For the one-loop renormalization-group beta function, write . Separating variables gives
This expression resums the leading logarithms of the one-loop running coupling, while omitting higher-order terms in the renormalization-group beta function. Assume a positive initial coupling.
For , increasing the renormalization scale decreases the running coupling; the zero-coupling renormalization-group fixed point is attractive in the ultraviolet. This is asymptotic freedom. Toward lower scales the one-loop expression has a formal pole at . The strong-coupling neighborhood of that pole lies outside perturbative control. QCD provides the main example; the minimal Standard Model coupling is also asymptotically free at one loop.
For , the running coupling grows with the renormalization scale and formally diverges at the ultraviolet Landau pole . Toward the infrared it decreases to zero within this approximation. The Standard Model weak hypercharge coupling has this sign, as does QED in a fixed charged-particle regime. A perturbative Landau pole marks failure of the approximation, rather than proving that the exact theory has that divergence.
For , the running coupling is constant at this order; higher-loop terms decide whether it runs. Vanishing of the leading coefficient alone does not establish exact scale invariance.
For a concrete common convention, define with in its usual, non-unified weak hypercharge normalization. In the minimal Standard Model with three generations and one Higgs doublet, above its particle thresholds,
Thus the question's is , with the sign regimes just described. Crossing a mass threshold changes the active field content and requires the appropriate piecewise renormalization-group beta function.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.