1: \subsection{Epsilon Expansion}
2:
3: The loop expansions for correlation functions computed in
4: section \ref{sec-oneLoopAnswers} are expansions in powers of
5: the dimensionless reaction rate, $g$. The problem is that in
6: $d<2$, these expansions become badly ordered as we approach
7: $L_\mu \to \infty$. However, since we
8: have computed correlation functions in arbitrary dimension, $d$,
9: we can convert the loop expansions into expansions in
10: $\epsilon=2-d$ at a fixed value of $g$. For $\epsilon \ll 1$,
11: eq. (\ref{eq-densityOneLoop2}) and eq. (\ref{eq-2pointOneLoop2}) can
12: be written :
13: \begin{eqnarray}
14: \label{eq-densityOneLoop3}\langle R_\mu\rangle = L_\mu^{\epsilon-2}\frac{1}
15: {\sqrt{g}} \left[1+\frac{g}{4\pi\epsilon} + \ldots\right],
16: \end{eqnarray}
17: and
18: \begin{eqnarray}
19: \label{eq-2pointOneLoop3}\langle R_{\mu_1}R_{\mu_2}\rangle &=& \langle R_{\mu_1}\rangle \langle R_{\mu_2}\rangle \left[1-\frac{g}{2\pi\epsilon} + \ldots\right].
20: \end{eqnarray}
21: Of course these series are still badly ordered as
22: $\epsilon\to 0$. The idea
23: is to replace certain correlation functions with appropriate
24: renormalised quantities, also expressed as expansions in
25: $\epsilon$, such that the renormalised counterparts of
26: the above expressions are well-ordered in $\epsilon$. The
27: final pay-off comes when we find that these expressions
28: remain well ordered in $\epsilon$ even when we take the limit
29: $L_\mu\to \infty$ because of the presence of a {\em perturbative
30: fixed point}, a structural feature of the theory which we must
31: now explain in order to make sense of this scheme.
32:
33:
34: \subsection{Renormalised Reaction Rate and $\beta$-function}
35: \label{sec-betaFunction}
36: % \begin{figure}
37: % \includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{meanField.eps}
38: % \caption{\label{fig-lambdaR} Diagrams contributing to the renormalisation of the reaction rate.}
39: % \end{figure}
40: \input ./lambda_R.eps.tex
41:
42: The presence of a perturbative fixed point for the
43: $A+A\to A$ model was originally pointed out by Peliti
44: \cite{peliti}. The corresponding calculations in the presence
45: of a source were done by Droz\cite{droz}. This is sufficient
46: to deal with the problem at hand. Nevertheless we shall
47: paraphrase their arguments here for the sake of completeness.
48:
49: Let us define a renormalised reaction rate, $\lambda_R$, as
50: the amputated 3-point vertex function shown diagrammatically in
51: fig. \ref{fig-lambdaR}. After performing the algebra we find
52: \begin{equation}
53: \lambda_R = \lambda \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2(2\pi)^\frac{d}{2}}
54: \Gamma\left(\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right) g^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{4}} +
55: \ldots\right].
56: \end{equation}
57: Now we introduce a dimensionless renormalised reaction rate,
58: $g_R = \lambda_R L_\mu^\epsilon$, as we did in eq.
59: (\ref{eq-dimensionlessg}), which is given by
60: \begin{equation}
61: g_R = g - \frac{1}{2(2\pi)^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}}
62: \Gamma\left(\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right) g^{2-\frac{\epsilon}{4}} + \ldots.
63: \end{equation}
64: For small values of $\epsilon$ this can be written as
65: \begin{equation}
66: \label{eq-gRExpg}
67: g_R = g - g_*^{-1}(\epsilon) g^2 + \ldots,
68: \end{equation}
69: where
70: \begin{eqnarray}
71: \label{eq-gstar}
72: g_*^{-1}(\epsilon) &=& \frac{1}{2(2\pi)^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}}
73: \Gamma\left(\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)\\
74: \nonumber &=& \frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon}+o(1) \hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{$\epsilon\ll
75: 1$}.
76: \end{eqnarray}
77: Inverting eq. (\ref{eq-gRExpg}) allows us to convert
78: perturbative expansions in the bare reaction rate, $g$, into
79: expansions in the renormalised reaction rate, $g_R$. We find
80: \begin{equation}
81: \label{eq-gExpgR}
82: g = g_R + g_*^{-1}(\epsilon) g_R^2 + \ldots.
