**Upper Critical Dimension in Field Theory**

Determining the upper critical dimension of a field theory is a matter of linear algebra. It nevertheless is worthwhile to formalize the procedure because it yields the lowest-order approximation for scaling and essential input for the renormalization group. It also reveals conditions to have a critical model in the first place.

A Lagrangian may be written as a sum of terms, each consisting of an integral over a monomial of coordinates x_{i} and fields φ_{i}. Examples are the standard φ4-model and the isotropic Lifshitz tricritical point with Lagrangians

see also the figure on the right. This simple structure may be compatible with a scale invariance under a rescaling of the coordinates and fields with a factor b according to

Time isn't singled out here - it is just another coordinate: if the Lagrangian contains a time variable then this variable is to be rescaled as t→tb-z with some constant exponent z=-. The goal is to determine the exponent set N={,}.

One exponent, say, may be chosen arbitrarily, for example =-1. In the language of dimensional analysis this means that the exponents N are counting wave vector factors (a reciprocal length k=1/L_{1}). Each monomial of the Lagrangian thus leads to a homogeneous linear equation ΣE_{i,j}N_{j}=0 for the exponents N. If there are M (inequivalent) coordinates and fields in the Lagrangian, then M such equations constitute a square matrix. If this matrix were invertible then there only would be the trivial solution N=0.

The condition det(E_{i,j})=0 for a nontrivial solution gives an equation between the space dimensions, and this determines the upper critical dimension d_{u} (provided there is only one variable dimension d in the Lagrangian). A redefinition of the coordinates and fields now shows that determining the scaling exponents N is equivalent to a dimensional analysis with respect to the wavevector k, with all coupling constants occurring in the Lagrangian rendered dimensionless. Dimensionless coupling constants are the technical hallmark for the upper critical dimension.

Naive scaling at the level of the Lagrangian doesn't directly correspond to physical scaling because a cutoff is required to give a meaning to the field theory and the path integral. Changing the length scale also changes the number of degrees of freedom. This complication is taken into account by the renormalization group. The main result at the upper critical dimension is that scale invariance remains valid for large factors b, but with additional ln(b) factors in the scaling of the coordinates and fields.

What happens below or above d_{u} depends on whether one is interested in long distances (statistical field theory) or short distances (quantum field theory). Quantum field theories are trivial (convergent) below d_{u} and not renormalizable above d_{u}. Statistical field theories are trivial (convergent) above d_{u} and renormalizable below d_{u}. In the latter case there arise "anomalous" contributions to the naive scaling exponents N. These anomalous contributions to the effective critical exponents vanish at the upper critical dimension.

Naive scaling at d_{u} thus is important as zeroth order approximation. Naive scaling at the upper critical dimension also classifies terms of the Lagrangian as relevant, irrelevant or marginal. A Lagrangian is compatible with scaling if the x_{i}- and φ_{i} -exponents E_{i,j} lie on a hyperplane, for examples see the figure above. N is a normal vector of this hyperplane.

Read more about this topic: Critical Dimension

### Famous quotes containing the words theory, field, upper, critical and/or dimension:

“It is not enough for *theory* to describe and analyse, it must itself be an event in the universe it describes. In order to do this *theory* must partake of and become the acceleration of this logic. It must tear itself from all referents and take pride only in the future. *Theory* must operate on time at the cost of a deliberate distortion of present reality.”

—Jean Baudrillard (b. 1929)

“... many American Jews have a morbid tendency to exaggerate their handicaps and difficulties. ... There is no doubt that the Jew ... has to be twice as good as the average non- Jew to succeed in many a *field* of endeavor. But to dwell upon these injustices to the point of self-pity is to weaken the personality unnecessarily. Every human being has handicaps of one sort or another. The brave individual accepts them and by accepting conquers them.”

—Agnes E. Meyer (1887–1970)

“The stately Homes of England,

How beautiful they stand,

To prove the *upper* classes

Have still the *upper* hand.”

—Noël Coward (1899–1973)

“If our entertainment culture seems debased and unsatisfying, the hope is that our children will create something of greater worth. But it is as if we expect them to create out of nothing, like God, for the encouragement of creativity is in the popular mind, opposed to instruction. There is little sense that creativity must grow out of tradition, even when it is *critical* of that tradition, and children are scarcely being given the materials on which their creativity could work”

—C. John Sommerville (20th century)

“Le Corbusier was the sort of relentlessly rational intellectual that only France loves wholeheartedly, the logician who flies higher and higher in ever-decreasing circles until, with one last, utterly inevitable induction, he disappears up his own fundamental aperture and emerges in the fourth *dimension* as a needle-thin umber bird.”

—Tom Wolfe (b. 1931)