mass terms carry factors $e^{-2kL}$ and $e^{-4kL}$. Canonical rescaling therefore producesA moderately large $kL$ yields an exponentially small observable mass without a comparably large compact-volume factor. The inter-brane size is the radion, so one still needs a mechanism fixing its expectation value. Consistent curvature, brane tensions and ultraviolet physics are also part of the model. Warping is a redshift mechanism; it does not provide the same cancellation of arbitrary scalar loops as supersymmetry.

Finally, protecting a Higgs mass is not the same as solving the vacuum-energy hierarchy. Exact global supersymmetry has zero-energy supersymmetric vacua, but broken supersymmetry generically leaves vacuum energy set by its breaking dynamics. In supergravity, positive auxiliary-field contributions coexist with a negative superpotential term, and obtaining a very small cosmological constant requires further structure or cancellation. Neither soft supersymmetry nor the two geometric mechanisms automatically resolves that problem. The mechanisms can also coexist in one higher-dimensional supersymmetric theory.

Loop integrals require a subtraction prescription. Even when the classical coupling constant is dimensionless and there is no mass, specifying its renormalized value means specifying a momentum or length scale at which it is measured. Dimensionless logarithms then involve that renormalization scale $\mu$. Changing $\mu$ changes the renormalized coupling constant and wave-function renormalization while leaving bare quantities fixed. In a theory whose renormalization-group beta function and anomalous dimension both vanish, this scale dependence may disappear; the generic statement concerns the interacting renormalized theory.

Write ${\varphi }_B=Z_{\varphi }^{1/2}{\varphi }_R$ and $G_{n,R}=Z_{\varphi }^{-n/2}{G}_{n,B}$. DefineBare correlation functions do not depend on the arbitrary subtraction scale. Differentiating their relation to renormalized correlation functions gives the Callan-Symanzik equationIt expresses the compensation between explicit scale dependence, running coupling and wave-function renormalization. In this convention the field scaling dimension is its engineering dimension plus ${\gamma }_{\varphi }$ at a fixed point; the critical-exponent notation $\eta$ often used for the anomalous dimension equals $2{\gamma }_{\varphi }$.

A renormalization-group fixed point satisfies $\beta (g_{\ast })=0$. It is ultraviolet attractive if the flow approaches it as $\mu \to \infty$, and infrared attractive if the flow approaches it as $\mu \to 0$. For a simple isolated zero, $\delta g\propto {\mu }^{{\beta }^{\prime }(g_{\ast })}$: a negative derivative gives ultraviolet attraction, a positive derivative infrared attraction. Marginal zeros, such as a cubic renormalization-group beta function at the origin, require looking at the first nonzero nonlinear term.

Put $z=p^2/{\mu }^2>0$, $t=\frac{1}{2}\log z$, and write the dimensionless quantum field theory propagator factor as $d(z,g)$. The two-point Callan-Symanzik equation becomesLet $\bar{g}(0)=g$ and $d\bar{g}/dt=\beta (\bar{g})$. The renormalization-group characteristic solution for a two-point function isWhere $\beta \ne 0$, the exponent is $2{\int }_g^{\bar{g}(t)}{\gamma }_{\varphi }(u)/\beta (u)du$. Thus the ultraviolet behavior depends on where the running coupling goes and on the anomalous dimension accumulated along the flow. A weak ultraviolet fixed point or asymptotically free limit permits perturbative evaluation; a flow to large values of the coupling constant does not.

For $\beta (g)=-b{g}^3$ and ${\gamma }_{\varphi }=c{g}^2$, $b>0$,ConsequentlyFor large positive $z$, the coupling constant tends to zero. If the normalization function $d(1,g)$ has a finite nonzero free-field limit $d(1,0)$, then $d(z,g)\sim d(1,0)[b{g}^2\log z{]}^{c/b}$. Equivalently, with $\Lambda =\mu \exp [-1/(2b{g}^2)]$,The positive exponent follows from the sign of $+n{\gamma }_{\varphi }$ in the printed RG equation; changing the field-renormalization anomalous dimension convention would change both signs together.