83: \end{equation}
84: The crucial point to all of this analysis is the following
85: observation. Although for positive $\epsilon$, $g$ diverges as
86: $L_\mu\to\infty$, rendering perturbative expansions in $g$
87: useless for capturing the large mass behaviour of the theory,
88: we will find that $g_R$ remains finite as $\mu\to\infty$.
89: Furthermore, $g_R$ tends to a value which is of order
90: $\epsilon$. Therefore for small $\epsilon$ we can use eq.
91: (\ref{eq-gExpgR}) to convert expansions in $g$ into expansions
92: in $g_R$ which then have a better chance of remaining
93: non-singular when we take $L_\mu\to\infty$. The process of
94: replacing $g$ with $g_R$ is usually called {\em coupling
95: constant renormalisation} in the literature.
96:
97: The large mass behaviour of the renormalised reaction rate is
98: determined by the $\beta$-function of the theory defined as
99: \begin{equation}
100: \label{defn-beta}
101: \beta(g_R) = \left.\left(L_\mu\pd{g_R}{L_\mu}\right)\right|_\lambda.
102: \end{equation}
103: Using the fact that $L_\mu\pd{ }{L_\mu} g^n = n\epsilon g^n$
104: together with eq. (\ref{eq-gRExpg}) and eq. (\ref{eq-gExpgR}) we
105: quickly find
106: \begin{equation}
107: \label{eq-beta}
108: \beta(g_R) = \epsilon g_R (1 - g_*^{-1}(\epsilon) g_R + \ldots).
109: \end{equation}
110: Eq. (\ref{defn-beta}) now tells us how $g_R$ changes as
111: we vary $L_\mu$. Solving this differential equation with the initial
112: condition $g(L_0) = g_0$ determines how the reaction rate varies with scale.
113: The behaviour is different in $d=2$ and $d<2$. In $d<2$,
114: \begin{equation}
115: L_\mu\pd{g}{L_\mu} = \epsilon g (1-\frac{g}{2\pi\epsilon}),
116: \end{equation}
117: so that
118: \begin{equation}
119: g_R(L_\mu) = \frac{g_0L_\mu^\epsilon}{(1-\frac{g_0}{2\pi\epsilon})L_0^\epsilon+\frac{g_0}{2 \pi
120: \epsilon}L_\mu^\epsilon}.
121: \end{equation}
122: We note that $g_R$ goes to a fixed point value of $2\pi\epsilon$ (+corrections
123: of $O(\epsilon^2)$) as $L_\mu\to\infty$ irrespective of the initial values of
124: $g_0$ and $L_0$. For simplicity
125: we can take $L_0=(1-\frac{g_0}{2\pi\epsilon})^{-1}$ giving
126: \begin{equation}
127: \label{eq-gdlt2}
128: g_R(L_\mu) = \frac{g_0 L_\mu^\epsilon}{1+\frac{g_0}{2 \pi \epsilon}L_\mu^\epsilon}.
129: \end{equation}
130: This universal behaviour as $L_\mu\to\infty$ is what is meant when we say that
131: the renormalisation group flow has a perturbative fixed point in $d<2$.
132:
133: In $d=2$, $\epsilon=0$ so that
134: \begin{equation}
135: L_\mu\pd{g}{L_\mu} = -\frac{g^2}{2\pi},
136: \end{equation}
137: which gives
138: \begin{equation}
139: \label{eq-gdeq2}
140: g_R(L_\mu) = \frac{g_0}{1+\frac{g_0}{2 \pi }\log
141: \left(\frac{L_\mu}{L_0}\right)}.
142: \end{equation}
143: Thus in $d=2$ the reaction rate decays to 0 as $L_\mu\to\infty$ but
144: logarithmically slowly and, unlike in the case $d<2$, retains some memory of
145: the small scale cut-off, $L_0$.
146:
147:
148: \subsection{Average density in $d<2$}
149: \label{sec-avgDensity}
150: Let us now show how all of this technology works by calculating
151: the large mass behaviour of the average density. We define
152: the renormalised density, $\langle R_\mu\rangle_{\rm R}$,
153: by using eq. (\ref{eq-gExpgR}) to replace $g$ with the
154: renormalised reaction rate, $g_R$ in eq.
