Dimension of terms in Lagrangian

  • #1
zaman786
31
6
TL;DR Summary
what do we mean by dimensions of terms in lagrangian?
hi, when we say in SM , we can add terms having dimension 4 or less than that- in this to what dimension we are refering ? kindly help how do you measure the dimension of terms in Lagrangian. thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Mass dimension, the only physical dimension left once you introduce natural units. And we are talking only about the dimension of the field content - excluding any dimension of constants.

To find the mass dimension of a field, look at its kinetic term, which contains derivatives and that field only. The total mass dimension of the Lagrange density should be 4 (or it would not integrate to a dimensionless action) and derivatives have mass dimension 1 (as length and time have mass dimension -1).
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #3
Example: The kinetic term for a real scalar field has the content ##(\partial \phi)^2##. If ##\phi## has mass dimension ##k##, then this term has mass dimension ##2(k+1)## where the 2 comes from the square and the 1 from the derivative. This needs to be equal to 4 so ##k =1##.
 
  • #4
Orodruin said:
Mass dimension, the only physical dimension left once you introduce natural units. And we are talking only about the dimension of the field content - excluding any dimension of constants.

To find the mass dimension of a field, look at its kinetic term, which contains derivatives and that field only. The total mass dimension of the Lagrange density should be 4 (or it would not integrate to a dimensionless action) and derivatives have mass dimension 1 (as length and time have mass dimension -1).
thanks - but length and time has dimension of -1 , so how can we say Mass dimension is the only physical dimension left?
 
  • #5
Orodruin said:
Example: The kinetic term for a real scalar field has the content ##(\partial \phi)^2##. If ##\phi## has mass dimension ##k##, then this term has mass dimension ##2(k+1)## where the 2 comes from the square and the 1 from the derivative. This needs to be equal to 4 so ##k =1##.
got it - thanks
 
  • #6
(∂φ)2 has mass dimension 4.
 
  • #7
dx said:
(∂φ)2 has mass dimension 4.
Yes, what is your point?

The thing is that you know it needs to be 4 in order to have the right mass dimension of the Lagrange density. The question of the OP was how you deduce the mass dimension of the fields. If the field has mass dimension k, then that term has mass dimension 2(k+1) = 4 from which it can be concluded that k = 1.
 
  • #8
zaman786 said:
thanks - but length and time has dimension of -1 , so how can we say Mass dimension is the only physical dimension left?
Yes, length and time have mass dimension -1. They do not have independent dimensions as in SI units.
 
  • #9
Recall that action, ##\int d^4 x\,\cal{L}##, should be dimensionless.
 
  • #10
apostolosdt said:
Recall that action, ##\int d^4 x\,\cal{L}##, should be dimensionless.
Literally what I already said …
Orodruin said:
integrate to a dimensionless action
 
  • #11
Sorry, I was referring to the OP. You indeed mentioned it first.
 
  • #12
Orodruin said:
Yes, length and time have mass dimension -1. They do not have independent dimensions as in SI units.
got it- thanks
 
  • #13
apostolosdt said:
Sorry, I was referring to the OP. You indeed mentioned it first.
now, in SM Lagrangian terms has dimension 4 - than how do we allow dimension 5 operator in SM , i know it is some what related as perturbation to SM.
 
  • #14
zaman786 said:
now, in SM Lagrangian terms has dimension 4 - than how do we allow dimension 5 operator in SM , i know it is some what related as perturbation to SM.
The SM as such has only d=4 operators. If you do SM effective field theory you will typically add operators of higher dimension. In the Lagrangian these will be accompanied by a dimensional prefactor, typically assumed to be the mass scale of new physics to an appropriate power.
 
  • Like
Likes zaman786
  • #15
zaman786 said:
now, in SM Lagrangian terms has dimension 4 - than how do we allow dimension 5 operator in SM , i know it is some what related as perturbation to SM.
 
  • #16
Orodruin said:
The SM as such has only d=4 operators. If you do SM effective field theory you will typically add operators of higher dimension. In the Lagrangian these will be accompanied by a dimensional prefactor, typically assumed to be the mass scale of new physics to an appropriate power.
thanks - but as say action should be dimensionless - so if we introduce dimension 5 operator , than do we have to introduce dimensional prefactor - so that overall dimension remains to be 4 ?
 
  • #17
zaman786 said:
thanks - but as say action should be dimensionless - so if we introduce dimension 5 operator , than do we have to introduce dimensional prefactor - so that overall dimension remains to be 4 ?
Yes, that is what I said. This prefactor is typically assumed to be a power of the scale of the new physics related to the effective operator.
 
  • #18
Orodruin said:
Yes, that is what I said. This prefactor is typically assumed to be a power of the scale of the new physics related to the effective operator.
thanks alot
 

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
501
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
473
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
0
Views
384
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
455
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
355
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
987
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
892
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top