For the quintic renormalization-group beta function, set $B=-b>0$ and rename its positive quintic coefficient $A$ to avoid confusion with the later gauge-theory coupling constant. Then $\beta (g)=g^3(B-A{g}^2)$ has a nonzero fixed pointEvery nonzero positive running coupling in the perturbative basin approaches this ultraviolet fixed point, rather than approaching zero. The zero coupling constant is infrared attractive. If the same ${\gamma }_{\varphi }=c{g}^2$ is retained, the large-momentum factor is $d(z,g)\sim C{z}^{cB/A}$, assuming a regular nonzero matching factor at the fixed point. More generally the exponent is ${\gamma }_{\varphi }(g_{\ast })$. A fixed point at a large coupling constant inferred from a truncated renormalization-group beta function is only a formal extrapolation; perturbative control requires $B/A$ small.

For the gauge theory use the supplied convention $a=g^2/(16{\pi }^2)$ and evolution variable $L=\log {\mu }^2$. Asymptotic freedom requires ${\beta }_0>0$, or $n<11N/2$. To one-loop accuracy,The integration constant $\Lambda$ is an example of dimensional transmutation. With two loops this is the leading asymptotic expression, not an exact equality: if $\mathcal{L}=\log ({\mu }^2/{\Lambda }^2)$ is large,The expansion presumes fixed coefficients and a scale high enough to enter the ultraviolet regime.

Choose $n=11N/2-\delta$ with $0<\delta \ll N$, respecting integer flavor counts. The supplied coefficients becomeThus ${\beta }_1<0$ for sufficiently small $\delta /N$, and the two-loop flow has the Banks-Zaks fixed pointBoth $a_{\ast }$ and the loop-counting combination $N{a}_{\ast }$ are small. Its slope is ${\beta }^{\prime }(a_{\ast })=-{\beta }_0^2/{\beta }_1>0$, so it is infrared attractive. For even large $N$, taking $n=11N/2-1$ provides an explicit integer sequence with the desired parametric hierarchy. As a finite example, $N=3,n=16$ gives ${\beta }_0=1/3$, ${\beta }_1=-302/3$ and $a_{\ast }=1/302$. The fermion-count convention is the one encoded by the given coefficients.

Use Lie algebra generators with $[T_b,T_c]=f^a{}_{bc}{T}_a$, and define the adjoint gauge covariant derivative by $(D_{\mu }X{)}^a={\partial }_{\mu }{X}^a+f^a{}_{bc}{A}_{\mu }^b{X}^c$. Varying the gauge field strength gives $\delta F_{\mu \nu }=D_{\mu }\delta A_{\nu }-D_{\nu }\delta A_{\mu }$. Antisymmetry followed by integration by parts therefore givesFor variations vanishing at the boundary, the Yang-Mills equations areThe Jacobi identity for the commutators of gauge covariant derivatives, using $[D_{\mu },D_{\nu }]X=[F_{\mu \nu },X]$, gives the gauge-theory Bianchi identity:In the second form of the gauge-theory Bianchi identity ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon }^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{F}_{\rho \sigma }$. The identity is a geometric consequence of the definition of curvature, not a second dynamical field equation.

For the usual non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory, the quantum running coupling becomes strong at low energies. Dimensional transmutation generates a scale absent from the classically scale-invariant equations. The expected confining dynamics and massive colour-singlet spectrum involve confinement and a mass gap, rather than freely propagating weakly coupled coloured waves. These nonperturbative effects are not captured by simply solving the classical equations; this is not a claim of a mathematical proof of the Yang-Mills mass gap.

Write the gauge condition as ${\chi }^a[A]=f^a[A]$ to distinguish it from the structure constants. Under an infinitesimal gauge transformation, ${\delta }_{\omega }{A}_{\mu }=D_{\mu }\omega$. Define the Faddeev-Popov operator by ${\mathcal{M}}^{ab}=\delta {\chi }^a[A+D\omega ]/\delta {\omega }^b{|}_{\omega =0}$. In a Euclidean convention, the gauge-fixing and ghost additions can be chosen asA nonlocal kernel would require a double integral; a local functional $\chi$ instead makes $\mathcal{M}$ a local differential operator. Choosing a local gauge functional thus retains a local gauge-fixed action and the ordinary local interaction structure of perturbative quantum field theory.