155: (\ref{eq-densityOneLoop3}). Using eq. (\ref{eq-gstar}), a
156: Taylor expansion shows that the replacement of $g$ with $g_R$
157: cancels the $\epsilon$-singular term so we are left with
158: \begin{eqnarray}
159: \label{eq-renormalisedR_mu}\langle R_\mu\rangle_{\rm R} = L_\mu^{\epsilon-2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_R}} \left[1+ o(g_R^2) \right].
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: Now as $L_\mu \to \infty$, $g_R \to g_*$ so we can now take
162: the limit to obtain
163: \begin{equation}
164: \langle R_\mu\rangle_{\rm R} \sim
165: L_\mu^{\epsilon-2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\epsilon}} \left[1+ o(\epsilon^2)
166: \right].
167: \end{equation}
168: Finally note that as $\mu\to 0$,
169: \begin{displaymath}
170: L_\mu \sim \left(\frac{J \mu}{m_0}\right)^{-\frac{1}{d+2}},
171: \end{displaymath}
172: allowing us to perform the inverse Laplace Transform
173: required to return to mass space. Using the definition, eq.
174: (\ref{eq-defnR_mu}), of $R_\mu$ we finally find
175: \begin{equation}
176: \label{eq-renormalisedDensity}
177: N_m \stackrel{\sim}{\scriptstyle m\to\infty} -\frac{1}{\Gamma\left(-d/d+2\right)}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\epsilon}} \left[1+ o(\epsilon^2) \right]\, m^{-\frac{2d+2}{d+2}},
178: \end{equation}
179: giving a scaling exponent which we know to be correct \cite{RM2000}.
180: We recognise this as the K41 exponent. As discussed in section
181: \ref{sec-dimensionalAnalysis} we could have obtained this answer simply
182: from dimensional arguments once we recognised that the
183: reaction rate is renormalised away to infinity and hence cannot
184: play any role in the answer. However this would ignore the
185: possibility of anomalous dimensions. By calculating the one
186: loop corrections to $\langle R_\mu\rangle$ we confirmed the
187: absence of any relevant (for $\langle R_\mu\rangle$) couplings
188: other than the reaction rate itself. We shall find that this
189: is not the case for the higher order correlation functions.
190:
191: \subsection{Higher order moments of the density}
192:
193: A natural object to study to gather more information about the mass
194: distribution function would be moments of the density of the form
195: $M_n(m) = \left<N_m^n\right>$. As explained in the appendix
196: \ref{sec-shiftExplanation} (see eq. \ref{cor} and the explanation
197: thereafter) these moments exhibit ``extreme'' anomalous scaling
198: characterised by Burgers-like scalings :
199: \begin{equation}
200: \label{eq-extremeAnomalousScaling}
201: \left< N_m^n \right> \sim \left< N_m\right> \stackrel{\sim}{\scriptstyle m\to\infty} m^{-\frac{2d+2}{d+2}}.
202: \end{equation}
203: For the MM however, this anomaly is somewhat trivial from a
204: physical perspective. It arises because large masses become large by absorbing
205: almost all nearby particles. Thus asymptotically, the number of heavy particles
206: on a given lattice site ends up being either zero or one. Taking moments of
207: such a distribution will always give the behaviour described by eq.
208: (\ref{eq-extremeAnomalousScaling}). However, the analysis of appendix
209: \ref{sec-shiftExplanation} which allows one to extract this essentially
210: non-mean field behaviour from an initially weakly coupled theory is not trivial
211: and can be expected to yield interesting results in other contexts.
212: To observe true the multiscale structure of the mass model one should really
213: study multipoint correlation functions. We do this next.
214:
215: \subsection{Higher order multi-point correlation functions in $d<2$}
216:
217: The analysis for the higher order correlation
218: functions is not quite so simple as for the density.
219: By replacing $g$ with $g_R$ in eq. (\ref{eq-2pointOneLoop2})
220: we get
221: \begin{equation}
222: \langle R_{\mu_1}R_{\mu_2}\rangle_{g\to g_R} = \langle R_{\mu_1}\rangle_{\rm R} \langle R_{\mu_2}\rangle_{\rm R} \left[1-\frac{g_R}{2\pi\epsilon} + o(g_R^2)\right].
223: \end{equation}
224: We see that we have removed the
225: $\epsilon$-singularities from the $\langle R_\mu\rangle$ factors
226: but the singularity inside the square brackets remains. The
227: correct definition of the renormalised 2-point function must
228: include renormalisation of the amplitude of $C_2$, not
229: just the reaction rate. This process is known as {\em
230: composite operator renormalisation}. The
231: correct definition of the renormalised 2-point function
232: is therefore
233: \begin{equation}
234: \langle R_{\mu_1}R_{\mu_2}\rangle_{\rm R} = Z_2 \langle R_{\mu_1}R_{\mu_2}\rangle_{g\to g_R},
235: \end{equation}
236: where the amplitude $Z_2$ is chosen so that
237: $\langle R_{\mu_1}R_{\mu_2}\rangle_{\rm R}$ is nonsingular in
238: $\epsilon$:
239: \begin{equation}
240: Z_2 = 1+\frac{g_R}{2\pi\epsilon} + o(g_R^2).
241: \end{equation}
242: The prefactor, $Z_n$, of the $n^{\rm th}$ order correlation
243: function can be computed in a similar manner to the second
244: order one. For example, in the loop expansion of the
245: $3^{\rm rd}$ order correlation function, there are three
246: diagrams containing singularities which are not removed
247: by coupling constant renormalisation. These are shown in
248: fig. \ref{fig-3pointFn}. For the $n$-point function there
249: are $\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)$ such diagrams. Each of these diagrams
250: contributes $\frac{g_R}{2\pi\epsilon}$ to the one-loop
251: expression for $Z_n$ so that :
252: \begin{equation}
253: Z_n = 1 + \frac{1}{2}n(n-1) \frac{g_R}{2\pi\epsilon} + o(g_R^2).
254: \end{equation}
255:
256: This situation is a bit more complicated than before. To extract the
257: scaling exponent we employ the technology of renormalisation
258: group (RG) which was not truly necessary to compute the scaling
259: of the density. Our discussion follows closely the presentation of
260: \cite{binney}. The approach is based on the simple observation,
261: already made at the end of section \ref{sec-oneLoopAnswers},
262: that the $n^{th}$ order correlation function, $C^{(n)}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n})=
263: \langle R_{\mu_1}\ldots R_{\mu_n}\rangle$ does not depend on
264: the arbitrary length scale $L_\mu$, known in RG language as
265: the {\em reference scale}. It immediately follows that
266: \begin{eqnarray}
267: \nonumber & &L_\mu\pd{}{L_\mu} \left( Z_n^{-1}(g_R)\, C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) \right) = 0.
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: The $L_\mu$-dependence of the bracketed expression comes from three sources :
270: an explicit dependence of $C^{(n)}_{\rm R}$ on $L_\mu$, an implicit dependence
271: through $g_R(L_\mu)$ and an implicit dependence through $Z_n(g_R(L_\mu))$.
272: We can thus write
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: \label{eq-CS1} \left[ L_\mu\pd{}{L_\mu} + L_\mu\pd{g_R}{L_\mu}\pd{}{g_R} +
275: L_\mu\pd{Z_n}{L_\mu}\pd{}{Z_n}\right]Z_n^{-1}(g_R)\, C^{(n)}_{\rm
276: R}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) = 0,
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: where the partial derivative with respect to $L_\mu$ is now taken at fixed
279: $g_R$ and $Z_n$ whose dependences on $L_\mu$ are catered for by the additional
280: derivatives. This can then be arranged to give the equation :
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \label{eq-CS2} \left[ L_\mu\pd{}{L_\mu} + \beta(g_R)\pd{}{g_R} -
283: \gamma_n(g_R)\right] C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) =
284: 0,
285: \end{eqnarray}
286: where
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \nonumber \gamma(g_R) &=& L_\mu\pd{}{L_\mu} \left(\log Z_2(g_R)\right),\\
289: &=& \frac{g_R}{2\pi} + o(g_R^2),
290: \end{eqnarray}
291: and $\beta(g_R)$ is given by eq. (\ref{eq-beta}). By itself, this
292: equation just tells us how $C^{(n)}_{\rm R}$ varies with physically
293: meaningless reference scale, $L_\mu$. However dimensional analysis provides
294: extra information. Since the physical dimension of $C^{(n)}_{\rm R}$ is
295: $L^{-n d}$ it must satisfy an Euler equation \cite{binney}
296: \begin{equation}
297: \label{eq-Euler}
298: \left[\sum_{i=1}^n L_{\mu_i}\pd{}{L_{\mu_i}} + L_{\mu}\pd{}{L_\mu} +n
299: d\right]C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) =0.