The fields $c^a$ and ${\overline{c}}^a$ are independent Grassmann-valued fields in the Adjoint representation, Lorentz scalars with ghost numbers $+1$ and $-1$. They are the Faddeev-Popov ghost fields: their functional integral produces $\det \mathcal{M}$, the Faddeev-Popov determinant correcting the volume element along a gauge orbit. They are internal fields, not physical asymptotic particles. Their statistics supply a minus sign for every closed ghost loop. No auxiliary field is needed in the displayed gauge-fixing representation.

In axial gauge, ${\chi }^a=n^{\mu }{A}_{\mu }^a$, soWith the Fourier transform convention $e^{ik\cdot x}$, the ghost Feynman rules in the original normalization of $A$ areMomentum conservation accompanies the vertex; each ghost loop has the extra minus sign. With a canonically normalized field $A=g{A}_{\mathrm{can}}$, the vertex is instead $-g{f}^a{}_{bc}{n}_{\mu }$. The gauge fixing term is quadratic and introduces no further interaction vertex.

The Euclidean quadratic kernel of $A$ is $g^{-2}[k^2{\delta }_{\mu \nu }-k_{\mu }{k}_{\nu }+{\xi }^{-1}{n}_{\mu }{n}_{\nu }]$. For $n\cdot k\ne 0$, its inverse isThis follows by multiplication with the kernel: the $k^2\delta -kk$ piece gives $I-n{k}^T/(n\cdot k)$, and the ${\xi }^{-1}nn$ piece supplies the missing $n{k}^T/(n\cdot k)$. The strict axial-gauge propagator is thereforeIt obeys $n^{\mu }{D}_{\mu \nu }=0$. Every ghost attachment to an internal gauge propagator therefore vanishes in the strict limit; equivalently, $\mathcal{M}=n\cdot \partial$ on the gauge slice. Thus the interacting Faddeev-Popov ghosts decouple. Residual gauge transformations and the poles at $n\cdot k=0$ require compatible boundary conditions and an axial-gauge pole prescription.

After Wick rotation, the corresponding Minkowski propagator has ${\delta }_{\mu \nu }$ replaced by ${\eta }_{\mu \nu }$ and the usual overall factor $-i$, with a compatible causal prescription. The fixed $n$ makes the gauge-fixed propagator nonmanifestly Lorentz covariant. Nevertheless, gauge invariance makes physical observables independent of this gauge-choice vector, so their perturbative predictions are Lorentz invariant. Already at tree level, contraction with conserved external currents removes all terms containing $k_{\mu }$ or $k_{\nu }$, leaving $g^{2}j\cdot j^{\prime }/k^2$. The quantum Ward identities give the analogous cancellation in complete physical amplitudes; arbitrary gauge-dependent Green functions need not be independent of $n$.

Differentiating the strong coupling constant ${\alpha }_s=g^2/(4\pi )$ givesIntegrate this constant derivative and express the integration constant through the strong-coupling scale $\Lambda$ at which the one-loop inverse coupling vanishes. The one-loop running of the strong coupling isThe positive-coupling branch has $\mu >\Lambda$ and is perturbatively reliable only when the logarithm is sufficiently large. The pole at $\Lambda$ signals failure of the one-loop expansion, not a prediction of a physically infinite observable. Equivalently, $\Lambda ={\mu }_0\exp [-2\pi /({\beta }_0{\alpha }_s({\mu }_0))]$ is scale-independent to this order; this is dimensional transmutation.

Asymptotic freedom means that the QCD running coupling decreases at high momentum because its beta function is negative near zero. Quarks and gluons therefore interact weakly in sufficiently hard processes, justifying perturbation theory and explaining approximate parton behavior. Dimensional transmutation replaces the dimensionless ultraviolet coupling by the QCD scale ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, defined schematically byAt energies of order ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ the coupling becomes strong, confinement and chiral symmetry breaking occur, and most visible hadron mass is generated dynamically.

The strong-coupling scale $\Lambda$ is defined as the scale at which the one-loop inverse coupling vanishes. Setting $g^{-2}(\Lambda )=0$ givesEquivalently, in terms of the coupling measured at any scale $\mu$,This dimensional transmutation defines ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ for Quantum chromodynamics.

The strong-coupling scale of an asymptotically free gauge theory is the renormalization-group invariant scale at which the one-loop running coupling formally diverges. It replaces a dimensionless ultraviolet coupling through dimensional transmutation.