300: \end{equation}
301: Suppose we now rescale all lengths by some amount, $\Lambda$, by introducing
302: $\tilde{L}_{\mu_i}=\Lambda L_{\mu_i}$. Eq.
303: (\ref{eq-Euler}) allows us to convert derivatives with respect to $L_\mu$
304: into derivatives with respect to $\Lambda$:
305: \begin{equation}
306: L_\mu\pd{}{L_\mu} C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_{\mu_1}\ldots \tilde{L}_{\mu_n},
307: g_R, L_\mu)= -\left( \Lambda\pd{}{\Lambda} + n d\right)C^{(n)}_{\rm
308: R}(\tilde{L}_{\mu_1}\ldots \tilde{L}_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu),
309: \end{equation}
310: so that eq. (\ref{eq-CS2}) can be written as
311: \begin{equation}
312: \label{eq-CS3} \left[ -\Lambda\pd{}{\Lambda} + \beta(g_R)\pd{}{g_R} -n
313: d-\gamma_n(g_R)\right] C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_{\mu_1}\ldots
314: \tilde{L}_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) = 0.
315: \end{equation}
316: This equation is called the Callan-Symanzic (C-S) equation. It tells us something
317: physically useful, namely how the renormalised correlation function changes as
318: we rescale its arguments by $\Lambda$. We wish to solve it in the limit
319: of large $\Lambda$. This can be done using the method of characteristics.
320: For $\Lambda=1$, $C^{(n)}_{\rm R}$ is given by the mean-field answer which
321: is valid for small values of the $\tilde{L}_{\mu_i}$'s, thus providing an
322: initial condition :
323: \begin{equation}
324: C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\Lambda=1, g_R=g_0) = g_0^{-\frac{n}{2}}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots
325: L_{\mu_n})^{-d}.
326: \end{equation}
327: For $d<2$, $\beta(g_R)=\epsilon g_R(1-\frac{g_R}{2 \pi \epsilon})$ and the
328: characteristic equations are
329: %\begin{eqnarray}
330: %\dd{\Lambda}{s} = -\Lambda & \Lambda(g_0,s_0) = 1\\
331: %\dd{g_R}{s} = \epsilon g_R(1-\frac{g_R}{2 \pi \epsilon}) & g_R(g_0,s_0) = g_0\\
332: %\dd{C^{(n)}_{\rm R}}{s} = \left(n d+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\frac{g}{2\pi}\right)\,
333: %C^{(n)}_{\rm R} & C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(g_0,s_0) = g_0^{-\frac{n}{2}}(L_{\mu_1}
334: %\ldots L_{\mu_n})^{-d}.
335: %\end{eqnarray}
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \dd{\Lambda}{s} &=& -\Lambda,\\
338: \dd{g_R}{s} &=& \epsilon g_R(1-\frac{g_R}{2 \pi \epsilon}), \\
339: \dd{C^{(n)}_{\rm R}}{s} & =& \left(n d+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\frac{g}{2\pi}\right),
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: with the boundary conditions
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: \nonumber \Lambda(g_0,s_0)& =& 1,\\
344: \label{eq:boundary}g_R(g_0,s_0)& = &g_0,\\
345: \nonumber C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(g_0,s_0) &= & g_0^{-\frac{n}{2}}(L_{\mu_1}
346: \ldots L_{\mu_n})^{-d}.
347: \end{eqnarray}
348:
349: If we solve these equations, use the uniqueness of the characteristic
350: curves to express $s_0$ and $g_0$ in terms of $\Lambda$ and $g_R$ and then
351: evaluate the solution at $s=0$, the answer can be found explicitly:
352: \begin{equation}
353: C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\Lambda, g_R) = \left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \epsilon}\left(1-\left(1-\frac{2 \pi \epsilon}{g_R}\right)\Lambda^{-\epsilon}\right)}\right)^n
354: \left(\Lambda L_{\mu_1}\ldots\Lambda L_{\mu_n}\right)^{-d}
355: \left(\frac{\Lambda^{-\epsilon}-\left(1-\frac{2 \pi \epsilon}{g_R}\right)\Lambda^{-\epsilon}}{1-\left(1-\frac{2 \pi \epsilon}{g_R}\right)\Lambda^{-\epsilon}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)}.
356: \end{equation}
357: Taking $\Lambda\to\infty$ we conclude
358: \begin{equation}
359: C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_{\mu_1}\ldots \tilde{L}_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) \sim
360: \prod_{i=1}^n L_{\mu_i}^{\frac{1}{2}\epsilon(n-1)}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2 \pi \epsilon}}\, \tilde{L}_i^{-d-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon(n-1)},
361: \end{equation}
362: independent of the value of $g_R$. This independence is the consequence of
363: the presence of a fixed point of the $\beta$-function. All values of $g_R$
364: flow to the fixed-point value, $g^*=2\pi\epsilon$, leaving a universal answer
365: in the limit of large $\Lambda$. It remains to perform the inverse Laplace
366: Transform to find the scaling properties of the original mass-space correlation
367: functions.
368:
369: To do this we note from eq. (\ref{eq-L}) that for large values of the $\tilde{L}_i$,
370: \begin{equation}
371: \tilde{L}_i = \left(\frac{J \tilde{\mu}_i}{D m_0}\right)^{-\frac{1}{d+2}}.
372: \end{equation}
373: It is then easy to perform the $n$ inverse Laplace Transforms with respect to
374: the $\tilde{\mu}_i$ to get
375: \begin{equation}
376: C^ {(n)}_{\rm R}(\tilde{m}_1\ldots \tilde{m}_n, g_R, L_\mu) \sim
377: \prod_{i=1}^n \tilde{m}_i^{-\frac{2 d +
378: 2}{d+2}-\frac{\epsilon(n-1)}{2(d+2)}}.
379: \end{equation}
380: %\begin{figure}
381: %\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{oneLoop.eps}
382: %\caption{\label{fig-3pointFn} Diagrams contributing to the anomalous dimension of the 3-point function $\langle R_{\mu_1} R_{\mu_2} R_{\mu_3}\rangle$ at the one loop level.}
383: % \end{figure}
384: \input ./3pointFn.eps.tex
385: The mass scaling of $C^{(n)}_{\rm R}$ is therefore $m^{-\gamma_n}$ with
386: \begin{equation}
387: \gamma_n = n\frac{2d+2}{d+2} + \frac{n(n-1)\epsilon}{2(d+2)}+o(\epsilon^2).
388: \label{finalanswer}
389: \end{equation}
390: Note that $\gamma_n$ acquires a correction to the value
391: predicted from K41 theory signalling the breakdown of
392: self-similarity in low dimensions.
393: This is the multiscaling curve against which
394: we compared our numerical results in fig. \ref{fig-numerics}.
395:
396: \subsection{Logarithmic Corrections in $d=2$}
397: \label{sec-RGdeq2}
398: In $d=2$ scale invariance is broken by the presence of logarithmic corrections
399: to the mean field scaling. For completeness, let us calculate the powers of
400: the logarithms acquired by the $C^{(n)}_R$'s. In $d=2$, $\beta(g_R)=-\frac{g_R^2}{2\pi}$ and the C-S equation, eq. (\ref{eq-CS3}), reads :
401: \begin{equation}
402: \label{eq-CS2D} \left[ -\Lambda\pd{}{\Lambda} - \frac{g_R^2}{2\pi}\pd{}{g_R} -2 d-\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\frac{g_R}{2\pi}\right] C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_{\mu_1}\ldots \tilde{L}_{\mu_n}, g_R, L_\mu) = 0.
403: \end{equation}
404: The initial condition is again given by the mean-field answer which in $d=2$
405: is
406: \begin{equation}
407: C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(\Lambda=1, g_R=g_0) = g_0^{-\frac{n}{2}}(L_{\mu_1}\ldots L_{\mu_n})^{-2}.
408: \end{equation}
409: The characteristic equations are
410: %\begin{eqnarray}
411: %\dd{\Lambda}{s} = -\Lambda & \Lambda(g_0,s_0) = 1\\
412: %\dd{g_R}{s} = -\frac{g_R^2}{2\pi} & g_R(g_0,s_0) = g_0\\
413: %\dd{C^{(n)}_{\rm R}}{s} = \left(2n+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\frac{g}{2\pi}\right)\,
414: %C^{(n)}_{\rm R} & C^{(n)}_{\rm R}(g_0,s_0) = g_0^{-\frac{n}{2}}(L_{\mu_1}
415: %\ldots L_{\mu_n})^{-2}
416: %\end{eqnarray}
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \dd{\Lambda}{s} &=& -\Lambda, \\
419: \dd{g_R}{s} & =& -\frac{g_R^2}{2\pi},\\
420: \dd{C^{(n)}_{\rm R}}{s} & = &\left(2n+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\frac{g}{2\pi}\right),
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: with the boundary conditions as in eq. (\ref{eq:boundary}) with $d$
423: replaced by $2$.
424: %If we solve these equations, use the uniqueness of the characteristic
425: %If we solve these equations, use the uniqueness of the characteristic
426: %curves to express $s_0$ and $g_0$ in terms of $L_{\mu_1}$ and $g$ and then
427: %evaluate the solution at $s=0$ we obtain
428: These can again be solved explicitly at $s=0$ to give:
429: \begin{equation}
430: C_n^{\rm R}(\Lambda,g_R) = \prod_{i=1}^{n}
431: \sqrt{\frac{1}{g_R}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\Lambda}}\, (\Lambda L_{\mu_i})^{-2}
432: \left(\frac{2\pi}{g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}
433: \left( \frac{2\pi}{g}+\log{\Lambda}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}(n-1)},
434: \end{equation}
435: or, in terms of the rescaled lengths, $\tilde{L}_i$ :
436: \begin{equation}
437: C_n^{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_1\ldots \tilde{L}_n,g_R,L_\mu) = \prod_{i=1}^{n}
438: \sqrt{\frac{1}{g_R}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\frac{\tilde{L}_i}{L_{\mu_i}}}}\,
439: \tilde{L}_i^{-2}
440: \left(\frac{2\pi}{g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}
441: \left(
442: \frac{2\pi}{g}+\log{\frac{\tilde{L}_i}{L_{\mu_i}}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}.
443: \end{equation}
444: The large mass limit corresponds to $\tilde{L}_i/L_{\mu_i} \to \infty$ in
445: which case
446: \begin{equation}
447: C_n^{\rm R}(\tilde{L}_1\ldots \tilde{L}_n,g_R,L_\mu) \sim \prod_{i=1}^{n}
448: \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\frac{\tilde{L}_i}{L_{\mu_i}}}}\, \tilde{L}_i^{-2}
449: \left(\frac{2\pi}{g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}
450: \left(\log{\frac{\tilde{L}_i}{L_{\mu_i}}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}.
451: \end{equation}
452: To recover the asymptotic behaviour in mass space, it is again necessary
453: to take inverse Laplace transforms with respect to the $\tilde{\mu}_i$
454: as $\tilde{\mu}_i\to 0$. Recalling the definition, eq. (\ref{eq-L}) of $L_\mu$
455: we can write
456: \begin{equation}
457: C_n^{\rm R}(\tilde{m}_1\ldots \tilde{m}_n,g_R)\sim \int \prod_{i=1}^{n}
458: e^{-\tilde{m}_i\tilde{\mu}_i}d\tilde{\mu}_i\, \left(\sqrt{-\frac{1}{8\pi}\log{m_i\tilde{\mu}_i}}\,
459: \sqrt{\frac{J\tilde{\mu}_i}{D m_0}}\right)^n \left(\frac{2\pi}{g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)}
460: \left(-\frac{1}{4}\log{m_i\tilde{\mu}_i}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)}.
461: \end{equation}
462: By introducing scaling variables $x_i=\tilde{m}_i \tilde{\mu}_i$ and keeping
463: leading order terms in $\log{\tilde{m}_i/m_i}$ the asymptotic behaviour of this integral as
464: the $\tilde{m}_i\to\infty$ is shown to be
465: \begin{equation}
466: C_n^{\rm R}(\tilde{m}_1\ldots \tilde{m}_n,g_R) \sim C(g_R) \prod_{i=1}^n \left(\sqrt{\frac{J}{D}\,\log{\frac{\tilde{m}_i}{m_i}}}\,\tilde{m}_i^{-\frac{3}{2}}\right)\, \left(\log{\frac{\tilde{m}_i}{m_i}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}(n-1)}.
467: \end{equation}
468: The density, $n=1$, picks up a square root of a logarithm
469: coming from the renormalisation of the reaction rate. However the higher
470: order correlation functions pick up {\em additional} logarithmic corrections
471: which come from the anomalous dimension of the two point function. Note that
472: in $d=2$ the asymptotic behaviour retains some memory of the low mass
473: cut-offs, $m_i$. Furthermore the prefactor, denoted above by $C(g_R)$ remains
474: dependent on the value of $g_R$, unlike in $d<2$.
475: