%Paper: 
%From: manohar@su3.ucsd.edu
%Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 15:54:06 -0700

\input epsf
%%macros
%
\newbox\leftpage \newdimen\fullhsize \newdimen\hstitle \newdimen\hsbody
\tolerance=1000\hfuzz=2pt\def\fontflag{cm}
%
%\def\printertype{ps: }% default postscript
%\def\qms{\def\printertype{qms: }% qms lasergrafix
%\ifx\answ\bigans\else\voffset=-.4truein\hoffset=.125truein\fi}
\def\bigans{b }
\def\answ{b }
%\message{ big or little (b/l)? }\read-1 to\answ
%
\ifx\answ\bigans\message{(This will come out unreduced.}
\magnification=1000\baselineskip=16pt plus 2pt minus 1pt%WS
\vsize=8.5truein \hsize=6truein \hoffset=0.25truein\voffset=0.25truein%WS
\hsbody=\hsize \hstitle=\hsize %take default values for unreduced format
%
\else\message{(This will be reduced.} \let\lr=L
\magnification=1000\baselineskip=16pt plus 2pt minus 1pt
\voffset=-.31truein\vsize=7truein\hoffset=-.465truein% apple lw
\hstitle=8truein\hsbody=4.75truein\fullhsize=10truein\hsize=\hsbody
%
\output={ %\ifnum\pageno=0 %%% This is the HUTP version CHANGE
%CHANGE  \shipout\vbox{\special{\printertype landscape}\makeheadline
%CHANGE    \hbox to \fullhsize{\hfill\pagebody\hfill}}\advancepageno
%CHANGE  \else
  \almostshipout{\leftline{\vbox{\pagebody\makefootline}}}\advancepageno
%CHANGE  \fi
}
\def\almostshipout#1{\if L\lr \count1=1 \message{[\the\count0.\the\count1]}
      \global\setbox\leftpage=#1 \global\let\lr=R
  \else \count1=2
    \shipout\vbox{
%CHANGE \special{\printertype landscape}
      \hbox to\fullhsize{\box\leftpage\hfil#1}}  \global\let\lr=L\fi}
\fi
%
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
\catcode`\@=11 % This allows us to modify PLAIN macros.
%
\newcount\yearltd\yearltd=\year\advance\yearltd by -1900
%\def\HUTP#1#2{\Title{HUTP-\number\yearltd/A#1}{#2}}
%\def\Title#1#2{\nopagenumbers\abstractfont\hsize=\hstitle\rightline{#1}%
%\vskip 1in\centerline{\titlefont #2}\abstractfont\vskip .5in\pageno=0}
%
%\def\Date#1{\vfill\leftline{#1}\tenpoint\supereject\global\hsize=\hsbody%
%\footline={\hss\tenrm\folio\hss}}%      restores pagenumbers
%
%
%
%       MACROS FOR THE TITLE PAGE
%
%
%
%
\def\titlefont{\twelvebf }%to be consistent with preprint format
\def\title#1{\nopagenumbers\hsize=\hsbody%WS
\centerline{\twelvebf #1} \vskip .5truein\pageno=1} %WS
%
% ADDRESSES
%
\def\mayer{\vbox{\nineit\centerline{Department of Physics 0319,
University of California, San Diego}
\centerline{\nineit 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0319, U.S.A.}}}
%
%
%  PREPRINT NUMBER AND DATE AND DOE NUMBER
%
\def\doemit{\#DE-AC02-76ER03069}
\def\doe{\#DE-FG03-90ER40546}
\def\pyi
\def\UCSD#1#2{\footline={\hss\tenrm\folio\hss}}% WS
%
%
%       ABSTRACT
%WS
\def\abstract#1{\vskip 1.4truecm plus 0pt minus 0pt
\centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}

\leftskip=3pc
\rightskip=3pc

{#1}

\leftskip=0pc
\rightskip=0pc
\vskip .9truecm plus 0pt minus 0pt
\baselineskip=14pt plus 0pt minus 0pt
\parindent=36pt\twelvepoint}
%
%
%       use following instead of \Date on the preliminary draft,
%       puts date/time on each page in big mode, writes labels in margins
\def\draft{\draftmode\Date{\draftdate}}
\def\draftmode{\message{ DRAFTMODE }\def\draftdate{{\rm preliminary draft:
\number\month/\number\day/\number\yearltd\ \ \hourmin}}%
\headline={\hfil\draftdate}\writelabels\baselineskip=20pt plus 2pt minus 2pt
{\count255=\time\divide\count255 by 60 \xdef\hourmin{\number\count255}
  \multiply\count255 by-60\advance\count255 by\time
  \xdef\hourmin{\hourmin:\ifnum\count255<10 0\fi\the\count255}}}
%       use \nolabels to get rid of eqn, ref, and fig labels in draft mode
\def\nolabels{\def\wrlabel##1{}\def\eqlabel##1{}\def\reflabel##1{}}
\def\writelabels{\def\wrlabel##1{\leavevmode\vadjust{\rlap{\smash%
{\line{{\escapechar=` \hfill\rlap{\sevenrm\hskip.03in\string##1}}}}}}}%
\def\eqlabel##1{{\escapechar-1\rlap{\sevenrm\hskip.05in\string##1}}}%
\def\reflabel##1{\noexpand\llap{\noexpand\sevenrm\string\string\string##1}}}
\nolabels
%
% tagged sec numbers
\global\newcount\secno \global\secno=0
\global\newcount\meqno \global\meqno=1
%
\def\newsec#1{\global\advance\secno by1\message{(\the\secno. #1)}
\global\subsecno=0\xdef\secsym{}
%\ifx\answ\bigans \vfill\eject \else \bigbreak\bigskip \fi  %if desired
\bigbreak\bigskip\noindent{\bf\the\secno. #1}\writetoca{{\secsym} {#1}}
\par\nobreak\medskip\nobreak}
\xdef\secsym{}
%
\global\newcount\subsecno \global\subsecno=0
\def\subsec#1{\global\advance\subsecno by1\message{(\secsym\the\subsecno. #1)}
\bigbreak\noindent{\it\secsym\the\subsecno. #1}\writetoca{\string\quad
{\secsym\the\subsecno.} {#1}}\par\nobreak\medskip\nobreak}
%
\def\appendix#1#2{\global\meqno=1\global\subsecno=0\xdef\secsym{\hbox{#1.}}
\bigbreak\bigskip\noindent{\bf Appendix #1. #2}\message{(#1. #2)}
\writetoca{Appendix {#1.} {#2}}\par\nobreak\medskip\nobreak}
%
%       \eqn\label{a+b=c}       gives displayed equation, numbered
%                               consecutively within sections.
%     \eqnn and \eqna define labels in advance (of eqalign?)
%
\def\eqnn#1{\xdef #1{(\secsym\the\meqno)}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}%
\global\advance\meqno by1\wrlabel#1}
\def\eqna#1{\xdef #1##1{\hbox{$(\secsym\the\meqno##1)$}}
\writedef{#1\numbersign1\leftbracket#1{\numbersign1}}%
\global\advance\meqno by1\wrlabel{#1$\{\}$}}
\def\eqn#1#2{\xdef #1{(\secsym\the\meqno)}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}%
\global\advance\meqno by1$$#2\eqno#1\eqlabel#1$$}
%
%                        footnotes
\newskip\footskip\footskip14pt plus 1pt minus 1pt %sets footnote baselineskip
\def\f@@t{\baselineskip\footskip\bgroup\aftergroup\@foot\let\next}
\setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height9.5pt depth4.5pt width0pt}
%
\global\newcount\ftno \global\ftno=0
\def\foot{\global\advance\ftno by1\footnote{$^{\the\ftno}$}}
%
%say \footend to put footnotes at end
%will cause problems if \ref used inside \foot, instead use \nref before
\newwrite\ftfile
\def\footend{\def\foot{\global\advance\ftno by1\chardef\wfile=\ftfile
$^{\the\ftno}$\ifnum\ftno=1\immediate\openout\ftfile=foots.tmp\fi%
\immediate\write\ftfile{\noexpand\smallskip%
\noexpand\item{f\the\ftno:\ }\pctsign}\findarg}%
\def\footatend{\vfill\eject\immediate\closeout\ftfile{\parindent=20pt
\centerline{\bf Footnotes}\nobreak\bigskip\input foots.tmp }}}
\def\footatend{}
%
%     \ref\label{text}
% generates a number, assigns it to \label, generates an entry.
% To list the refs on a separate page,  \listrefs
%
\global\newcount\refno \global\refno=1
\newwrite\rfile
%
\def\ref{{${}^{\the\refno}$}\nref}
\def\nref#1{\xdef#1{\the\refno}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}%
\ifnum\refno=1\immediate\openout\rfile=refs.tmp\fi
\global\advance\refno by1\chardef\wfile=\rfile\immediate
\write\rfile{\noexpand\item{#1.\ }\reflabel{#1\hskip.31in}\pctsign}\findarg}
%       horrible hack to sidestep tex \write limitation
\def\findarg#1#{\begingroup\obeylines\newlinechar=`\^^M\pass@rg}
{\obeylines\gdef\pass@rg#1{\writ@line\relax #1^^M\hbox{}^^M}%
\gdef\writ@line#1^^M{\expandafter\toks0\expandafter{\striprel@x #1}%
\edef\next{\the\toks0}\ifx\next\em@rk\let\next=\endgroup\else\ifx\next\empty%
\else\immediate\write\wfile{\the\toks0}\fi\let\next=\writ@line\fi\next\relax}}
\def\striprel@x#1{} \def\em@rk{\hbox{}}
%
\def\semi{;\hfil\break}
\def\addref#1{\immediate\write\rfile{\noexpand\item{}#1}} %now unnecessary
%
\def\listrefs{\footatend\immediate\closeout\rfile\writestoppt
\baselineskip=14pt\newsec{{\bf References}}\bigskip{\frenchspacing%
\parindent=20pt\escapechar=` \input refs.tmp\vfill\eject}\nonfrenchspacing}
%
\def\startrefs#1{\immediate\openout\rfile=refs.tmp\refno=#1}
%
\def\xref{\expandafter\xr@f}\def\xr@f[#1]{#1}
\def\refs#1{[\r@fs #1{\hbox{}}]}
\def\r@fs#1{\edef\next{#1}\ifx\next\em@rk\def\next{}\else
\ifx\next#1\xref #1\else#1\fi\let\next=\r@fs\fi\next}
%
\def\figures{\centerline{{\bf Figure Captions}}\medskip\parindent=40pt%
\def\fig##1##2{\medskip\item{Fig.~##1.  }##2}}
%
% this is ugly, but moore insists
\newwrite\ffile\global\newcount\figno \global\figno=1
%
\def\fig{fig.~\the\figno\nfig}
\def\nfig#1{\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}%
\writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%
\ifnum\figno=1\immediate\openout\ffile=figs.tmp\fi\chardef\wfile=\ffile%
\immediate\write\ffile{\noexpand\medskip\noexpand\item{Fig.\ \the\figno. }
\reflabel{#1\hskip.55in}\pctsign}\global\advance\figno by1\findarg}
%
\def\listfigs{\vfill\eject\immediate\closeout\ffile{\parindent40pt
\baselineskip14pt\centerline{{\bf Figure Captions}}\nobreak\medskip
\escapechar=` \input figs.tmp\vfill\eject}}
%
\def\xfig{\expandafter\xf@g}\def\xf@g fig.\penalty\@M\ {}
\def\figs#1{figs.~\f@gs #1{\hbox{}}}
\def\f@gs#1{\edef\next{#1}\ifx\next\em@rk\def\next{}\else
\ifx\next#1\xfig #1\else#1\fi\let\next=\f@gs\fi\next}
%
\newwrite\lfile
{\escapechar-1\xdef\pctsign{\string\%}\xdef\leftbracket{\string\{}
\xdef\rightbracket{\string\}}\xdef\numbersign{\string\#}}
\def\writedefs{\immediate\openout\lfile=labeldefs.tmp \def\writedef##1{%
\immediate\write\lfile{\string\def\string##1\rightbracket}}}
%
\def\writestop{\def\writestoppt{\immediate\write\lfile{\string\pageno%
\the\pageno\string\startrefs\leftbracket\the\refno\rightbracket%
\string\def\string\secsym\leftbracket\secsym\rightbracket%
\string\secno\the\secno\string\meqno\the\meqno}\immediate\closeout\lfile}}
%
\def\writestoppt{}\def\writedef#1{}
%
\def\seclab#1{\xdef #1{\the\secno}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}\wrlabel{#1=#1}}
\def\subseclab#1{\xdef #1{\secsym\the\subsecno}%
\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}\wrlabel{#1=#1}}
%
\newwrite\tfile \def\writetoca#1{}
\def\leaderfill{\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss.\hss}\hfill}
%       use this to write file with table of contents
\def\writetoc{\immediate\openout\tfile=toc.tmp
   \def\writetoca##1{{\edef\next{\write\tfile{\noindent ##1
   \string\leaderfill {\noexpand\number\pageno} \par}}\next}}}
%       and this lists table of contents on second pass
\def\listtoc{\centerline{\bf Contents}\nobreak
   \medskip{\baselineskip=12pt\parskip=0pt\input toc.tex \bigbreak\bigskip}}
%
%
%
%       Unpleasantness in calling in abstract and title fonts
%       for world scientific
%
\newfam\itfam
\newfam\slfam
\newfam\bffam
\newfam\ttfam
\newfam\bmitfam
\newfam\bcalfam

\newdimen\z@
\z@=0pt
\newskip\ttglue

% \twelvepoint sets up all fonts for printing manuscripts at twelvept

\def\twelvepoint{\def\rm{\fam0\twelverm}%
%
  \abovedisplayskip 14pt plus 3.6pt minus 10.8pt
  \belowdisplayskip 14pt plus 3.6pt minus 10.8pt
  \abovedisplayshortskip 0pt plus 3.6pt
  \belowdisplayshortskip 8.4pt plus 3.6pt minus 4.8pt
%
\textfont0=\twelverm \scriptfont0=\ninerm \scriptscriptfont0=\sevenrm%
\textfont1=\twelvemit \scriptfont1=\ninemit \scriptscriptfont1=\sevenmit%
\textfont2=\twelvecal \scriptfont2=\ninecal \scriptscriptfont2=\sevencal%
\textfont3=\twelveex \scriptfont3=\twelveex \scriptscriptfont3=\twelveex%
%
  \def\mit{\fam1\twelvemit}
  \def\cal{\fam2\twelvecal}
  \def\ex{\fam3\twelveex}
%
% \textfont\bmitfam=\twelvebmit  \scriptfont\bmitfam=\ninebmit
%  \scriptscriptfont\bmitfam=\sevenbmit%
%  \def\bmit{\fam\bmitfam\twelvebmit}%
  \textfont\bcalfam=\twelvebcal  \def\bcal{\fam\bcalfam\twelvebcal}%
  \textfont\itfam=\twelveit \def\it{\fam\itfam\twelveit}%
  \textfont\slfam=\twelvesl \def\sl{\fam\slfam\twelvesl}%
  \textfont\bffam=\twelvebf \scriptfont\bffam=\ninebf
   \scriptscriptfont\bffam=\sevenbf \def\bf{\fam\bffam\twelvebf}%
  \textfont\ttfam=\twelvett \def\tt{\fam\ttfam\twelvett}%
%
  \tt \ttglue=.5em plus.25em minus.15em
  \normalbaselineskip=16pt
  \setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height10.5pt depth5.0pt width\z@}
  \let\sc=\tenrm  \normalbaselines
%
  \rm}

% load 7pt fonts

\font\sevenrm=cmr7
\font\sevenmit=cmmi7
\font\sevencal=cmsy7
\font\sevenbf=cmbx7
%\font\sevenbmit=psmtimbi at 7pt

% load 9pt fonts

\font\ninerm=cmr9
\font\ninemit=cmmi9
\font\ninecal=cmsy9
\font\ninebf=cmbx9
%\font\ninebmit=psmtimbi at 9pt


% load 12pt fonts

\font\twelverm=cmr10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvemit=cmmi10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvecal=cmsy10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvebcal=cmbsy10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelveex=cmex10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelveit=cmti10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvesl=cmsl10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvebf=cmbx10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvett=cmtt10 scaled \magstep1
\font\twelvebmit=cmmib10 scaled \magstep1
\catcode`@=12
\font\nineit=cmti9
\baselineskip=12pt plus 0pt minus 0pt
\null\par
\vskip .5 truein
%
%---------------------------------------------------
%
\def\noblackbox{\overfullrule=0pt}
\hyphenation{anom-aly anom-alies coun-ter-term coun-ter-terms}
\relax
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
%
\def\inv{^{\raise.15ex\hbox{${\scriptscriptstyle -}$}\kern-.05em 1}}
\def\pr#1{#1^\prime}  %prime
\def\lbar{{\lower.35ex\hbox{$\mathchar'26$}\mkern-10mu\lambda}} %lambda bar
\def\e#1{{\rm e}^{^{\textstyle#1}}}
\def\om#1#2{\omega^{#1}{}_{#2}}
%
%
% various slashed symbols
%
%
\def\slash#1{\rlap{$#1$}/} % slashes a character
\def\dsl{\,\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-13.5mu D} %this one can be subscripted
\def\delsl{\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\kern-.57em\partial}
\def\Ksl{\hbox{/\kern-.6000em\rm K}}
\def\Asl{\hbox{/\kern-.6500em \rm A}}
\def\Dsl{\hbox{/\kern-.6000em\rm D}} %roman D
\def\Qsl{\hbox{/\kern-.6000em\rm Q}}
\def\gradsl{\hbox{/\kern-.6500em$\nabla$}}
%
% space and backspace in l mode
%
\def\lspace{\ifx\answ\bigans{}\else\qquad\fi}
\def\lbspace{\ifx\answ\bigans{}\else\hskip-.2in\fi} % $$\lbspace...$$
%
%     boxes an equation
%
\def\boxeqn#1{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern3pt\vbox{\kern3pt
        \hbox{${\displaystyle #1}$}\kern3pt}\kern3pt\vrule}\hrule}}}
%
%     draw a little box (end of proof symbol)
%     e.g. \mbox{.1}{.1}
%
\def\mbox#1#2{\vcenter{\hrule \hbox{\vrule height#2in
\kern#1in \vrule} \hrule}}
%
%
%
%     curly letters
%
\def\CAG{{\cal A/\cal G}}   %curly letters
\def\CA{{\cal A}} \def\CB{{\cal B}} \def\CC{{\cal C}} \def\CD{{\cal D}}
\def\CE{{\cal E}} \def\CF{{\cal F}} \def\CG{{\cal G}} \def\CH{{\cal H}}
\def\CI{{\cal I}} \def\CJ{{\cal J}} \def\CK{{\cal K}} \def\CL{{\cal L}}
\def\CM{{\cal M}} \def\CN{{\cal N}} \def\CO{{\cal O}} \def\CP{{\cal P}}
\def\CQ{{\cal Q}} \def\CR{{\cal R}} \def\CS{{\cal S}} \def\CT{{\cal T}}
\def\CU{{\cal U}} \def\CV{{\cal V}} \def\CW{{\cal W}} \def\CX{{\cal X}}
\def\CY{{\cal Y}} \def\CZ{{\cal Z}}
%
%
%
%     derivatives
%
%
\def\del{\partial}
\def\grad#1{\,\nabla\!_{{#1}}\,}
\def\gradgrad#1#2{\,\nabla\!_{{#1}}\nabla\!_{{#2}}\,}
\def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}
\def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial^2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}
%
\def\ph{\varphi}
\def\bar#1{\overline{#1}}
\def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}
\def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}
\def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}
\def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
\def\vector#1{{\vec{#1}}}
%
%
\def\lform{\hbox{$\sqcup$}\llap{\hbox{$\sqcap$}}}
\def\darr#1{\raise1.5ex\hbox{$\leftrightarrow$}\mkern-16.5mu #1}
\def\dup{^{\vphantom{1}}}
%
\def\lie{\mathop{\hbox{\it\$}}} %pound sterling
%
\def\half{{\textstyle{1\over2}}} %puts a small half in a displayed eqn
\def\frac#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}} %puts a small fraction in a displayed
%%eqn
%
%
%     various math operators
%
%
\def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}
\def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
\def\Im{\mathop{\rm Im}}
\def\Re{\mathop{\rm Re}}
\def\bR{\mathop{\bf R}}
\def\bC{\mathop{\bf C}}
\def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
\def\MeV{{\rm MeV}}
\def\keV{{\rm keV}}
\def\eV{{\rm eV}}
\def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}
%
%
%
%

%
%       relations
%
\def\ltap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
\def\gtap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
\def\gl{\ \raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-.8em\lower.5ex\hbox{$<$}\ }
\def\roughly#1{\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
%
%
%       This defines et al., i.e., e.g., cf., etc.
\def\ie{\hbox{\it i.e.}}        \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}}
\def\eg{\hbox{\it e.g.}}        \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}}
\def\etal{\hbox{\it et al.}}
\def\dash{\hbox{---}}
%
\def\cok{\mathop{\rm cok}}
\def\coker{\mathop{\rm coker}}
%
\def\np#1#2#3{{\it Nucl.~Phys.~} {\bf B#1} (#2) #3}
\def\pl#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Lett.~} {\bf #1B} (#2) #3}
\def\prl#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\physrev#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\ap#1#2#3{{\it Ann.~Phys.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\prep#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rep.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\rmp#1#2#3{{\it Rev.~Mod.~Phys.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\def\cmp#1#2#3{{\it Comm.~Math.~Phys.~} {\bf #1} (#2) #3}
\relax



%
%
\def\bfm#1{\rlap{$#1$}\mkern-0.75mu #1}
\def\lqcd{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}
\def\leff{\CL_{\rm eff}}
\def\lchi{\Lambda_{\chi}}
\def\bfrac#1#2{ { #1 \over #2 }}
\def\boxtext#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern5pt
       \vbox{\kern5pt{#1}\kern5pt}\kern5pt\vrule}\hrule}}
\def\tilde{\widetilde}
\noblackbox
%
%
%
%
%
%
%\nopagenumbers
\rightline{\vbox{\hbox{UCSD/PTH 95-07}\break\hbox{June 1995}}}
\bigskip
\centerline{{\titlefont{EFFECTIVE FIELD THEORIES}}\footnote{*}
{Lectures presented at the Lake Louise Winter Institute, February 1995}}
%       For a long title, type
% \medskip
%\centerline{{\titlefont{First Part of Title}}}
%\title{Rest of Title}
%
\bigskip\bigskip
\centerline{ANEESH V. MANOHAR}
\bigskip\mayer
%\vfill
\abstract{
These lectures introduce some of the basic notions of effective field
theories, as used in particle physics. The topics discussed are the $\Delta
S=1$ and $\Delta S =2$ weak interactions, and chiral perturbation theory as
applied to mesons, baryons, and hadrons containing heavy quarks.  }


%\vfill
%\draftmode
\UCSD{UCSD/PTH 95-07}{June 1995}
%\nopagenumbers

\newsec{Introduction}
These lectures provide an introduction to some of the ideas and calculational
techniques of effective field theories using illustrative examples. Effective
field theory methods are first used to study the strangeness-changing $\Delta
S=1$ and $\Delta S=2$ weak interactions, following the presentation in Georgi's
textbook, ``Weak Interactions and Modern Particle Theory.'' The weak
interactions provide an excellent example for the application of effective
field theories since most of their important features can be studied explicitly
using perturbation theory. Effective field theory methods are then applied to
the study of chiral symmetries in QCD. Some old results of low-energy meson
interactions are reviewed. Some of the recent results of chiral perturbation
theory for baryons, and for hadrons containing a heavy quark are
discussed. There will be no references to the literature given in the text; a
{\it few} references are given at the end.

\newsec{Weak Interactions at Low Energies: Tree Level}

The classic example of an effective field theory is the Fermi theory of weak
interactions. We first discuss how to obtain the Fermi theory as the low-energy
limit of the renormalizable $SU(2)\times U(1)$ electroweak theory at tree
level. The use of effective field theories for the tree level weak interactions
will seem at first like applying a lot of unnecessary formalism to a trivial
problem; the usefulness of the effective field theory method will only become
apparent after we study the $\Delta S=2$ weak interactions, which involve loop
corrections in field theory. Finally, we will discuss the weak interactions
including the leading logarithmic QCD corrections, for which the effective
field theory method is indispensable.

The electroweak interactions have been discussed in detail by other speakers at
this winter institute. The basic flavor changing vertex in the quark sector is
the $W$ coupling to the quark current
\eqn\vertex{
-{ig\over\sqrt2}\ V_{ij}\ \bar q_i\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, q_j, }
where $V_{ij}$
is the Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix, and $P_L=(1-\gamma_5)/2$ is the
left-handed projection operator.  The lowest order $\Delta S=1$ amplitude
arises from single $W$ exchange (\fig\figwexch{Figure 1}),
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig1.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 1:}
\centerline{\tenrm $\scriptstyle W$ exchange diagram for the $\scriptstyle
\Delta S=1$ weak interactions.}
\endinsert
\eqn\wexch{
\CA = \left({ig\over\sqrt2}\right)^2 V_{us} V_{ud}^*\
\left(\bar u\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, s\right)
\left(\bar d\, \gamma^\nu\, P_L\, u\right)
\left({-ig_{\mu\nu}\over p^2-M_W^2}\right),}
where the $W$ boson propagator is in 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge, $p$ is the
momentum transferred by the $W$, and $u$, $d$, $s$ are quark spinors. The
exchange of unphysical scalars $\phi^{\pm}$ can be neglected, since their
Yukawa couplings to the light quarks are very small. The amplitude eq.~\wexch\
produces a non-local four-quark interaction, because of the factor of
$p^2-M_W^2$ in the denominator. However, if the momentum transfer $p$ is small
compared with $M_W$, the non-local interaction can be approximated by a local
interaction using the Taylor series expansion
\eqn\taylor{
{1\over p^2-M_W^2} = -{1\over M_W^2}\left(1+{p^2\over M_W^2} + {p^4\over M_W^4}
+ \ldots\right), }
and retaining only a {\it finite} number of terms. To lowest order, the
amplitude is
\eqn\wexchz{
\CA = \bfrac i{M_W^2}\left({ig\over\sqrt2}\right)^2 V_{us} V_{ud}^*\
\left(\bar u\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, s\right)\left(\bar d\, \gamma_\mu\, P_L\, u
\right)+\CO\left({1\over M_W^4}\right).
} The amplitude eq.~\wexchz\ can be obtained using the effective Lagrangian
\eqn\lexchz{
\CL = -{4 G_F\over\sqrt2}V_{us} V_{ud}^*\
\left(\bar u\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, s\right)\left(\bar d\, \gamma_\mu\, P_L\, u
\right)+\CO\left({1\over M_W^4}\right),
} where $u$, $d$ and $s$ are now the quark fields, and we have used the
definition
$$
{G_F\over\sqrt2} \equiv {g^2\over 8 M_W^2}.
$$
The effective Lagrangian eq.~\lexchz\ can be used to study the weak decays of
quarks at low energies. The basic interaction is a local four-Fermion vertex,
as shown in \fig\figtwo{Figure two}.  To avoid complications with hadronic
matrix elements and QCD corrections (which will be discussed later), consider
instead the effective Lagrangian for $\mu$ decay
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig2.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 2:}
\noindent\tenrm The effective four-Fermi interaction of eq.~\lexchz. This
interaction reproduces the results of \figwexch\ to order $\scriptstyle
1/M_W^2$.
\endinsert
\eqn\muleff{
\CL = -{4 G_F\over\sqrt2}\
\left(\bar e\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, \nu_e\right)\left(\bar \nu_\mu\, \gamma^\mu\,
P_L\, \mu\right) +\CO\left({1\over M_W^4}\right), } whose derivation is almost
identical to that of eq.~\lexchz.  Using eq.~\muleff, neglecting the $1/M_W^4$
terms, and integrating over phase space gives the standard result for the muon
lifetime at lowest order,
\eqn\mulife{
\Gamma_\mu = {G_F^2 m_\mu^5\over 192\pi^3}.
} This calcualation is well known, and will not be repeated here.
\bigskip\noindent
{\sl To summarize:} at lowest order, the ``full theory,'' which is the $SU(2)
\times U(1)$ electroweak theory, can be replaced by the ``effective theory,''
which is QED plus the effective Lagrangian eq.~\lexchz\ (or eq.~\muleff), up to
corrections of order $1/M_W^4$. The effective theory can be used to compute
physical processes such as the muon lifetime.  So far, the effective field
theory method is a fancy way of saying that we have approximated the $W$ boson
propagator in \figwexch\ by $1/M_W^2$. The real advantage of the effective
field theory method will be apparent after we have discussed the one-loop
$\Delta S=2$ amplitude including QCD radiative corrections.

\newsec{Renormalization in Effective Field Theories}

In quantum field theory, knowing the Lagrangian is not sufficient to compute
results for physical quantities. In addition, one needs to specify a way to get
finite, unambiguous answers for physical quantities. In perturbation theory,
this corresponds to a choice of renormalization scheme which (i) regulates the
integrals and (ii) subtracts the infinities in a systematic way.  The effective
Lagrangian eq.~\lexchz\ that we have constructed is non-renormalizable, since
it contains an operator of dimension six, times a coefficient $G_F$ which is of
order $1/M_W^2$. The neglected $1/M_W^4$ term contains operators of dimension
eight, and so on. To use the effective Lagrangian beyond tree level, it is
necessary to give a renormalization scheme as part of the definition of the
effective field theory.  Without this additional information, the effective
Lagrangian eq.~\lexchz\ is meaningless.

It is important to keep in mind that the effective field theory is a {\it
different theory} from the full theory.  This trivial, but extremely important,
point has often been missed in the literature. The full theory of the weak
interactions is a renormalizable field theory. The effective field theory is a
non-renormalizable field theory, and has a different divergence structure from
the full theory. The effective field theory is constructed to correctly
reproduce the low-energy effects of the full theory to a given order in
$1/M_W$. The effective Lagrangian includes more terms as one works to higher
orders in $1/M_W$. The effective field theory method is useful only for
computing results to a certain order in $1/M_W$.  If one is interested in the
answer to all orders in $1/M_W$, it is obviously much simpler to use the full
theory.

%\newsec{Renormalization in Effective Field Theories}

The renormalization scheme must be carefully chosen to give a sensible
effective field theory. To see what the possible problems might be, consider
the flavor diagonal effective Lagrangian from $W$ and $Z$ exchange
\eqn\diageff{
\CL = -{4 G_F\over\sqrt2}V_{ui} V_{ui}^*\
\left(\bar u\, \gamma^\mu\, P_L\, q_i\right)\left(\bar q_i\, \gamma_\mu\, P_L\,
u\right) + \left({\rm Z-exchange}\right) + \CO\left({1\over M_W^4}\right), }
where $i=d,s,b$. At tree level, the $W$ and $Z$ exchange graphs contribute to
flavor diagonal parity violating $u$-quark interactions at order
$G_F\sim1/M_W^2$.  At one loop, the interaction eq.~\diageff\ induces a $Z\bar
u u$ vertex from the graph in \fig\figzloop{Z loop}\ which is of the form
\midinsert
\epsfbox[71 349 505 477]{9507_fig3.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 3:}
\noindent\tenrm One loop correction to the $\scriptstyle Z\bar u u$ vertex. The
solid square represents either the dimension six four-quark interaction of
eq.~\diageff, or the dimension eight four-quark operator discussed in the text.
\endinsert
\eqn\intone{
I\sim{1\over M_W^2} \int d^4 k\ {1\over k^2}, } neglecting the $\gamma$-matrix
structure. The $1/k^2$ factor is from the two fermion propagators in the loop,
and $G_F$ has been rewritten as $G_F\sim1/M_W^2$.  Since the effective field
theory is valid up to energies of order $M_W$, one can estimate the integral
using a momentum space cutoff $\Lambda$ of order $M_W$,
\eqn\inttwo{
I \sim {1\over M_W^2} \Lambda^2 \sim \CO\left(1\right).  } Thus the interaction
eq.~\diageff\ produces a one loop correction to the $Z\bar u u$ vertex of order
one.  Similarly, one can show that higher order terms, such as the dimension
eight operators, are all equally important. A loop graph of the form
\figzloop\ (where the vertex is now a dimension eight operator) is of order
\eqn\intthree{
I^\prime\sim {1\over M_W^4} \int d^4k\ {1\over k^2} k^2 \sim {\Lambda^4\over
M_W^4} \sim \CO\left(1\right), } etc. The additional $k^2$ in the integral
eq.~\intthree\ is from the extra $\partial^2$ at the four-quark vertex in the
dimension eight operator arising from the order $p^2$ term in the expansion of
eq.~(\lexchz) The loop graph with an insertion of the dimension eight operator
is just as important as the loop graph with an insertion of the dimension six
operator; both are of order unity and cannot be neglected. Similarly, all the
higher order terms in the effective Lagrangian are equally important, and the
entire expansion breaks down. A similar problem also occurs in the flavor
changing $\Delta S=1$ weak interactions that we have been studying, but the
analysis is more subtle because of the GIM mechanism, which is why we
considered the $Z\bar u u$ vertex.

The effective field theory expansion breaks down if one introduces a
mass-dependent subtraction scheme such as a momentum space cutoff. This problem
can be cured if one uses a mass-independent subtraction scheme, such as
dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction, in which the dimensional
parameter $\mu$ only appears in logarithms, and never as explicit powers such
as $\mu^2$. In such a subtraction scheme $\beta$-functions and anomalous
dimensions of composite operators are mass independent.  If one estimates the
integrals eq.~\intone\ and eq~\intthree\ in a mass-independent subtraction
scheme, one finds
\eqn\inti{\eqalign{
I=&{1\over M_W^2} \int d^4 k\ {1\over k^2} \sim {m^2\over M_W^2}\log \mu,\cr
I^\prime=&{1\over M_W^4} \int d^4 k\ {1\over k^2}k^2 \sim {m^4\over
M_W^4}\log\mu, }} where $m$ is some dimensionful parameter that is {\it not}
the renormalization scale $\mu$. It must be some other dimensionful scale that
enters the loop graph of \figzloop, such as the quark mass or the external
momentum. This completely changes the estimate of the integrals. The integrals
are no longer of order one, but are small provided $m\ll M_W$.  As a result:

\item{(1)} The effective Lagrangian produces a well-defined expansion of the
weak amplitudes in powers of $m/M_W$, where $m$ is some low scale such as the
quark mass or the external momentum (or $\lqcd$ when one includes QCD effects).
One has a systematic expansion in powers of some low scale over $M_W$. This
makes precise what is meant by neglecting $1/M_W^4$ terms in eq.~\wexchz.

\item{(2)} Loop integrals do not have a power law dependence on $\mu\sim M_W$,
so one can count powers of $1/M_W$ directly from the effective
Lagrangian. Graphs with one insertion of terms in $\leff$ of order $1/M_W^2$
produces amplitudes of order $1/M_W^2$. Graphs with one insertion of terms of
order $1/M_W^4$ or two insertions of terms of order $1/M_W^2$ produce
amplitudes of order $1/M_W^4$, etc.

\item{(3)} The effective field theory behaves for all practical purposes like
a renormalizable field theory if one works to some fixed order in $1/M_W$.
This is because there are only a finite number of terms in $\leff$ that are
allowed to a given order in $1/M_W$. Terms of higher order in $1/M_W$ can be
safely neglected because they can never be multiplied by positive powers of
$M_W$ to produce effects comparable to lower order terms.
\medskip
\noindent It is well-known that different renormalization schemes lead to
equivalent answers for all physical quantities. In an effective field theory, a
mass-independent subtraction scheme is particularly convenient, since it
provides an efficient way of keeping only a few operators in $\leff$, and in
deciding which Feynman graphs are important. Nevertheless, one must be able to
obtain the same results in a mass-dependent scheme such as a momentum space
cutoff. This is true in principle: a mass dependent scheme has an infinite
number of contributions that are of leading order (from the dimension four,
six, eight, $\ldots$, operators). If one resums this contribution, then the
remaining effects (again from an infinite number of terms) will be of order
$1/M_W^2$. Resumming the latter leaves a contribution of $1/M_W^4$, etc.  The
net result of this procedure is to reproduce the same answer as that obtained
much more simply using a mass-independent renormalization scheme.  The
connection between different renormalization schemes is much more complicated
in an effective field theory (which is non-renormalizable), than in a
renormalizable field theory. I will not discuss mass-dependent subtraction
schemes further in these lectures.

\newsec{Decoupling of Heavy Particles}

There is one important drawback to using a mass-independent subtraction
scheme---heavy particles do not decouple.\foot{A mass independent subtraction
scheme does not satisfy the conditions for the Appelquist-Carazzone theorem
(see References).}\ This must obviously be true since the contribution of
particles to $\beta$-functions does not depend on the particle mass. For
example, a 1~TeV charged lepton makes the same contribution as an electron to
the QED $\beta$-function at 1~GeV.

It is instructive to look at the contribution of a charged fermion to the
$\beta$-function in QED. Evaluating the diagram of \fig\figqed{qed} in
dimensional regularization gives
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig4.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 4:}
\centerline{\tenrm One loop contribution to the QED $\scriptstyle
\beta$-function from a fermion of mass $\scriptstyle m$.}
\endinsert
\eqn\qedi{
i{e^2\over 2\pi^2}\left(p_\mu p_\nu -p^2 g_{\mu\nu}\right)
\left[{1\over 6\epsilon} - {\gamma\over 6} - \int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x)\
\log{m^2-p^2 x(1-x)\over 4\pi\mu^2}\right],
} where $p$ is the external momentum, $m$ is the fermion mass, $\gamma$ is
Euler's constant, and $\mu$ is the scale parameter of dimensional
regularization.

\subsec{Mass-Dependent Scheme}

In a mass-dependent scheme, such as an off-shell momentum space subtraction
scheme, one subtracts the value of the graph at a Euclidean momentum point
$p^2=-M^2$, to get
\eqn\qediv{
-i{e^2\over 2\pi^2}\left(p_\mu p_\nu - p^2 g_{\mu\nu}\right)
\left[\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x)\ \log{m^2-p^2 x(1-x)\over m^2+M^2 x(1-x)}\right].
} The fermion contribution to the QED $\beta$-function is obtained by acting
with $(e/2)M d/dM$ on the coefficient of $i\left(p_\mu p_\nu -p^2
g_{\mu\nu}\right)$,
\eqn\qedv{\eqalign{
\beta\left(e\right)&=-\bfrac e 2 M{d\over dM} {e^2\over 2\pi^2}
\left[\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x)\ \log{m^2-p^2 x(1-x)\over m^2+M^2 x(1-x)}\right]\cr
&= {e^3\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x)\ {M^2 x (1-x)\over m^2+M^2 x(1-x)}.  }}
\midinsert
\moveright1in\hbox{\epsfxsize=4in
\epsffile{9507_fig5.eps}}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 5:}
\noindent\tenrm Contribution of a fermion of mass $\scriptstyle m$ to the QED
$\scriptstyle\beta$-function. The result is given for the momentum-space
subtraction scheme, with renormalization scale $\scriptstyle M$. The fermion
decouples for $\scriptstyle M\ll m$.
\endinsert
The fermion contribution to the $\beta$-function is plotted in
\fig\figqedbeta{QED beta}. When the fermion mass $m$ is small compared
with the renormalization point $M$, $m\ll M$, the $\beta$-function contribution
is
\eqn\betasmall{
\beta\left(e\right) \approx {e^3\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) = \bfrac {e^3}
{12\pi^2}.  } As the renormalization point passes through $m$, the fermion
decouples, and for $M\ll m$, its contribution to $\beta$ vanishes as
\eqn\betalarge{
\beta\left(e\right) \approx \bfrac{e^3}{2\pi^2}
\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) {M^2 x (1-x)\over m^2}
=\bfrac {e^3}{60 \pi^2} \bfrac{M^2}{m^2}.  }

\subsec{The $\bar{MS}$ Scheme}

In the $\bar {MS}$ scheme, one subtracts the $1/\epsilon$ pole and redfines
$4\pi\mu^2 e^{-\gamma}\rightarrow\mu^2$, to give
\eqn\qedii{
-i{e^2\over 2\pi^2}\left(p_\mu p_\nu - p^2g_{\mu\nu}\right)
\left[\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) \log{m^2-p^2 x(1-x)\over \mu^2}\right].
} The fermion contribution to the QED $\beta$-function is obtained by acting
with $(e/2)\mu d/d\mu$ on the coefficient of $i\left(p_\mu p_\nu -p^2
g_{\mu\nu}\right)$,
\eqn\qediii{\eqalign{
\beta\left(e\right)&=-\bfrac e 2\mu{d\over d\mu} {e^2\over 2\pi^2}
\left[\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) \log{m^2-p^2 x(1-x)\over \mu^2}\right]\cr
&= {e^3\over 2\pi^2}\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) = \bfrac {e^3}{12\pi^2}, }} which is
indpendent of the fermion mass and $\mu$.

The fermion contribution to the $\beta$-function in the $\bar{MS}$ scheme does
not vanish as $m\gg \mu$, so the fermion does not decouple as it should. There
is another problem: the finite part of the Feynman graph in the $\bar {MS}$
scheme at low momentum is
\eqn\qedfinite{
-i{e^2\over 2\pi^2}\left(p_\mu p_\nu - p^2g_{\mu\nu}\right)
\left[\int_0^1 dx\ x(1-x) \log{m^2\over \mu^2}\right],}
from eq.~\qedii.  For $\mu\ll m$ the logarithm becomes large, and perturbation
theory breaks down. These two problems are related.  The large finite parts
correct for the fact that the value of the running coupling used at low
energies is incorrect, because it was obtained using the ``wrong''
$\beta$-function.  The two problems can be solved at the same time by
integrating out heavy particles. One uses a theory including the fermion when
$m<\mu$, and a theory without the fermion when $m>\mu$. Effects of the heavy
particle in the low energy theory are included via higher dimension operators,
which are suppressed by inverse powers of the heavy particle mass.  The
matching condition of the two theories at the scale of the fermion mass is that
$S$-matrix elements for light particle scattering in the low-energy theory
without the heavy particle must match those in the high-energy theory with the
heavy particle.

For the case of a spin-1/2 fermion at one loop, this implies that the running
coupling is continuous at $m=\mu$. The $\beta$-function is discontinous at
$m=\mu$, since the fermion contributes $e^3/12\pi^2$ to $\beta$ above $m$ and
zero below $m$. The $\beta$-function is a step-function, instead of having a
smooth crossover between $e^3/12\pi^2$ and zero, as in the momentum-space
subtraction scheme. Decoupling of heavy particles is implemented by hand in the
$\bar{MS}$ scheme by integrating out heavy particles at $\mu\sim m$. One
calculates using a sequence of effective field theories with fewer and fewer
particles. The main reason for using the $\bar{MS}$ scheme and integrating out
heavy particles is that it is much easier to use in practice than the
momentum-space subtraction scheme. Virtually all radiative corrections beyond
one-loop are evaluated in practice using the $\bar{MS}$ scheme.


\newsec{Weak Interactions at Low Energies: One Loop}

The ideas discussed so far can now be applied to the weak interactions at one
loop.  The amplitude for the $\Delta S=2$ amplitude for $K^0$-$\bar K^0$ mixing
is of order $G_F^2$. The leading contribution to this amplitude in the standard
model is from the box diagram of \fig\figbox{}, where one sums over quarks
$i,j=u,c,t$ in the intermediate states. The sum of the $W$ and unphysical
scalar exchange graphs is
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig6.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 6:}
\centerline{\tenrm The box diagram for the $\scriptstyle \Delta S=2$
$\scriptstyle K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing amplitude. }
\endinsert
\def\abox{\CA^{\rm box}}
\eqn\inamilim{
\abox={g^4\over 128\pi^2 M_W^2}\ \sum_{i,j} \xi_i \xi_j\  \bar E(x_i,x_j)\
\left(\bar d\, \gamma^\mu\,P_L\,s\right)\left(\bar d\,
\gamma_\mu\,P_L\,s\right),
} where
\eqn\defxi{
x_i = {m^2_i\over M_W^2}, }
\eqn\xidef{
\xi_i = V_{is} V_{id}^*,
}
\eqn\ebarxy{\eqalign{
\bar E(x,y) &= - x y \Bigl\{ {1\over x-y}\left[ \bfrac 1 4 -
\bfrac 3 2 \bfrac 1 {x-1} - \bfrac 3 4 \bfrac 1 {(x-1)^2} \right]
\log x\cr & \qquad +  {1\over y-x}\left[ \bfrac 1 4 -
\bfrac 3 2 \bfrac 1 {y-1} - \bfrac 3 4 \bfrac 1 {(y-1)^2} \right]
\log y- \bfrac 3 4 \bfrac 1 {(x-1)(y-1)} \Bigr\},
}} and
\eqn\ebarxx{
\bar E(x,x) = - \bfrac 3 2 \left( \bfrac x {x-1}\right)^3 \log x
- x \left[ \bfrac 1 4 - \bfrac 9 4 \bfrac 1 {x-1} - \bfrac 3 2
\bfrac 1 {(x-1)^2}\right].
} In the limit $m_u=0$ and $m_{c,t}\ll M_W$,\foot{The $\Delta S=2$ amplitude is
considered in the limit $m_t\ll M_W$. This was the approximation used in the
original calculations, and makes it easier for the reader to compare with the
literature. It also simplifies the discussion somewhat, because the $t$-quark
and $c$-quark can be treated in a similar fashion. The realistic case of
$m_t>M_W$ is mentioned briefly at the end of this section.}
\eqn\inamilimit{\eqalign{
\abox=&-{g^4\over 128\pi^2 M_W^2}\ \left(\bar d\, \gamma^\mu\,P_L\,s\right)
\left(\bar d\,\gamma_\mu\,P_L\,s\right)
\left[ \xi_c^2\, \bfrac {m_c^2} {M_W^2} + \xi_t^2\, \bfrac{m_t^2} {M_W^2}
+ 2 \xi_c\xi_t\, \bfrac {m_c^2} {M_W^2} \log \bfrac{m_t^2} {m_c^2}\right],\cr
=&-{G_F^2\over 4\pi^2}\ \left(\bar d\, \gamma^\mu\,P_L\,s\right)\left(\bar d\,
\gamma_\mu\,P_L\,s\right)
\left[ \xi_c^2\, {m_c^2} + \xi_t^2\, {m_t^2}
+ 2 \xi_c\xi_t\, m_c^2 \log \bfrac {m_t^2} {m_c^2}\right].\cr }} The $\Delta
S=2 $ amplitude is of order $1/M_W^4$, rather than $1/M_W^2$ as one might
naively expect, because of the GIM mechanism: The quark mass independent piece
of the $\Delta S=2 $ amplitude is proportional to
\eqn\gim{
\xi_u+\xi_c+\xi_t = \sum_i V_{id} V_{is}^*=0,
} which vanishes because the KM matrix is unitary.

\subsec{Matching at $M_W$}

We will now reproduce eq.~\inamilimit\ using an effective field theory
calculation to one loop. At the scale $M_W$, the $\Delta S=2$ amplitude in the
full theory is given by a loop graph in the effective theory involving two
insertions of the $\Delta S=1$ interaction, plus a local four-Fermi $\Delta
S=2$ interaction. The sum of the loop graph and the local $\Delta S=2$
interaction must reproduce the $\Delta S=2$ interaction in the full theory to
order $1/M_W^4$, as shown schematically in \fig\figebox{figebox}.  The tree
level graphs of \figwexch\ and \figtwo\ are chosen to be the same in the full
and effective theory to order $1/M_W^2$, but this does not imply that the loop
graphs in the full and effective theory are equal to order $1/M_W^4$. The two
loop graphs in \figebox\ would be equal to order $1/M_W^4$ if the loop graphs
in the full and effective theory were finite.  However, in general, the graphs
are infinite, and need subtractions. There is no simple relation between the
renormalization prescriptions in the full and effective theories and one needs
to add a local $\Delta S=2$ counterterm at the scale $M_W$, which is the
difference between the loop graphs in the full and effective theories.
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig7.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 7:}
\noindent \tenrm Box diagram for the $\scriptstyle \Delta S=2$ amplitude in the
full and
effective theories. The crosses represent fermion mass insertions. The solid
circle is a $\scriptstyle \Delta S=1$ vertex, and the solid square is a local
$\scriptstyle \Delta S=2$ vertex.
\endinsert
The graphs in the effective theory are more divergent than in the full
theory. In our example, the box diagram in the full theory is convergent by
naive power counting.
$$
I_{\rm full} \sim \int d^4k \left({1\over k}\right)^2
\left({1\over k^2}\right)^2,
$$
whereas the graph in the effective theory is quadratically divergent,
$$
I_{\rm eff} \sim \int d^4k \left({1\over k}\right)^2,
$$
where we have used a factor of $1/k$ for each internal fermion line, and
$1/k^2$ for each internal boson line. In the case of the standard model, the
graph in the effective theory is more convergent than the naive estimate
because of the GIM mechanism. As we have seen, the fermion mass-independent
part of the diagram is proportional to $\xi_u + \xi_c +\xi_t$, which
vanishes. Thus the non-vanishing parts of the graphs in the full and effective
theory must involve a factor of the internal fermion mass. In fact, there have
to be two factors of the fermion mass because the $\Delta S=1$ vertex only
involves left-handed fields, and a fermion mass changes a left-handed fermion
to a right-handed fermion. Thus in the effective theory, the non-zero part of
the diagram must have two mass insertions on each of the fermion lines (there
is a separate GIM mechanism for each line because of the independent sums over
$i$ and $j$ in eq.~\inamilim), as represented in
\figebox. This increases the degree of convergence of the diagram by
two for each internal quark line, and converts it from a diagram that diverges
like $k^2$ to a diagram that converges like $1/k^2$. Since the diagrams in the
full and effective theory are both finite, the local $\Delta S=2$ vertex
induced at the scale $M_W$ vanishes.

\subsec{Matching at $m_t$}

The effective Lagrangian remains unchanged down to the scale $\mu=m_t$, if one
neglects QCD radiative corrections. At the scale $\mu=m_t$, one integrates out
the top quark. The ``full theory'' is now the effective Lagrangian including
six quarks, and the ``effective theory'' is the effective Lagrangian including
only five quarks. The $\Delta S=1$ interactions in the five-quark theory are
trivially obtained from those in the six-quark theory, by dropping all terms
that contain the $t$-quark. The $\Delta S=2$ interactions in the five- and
six-quark theories are given in
\fig\figboxt{figboxt},
where the intermediate states in the six-quark theory are the $u$, $c$ and $t$
quarks, and in the five-quark theory are the $u$ and $c$ quarks. There is no
GIM cancellation once the top quark has been integrated out of the theory, so
the loop graph in the five-quark theory is divergent, and there will (in
principle) be a non-zero counterterm induced at the scale $m_t$.  The value of
the counterterm is the difference in the diagrams in the theories above and
below $m_t$, and so is given by the graphs in the theory above $m_t$ that
involve at least one $t$-quark in the loop, as shown in
\fig\figtcterm{figtcterm}. All other graphs in the six-quark theory are
identical to the corresponding graphs in the five-quark theory. The loop graphs
in the theory above $m_t$ can be calculated quite simply, and lead to the
matching condition
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig8.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 8:}
\centerline{\tenrm Matching condition at the $\scriptstyle t$-quark scale. The
solid square is the $\scriptstyle \Delta S=2$ counterterm induced at
$\scriptstyle \mu=m_t$. }
\endinsert
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig9.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 9:}
\centerline{\tenrm Graphs to be computed to evaluate the $\scriptstyle \Delta
S=2$ counterterm
induced at $\scriptstyle \mu=m_t$.}
\endinsert
\eqn\matcht{
c_2(\mu=m_t-0)= {G_F^2\over 4\pi^2} \left[ \xi_t^2\, m_t^2 + 2 \xi_c\xi_t
\left(  m_t^2 +  m_c^2\right)+2 \xi_u\xi_t \left(m_t^2 +
m_u^2\right)\right], } where the contributions come from the finite part of
\figtcterm, and $c_2$ is the coefficient of the $\Delta S=2$ operator
$\left(\bar d\, \gamma^\mu\,P_L\,s\right)\left(\bar d\,
\gamma_\mu\,P_L\,s\right)$. Using the
relation eq.~\gim\ and neglecting $m_u$ gives
\eqn\matchtII{
c_2(\mu=m_t-0)= {G_F^2\over 4\pi^2} \left[- \xi_t^2\, m_t^2 + 2 \xi_c\xi_t\,
m_c^2\right].  }
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig10.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 10:}
\noindent\tenrm The infinite part of this graph contributes to the
renormalization group scaling of the $\scriptstyle \Delta S=2$ amplitude.
\endinsert

\subsec{Scaling from $m_t$ to $m_c$}

The next step is to scale from the scale $m_t$ to $m_c$. The loop graph
\fig\figscale{figscale}\ is divergent, because there is no
longer a GIM mechanism in the five-quark theory, and $c_2$ is renormalized
proportional to $c_1^2$, where $c_1$ is the coefficient of the $\Delta S=1$
operator. This implies that there is a renormalization group equation for
$c_2$,
\eqn\rgct{
\mu {d\over d\mu} c_2 = \bfrac{1}{8\pi^2}\ {c_1^2\, m_c^2}\ \xi_c\xi_t,
} where the anomalous dimension is computed using the infinite part of
\figscale. Integrating this equation from $m_t$ to $m_c$ gives
\eqn\rgint{\eqalign{
c_2(m_c) &= c_2(m_t) + \bfrac{1}{8\pi^2} {c_1^2 }
\ m_c^2\ \xi_c\xi_t\ \log\bfrac{m_c}{m_t},\cr
c_2(m_c) &= c_2(m_t) - \bfrac {G_F^2}{2\pi^2}\ \xi_c\xi_t\ m_c^2\
\log\bfrac{m_t^2}{m_c^2},\cr }} substituting $c_1=-4G_F/\sqrt2$.

\subsec{Matching at $m_c$}

Finally, one integrates out the $c$ quark. This is virtually identical to the
matching condition at the $t$-quark scale, and gives
\eqn\matchc{
c_2(\mu=m_c-0)= c_2(\mu=m_c+0) +{G_F^2\over 4\pi^2} \left[ \xi_c^2 m_c^2 + 2
\xi_c\xi_u m_c^2\right].  } Combining eqs.~\matcht--\matchc\ reproduces the the
box diagram computation eq.~\inamilimit.

There are some important features of the $\Delta S=2$ computation which are
generic to any effective field theory computation. (i) The contributions
proportional to the heaviest mass scale $m_t$ arise from matching conditions at
that scale. (ii) contributions proportional to lower mass scales (such as
$m_c$) arise from matching at the scale $m_c$, and also from higher order
corrections at the scale $m_t$, since $m_c^2 = m_t^2 \times m_c^2/m_t^2$. (iii)
Contributions proportional to logarithms of two scales arise from
renormalization group evolution between the two scales.

It seems that the effective field theory method is much more complicated than
directly computing the original box diagram in
\figbox. The effective theory method has broken the computation of the box
diagram into several steps.  The computations involved at each step in the
effective field theory are much simpler than the box diagram calculation. The
box diagram involves several different mass scales in the internal propagators,
which leads to complicated Feynman parameter integrals that must be
evaluated. The matching condition computations in the effective field theory
each involve only a single mass scale, and are much simpler. One can contrast
the full answer eq.~\inamilimit\ with the individual pieces of the effective
field theory calculation in eqs.~\matcht--\matchc. Furthermore, in the
effective field theory calculation it is trivial to include the leading
logarithmic QCD corrections to the $\Delta S =2$ amplitude. The corresponding
computation in the full theory is far more difficult, and involves computing
two loop diagrams such as the one in \fig\figboxcorr{figboxcorr}.
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig11.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 11:}
\centerline{\tenrm A QCD radiative correction to the box diagram.}
\endinsert

The leading logarithmic corrections to the $\Delta S=2$ amplitude sum all
corrections of the form $(\alpha_s \log r)^n$, where $r$ is large ratio of
scales such as $M_W/m_c$, but neglect corrections of the form
$\alpha_s(\alpha_s \log r)^n$. The QCD corrections to the matching condition
only involve a single scale, and do not have any large logarithms. For example,
the matching condition at the scale $m_t$ only involves corrections that depend
on $\alpha_s(\mu)$ and $\log m_t/\mu$. Evaluating these corrections by setting
the $\bar{MS}$ parameter $\mu=m_t$ implies that there is no leading logarithmic
correction to the matching condition. The only leading logarithmic QCD
corrections arise from renormalization group scaling between different
scales. This computation is straightforward, and only involves the infinite
parts of one loop diagrams. The renormalization group equation eq.~\rgct\ is
replaced by
\eqn\newrg{
\mu {d\over d\mu}\, c_2(\mu) = \bfrac{1}{8\pi^2}\ m_c^2(\mu)\, c_1^2(\mu)\
\xi_c\xi_t +
\gamma_2(\mu)\ c_2(\mu),
} where $m_c$ has been replaced by the running mass, $c_1$ has been replaced by
the running coupling $c_1(\mu)$, and $\gamma_2$ is the anomalous dimension
\eqn\gamii{
\gamma_2 = \bfrac{\alpha_s(\mu)}\pi,
} of the $\Delta S=2$ operator $(\bar d\, \gamma^\mu\,P_L\,s)\, (\bar d\,
\gamma_\mu\,P_L\,s)$, which can be obtained from the infinite part of
\fig\figdsii{figdsii}. The runnning mass $m_c(\mu)$ satisfies the
renormalization group equation
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig12.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 12:}
\centerline{\tenrm Graph contributing to the anomalous dimension of the
$\scriptstyle \Delta
s=2$ operator $\scriptstyle (\bar d\, \gamma^\mu \, P_L\,s)\, (\bar d\,
\gamma_\mu \, P_L\,s)$.}
\endinsert
\eqn\gamm{
\mu {d\over d\mu}\, m_c(\mu) =\gamma_m\ m_c(\mu) =
 -\bfrac{2\alpha_s(\mu)}\pi\ m_c(\mu).  } If $c_1$ satisfies a simple
renormalization group equation of the form
\eqn\gamisimp{
\mu {d\over d\mu}\, c_1(\mu) = \gamma_1\ c_1(\mu),
} one can solve eqs.~\newrg--\gamisimp\ to obtain the QCD corrected value for
$c_2(\mu)$. At one loop, it is convenient to define $b$ and $\hat\gamma_i$
\eqn\bdef{
\mu {d\over d\mu}\, g = \beta(g) = - b \bfrac{g^3}{16\pi^2} + \ldots,
} and
$$
\gamma_i = \hat \gamma_i\ \bfrac{g^2}{16\pi^2} + \ldots,
$$
for $i=1,2,m$. One can then solve eqs.~\gamm\ and \gamisimp,
\eqn\misolve{\eqalign{
m_c(\mu) &= m_c(\mu^\prime) \left[\bfrac{g(\mu)}{g(\mu^\prime)}\right]^{-
\hat\gamma_m/b}=\left[\bfrac{\alpha_s(\mu^\prime)}{\alpha_s(\mu)}\right]^{
\hat\gamma_m/2 b},\cr
c_1(\mu) &= c_1(\mu^\prime)
\left[\bfrac{g(\mu)}{g(\mu^\prime)}\right]^{-\hat\gamma_1/b}
=\left[\bfrac{\alpha_s(\mu^\prime)}{\alpha_s(\mu)}\right]^{
\hat\gamma_1/2 b}.
}} Substituting eq.~\misolve\ into eq.~\newrg\ and integrating gives
\eqn\wrong{\eqalign{
c_2(m_c)&=c_2(m_t) \left[\bfrac{\alpha_s(m_t)} {\alpha_s(m_c)}
\right]^{\hat\gamma_2/2 b}\cr
&+ \bfrac{m_c^2(m_t)\ c_1^2(m_t)} {g(m_t)^2
\left(2+2\hat\gamma_1/b+2\hat\gamma_m/b-\hat\gamma_2/b\right)}
\left[\left(\bfrac{\alpha_s(m_t)} {\alpha_s(m_c)}\right)^
{2+2\hat\gamma_1/b+2\hat\gamma_m/b}-
\left(\bfrac{\alpha_s(m_t)} {\alpha_s(m_c)}\right)^{\hat\gamma_2/2 b}
\right]
}}

The actual compuation of these effects in the standard model is more involved,
because the $\Delta S=1$ Lagrangian does not satisfy a simple renormalization
group equation of the form eq.~\gamisimp. There is operator mixing, and
eq.~\gamisimp\ is replaced by a matrix equation.  Nevertheless, it is possible
to compute the results using an effective field theory method, though the final
form of the answer is more complicated than eq.~\wrong. The reader is referred
to the papers by Gilman and Wise for details.  The computation of QCD
corrections in the full theory is far more complicated, and has never been
done.

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of the full and effective theory
computation, let us concentrate only on the $m_t$ part of the $\Delta S=2$
amplitude.  The effective field theory computation gives the $\Delta S=2$
amplitude as an expansion in powers of $m_t/M_W$, and we have computed the
leading term in eq.~\inamilimit. The general form of the effective field theory
result is
\eqn\ansexp{
{\rm answer} = \left(\bfrac{m_t}{M_W}\right)^2\left(\bfrac{\alpha_s(M_W)}
{\alpha_s(m_t)}\right)^{\gamma_2/2b} +
\left(\bfrac{m_t}{M_W}\right)^4\left(\bfrac{\alpha_s(M_W)}
{\alpha_s(m_t)}\right)^{\gamma_4/2b} + \ldots } where $\gamma_i$ are the
anomalous dimensions of the dimension six, eight, etc. operators. (For example,
compare with eq.~\wrong.) Evaluating each of these anomalous dimension is a
separate computation. Eq.~\ansexp\ is useful if there is a large ratio of
scales, $m_t/M_W \ll 1$, so that one only needs a few terms in the expansion
\ansexp. The full theory computation eq.~\inamilim\ sums up the entire series,
and gives an answer of the form
\eqn\ansfull{
{\rm answer} = f(m_t/M_W), } which is valid for any value of the ratio
$m_t/M_W$. The compuations involved in eq.~\ansfull\ are necessarily more
complicated than those for the effective field theory, because one obtains the
entire functional form of the answer, rather than the first few terms in a
series expansion. However, it is not possible to compute the leading
logarithmic QCD corrections to eq. \ansfull, since each term in the expansion
has a different anomalous dimension. For the $c$ quark, it is more important to
sum the leading QCD corrections, than to include higher order terms in
$m_c/M_W\sim1/50$, and the effective theory method is useful. The recently
measured value of the top quark mass indicates that the ratio $m_t/M_W\sim
2$. In this case, it is more important to retain the entire form of the
$m_t/M_W$ dependence, than to include the QCD radiative corrections.  The way
the calculation is done in practice is to integrate out the $t$-quark and
$W$-boson together at some scale $\mu$ which is comparable to both $m_t$ and
$M_W$, and then use an effective theory to scale down to $m_c$ so as to include
the QCD corrections between $\{ M_W,m_t \}$ and $m_c$. Clearly, the ideal
procedure would be to retain the entire functional form eq.~\ansfull, as well
as the entire QCD radiative correction. This has been done in a toy model using
a non-local effective Lagrangian, but it is not known how to do this in
general.

A very different example where an infinite set of anomalous dimensions can be
computed is the QCD evolution of parton structure functions.  In QCD, the
Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions for the parton distribution functions
contain the same information as the infinite set of anomalous dimensions of the
twist-two operators. The distribution functions can be written as matrix
elements of non-local operators, and the one-loop anomalous dimension is a
function, whose moments give the anomalous dimensions of the infinite tower of
twist two operators.

\newsec{The Non-linear Sigma Model}

The previous results discussed effective field theories in the perturbative
regime, where one could compute the effective Lagrangian from the full theory
in a systematic perturbative expansion. One can also apply effective field
theory ideas to situations where one can not derive the effective Lagrangian
from the full theory directly. The classic example of this is the use of
non-linear sigma models to study spontaneously broken global symmertries, and
in particular, the use of chiral Lagrangians to study pion interactions in QCD.

Consider first the linear sigma model with Lagrangian
\eqn\linl{
\CL = \frac12 \partial_\mu \bfm \phi\,\cdot \partial^\mu \bfm\phi - \lambda
(\bfm\phi\cdot\bfm\phi-v^2)^2, } where $\bfm\phi=(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_N)$ is a
real $N$-component scalar field. This theory will illustrate some of the ideas
which will then be applied to the study of chiral perturbation theory for QCD.
The Lagrangian eq.~\linl\ has a global $O(N)$ symmetry under which $\bfm\phi$
transforms as an $O(N)$ vector. The potential has been chosen so that it is
minimized for $\abs{\bfm\phi}=v$. The set of field configurations where
$\abs{\bfm\phi}=v$ is known as the vacuum manifold, and in our example, it is
the set of points $\bfm\phi=(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_N)$, with $\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2
+\ldots +\phi_N^2=v^2$, i.e. it is the $N-1$ dimensional sphere $S^{N-1}$. The
$O(N)$ symmetry can be used to rotate the vector $\vev{\bfm\phi}$ to a standard
direction, which can be chosen to be $(0,0,\ldots,v)$, the north pole of the
sphere. The vacuum of the Lagrangian has spontaneously broken the $O(N)$
symmetry down to the $O(N-1)$ subgroup which acts on the first $N-1$
components. The other generators of $O(N)$ do not leave $(0,0,\ldots,v)$
invariant. $O(N)$ has $N(N-1)/2$ generators, so the number of Goldstone bosons
is equal to the number of broken generators, $N(N-1)/2 - (N-1)(N-2)/2 =
N-1$. The $N-1$ Goldstone bosons correspond to rotations of the vector
$\bfm\phi$, which leave its length unchanged. The potential energy $V$ is
unchanged under rotations of $\bfm\phi$, so these modes are massless.  The
remaining mode is a radial excitation which changes the length of $\bfm\phi$,
and produces a massive excitation, with mass $m_H=
\sqrt{8\lambda}\, v$.

It is convenient to switch to ``polar coordinates'', and define
\eqn\polarco{
\bfm\phi=\left(\rho+v\right)\ e^{i \sum_s X^s\cdot \pi^s}
\pmatrix{0\cr0\cr.\cr.\cr.\cr1\cr},
} where $X^s, s=1,\ldots,N-1$ are the $N-1$ broken generators, and $\pi^s$ and
$\rho$ are a new basis for the $N$ fields. This change of variables is only
well-defined for small angles $\pi^s$.  The Lagrangian in terms of the new
fields is
\eqn\polarl{
\CL = \bfrac12 \partial_\mu \rho \partial^\mu \rho - \lambda\left(\rho^2 +
2\rho v\right)^2 +\bfrac12 \left(\rho+v\right)^2 \left[\partial_\mu e^{-i
\sum_s X^s\cdot \pi^s}\partial^\mu e^{i \sum_s X^s\cdot \pi^s}
\right]_{NN},
} where $[\ ]_{NN}$ is the $NN$ element of the matrix.  At energies small
compared to the radial excitation mass $\sqrt{8\lambda}\, v$, the $\rho$ field
can be neglected, and the Lagrangian reduces to
\eqn\polarlapprox{
\CL = \bfrac12 v^2 \left[\partial_\mu
e^{-i \sum_s X^s\cdot \pi^s}\partial^\mu e^{i \sum_s X^s\cdot \pi^s}
\right]_{NN},
} which describes the self-interactions of the Goldstone bosons.

There are some generic features of Goldstone boson interactions that are easy
to understand.
\item{(i)} The Goldstone boson fields are derivatively coupled.
The Goldstone bosons describe the local orientation of the $\bfm\phi$ field. A
constant Goldstone boson field is a $\bfm\phi$ field that has been rotated by
the same angle everywhere in spacetime, and corresponds to a vacuum that is
equivalent to the standard vacuum $\vev{\bfm\phi}=(0,0,\ldots,1)$. Thus the
Lagrangian must be independent of $\pi^s$ when $\pi^s$ is a constant, so only
gradients of $\pi^s$ appear in the Lagrangian.
\item{(ii)} The effective Lagrangian describes a theory of {\it weakly}
interacting Goldstone bosons at low energy. The Goldstone boson couplings are
proportional to their momentum, and so vanish for low-momentum Goldstone
bosons.
\item{(iii)} The Goldstone boson Lagrangian is non-linear in the Goldstone
boson fields. The Goldstone boson Lagrangian describes the dynamics of fields
constrained to live on the vacuum manifold. The constraint equation,
$\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2 +\ldots +\phi_N^2=v^2$, is non-linear, and leads to a
non-linear Lagrangian.
\item{(iv)} The vacuum manifold is generically curved (like our
sphere $S^{N-1}$), and does not have a set of global coordinates. The $\pi^s$
coordinates defined in eq.~\polarco\ only make sense for small fluctuations of
the Goldstone boson fields about the north pole, which is adequate for
perturbation theory. For studying non-perturbative effects or global
properties, it is better not to introduce the angular coordinates, but to write
the Lagrangian directly in terms of fields that take values on the vacuum
manifold, $\pi(x)\in S^{N-1}$.
\item{(v)} The amplitude for the broken symmetry currents to produce a
Goldstone boson from the vacuum is proportional to the symmetry breaking
strength $v$. We will see this more explicitly in the QCD example.

\newsec{The CCWZ Formalism}

The general formalism for effective Lagrangians for spontaneously broken
symmetries was worked out by Callan, Coleman, Wess, and Zumino. Consider a
theory in which a global symmetry group $G$ is spontaneously broken to a
subgroup $H$. The vacuum manifold is the coset space $G/H$. In our example,
$G=O(N)$, $H=O(N-1)$, and $G/H=O(N)/O(N-1) = S^{N-1}$.

We would like to choose a set of coordinates which describe the local
orientation of the vacuum for small fluctuations about the standard vacuum
configuration. Let $\Xi(x)\in G$ be the rotation matrix that transforms the
standard vacuum configuration to the local field configuration. The matrix
$\Xi$ is not unique: $\Xi h$, where $h\in H$, gives the same field
configuration, since the standard vacuum is invariant under $H$
transformations. In our example, one can describe the direction of the vector
$\bfm\phi$ by giving the $O(N)$ matrix $\Xi$, where
$$
\bfm \phi(x) = \Xi(x) \pmatrix{0\cr0\cr.\cr.\cr.\cr v\cr}.
$$
The same configuration $\bfm\phi(x)$ can also be described by $\Xi(x) h(x)$,
where $h(x)$ is a matrix of the form
$$
h(x) = \pmatrix{h'(x) & 0 \cr 0&1\cr},
$$
with $h'(x)$ an arbitrary $O(N-1)$ matrix, since
$$
\pmatrix{h'(x) & 0 \cr 0&1\cr} \pmatrix{0\cr0\cr.\cr.\cr.\cr v\cr}
= \pmatrix{0\cr0\cr.\cr.\cr.\cr v\cr}.
$$
The CCWZ prescription is to pick a set of broken generators $X$, and choose
\eqn\ccwzform{
\Xi(x) = e^{i X\cdot\pi(x)}.
} Consider the $O(N)$ theory for $N=3$, which is the theory of a vector
$\bfm\phi$ in three-dimensions, and so is easy to visualize.  The symmetry
group $G$ is the group $G=O(3)$ of rotations in three-space. The standard
vacuum configuration $\vev{\bfm \phi}$ can be chosen to be $\bfm\phi$ pointing
towards the north pole $N$, and the unbroken symmetry group $H=O(2)=U(1)$ is
rotations about the axis $ON$, where $O$ is the center of the sphere. The group
generators are $J_1, J_2,J_3$, and the unbroken generator is $J_3$, where $J_k$
generate rotations about the $k$th axis.  The CCWZ prescription is to choose
\eqn\xichoice{
\Xi(x) = e^{i \left[J_1 \pi(x) + J_2 \pi_2(x)\right]}.
} The matrix $\Xi$ rotates a vector pointing along the 3 axis to $\bfm\phi$ by
rotating along a line of longitude.

Under a global symmetry transformation $g$, the matrix $\Xi(x)$ is transformed
to the new matrix $g\Xi(x)$, since $\bfm\phi(x)\rightarrow g\bfm
\phi(x)$. (Note that $g$ is a global transformation, and does not depend on
$x$.) The new matrix $g\Xi(x)$ is no longer in standard form, eq.~\ccwzform,
but can be written as
\eqn\curvedh{
g\ \Xi = \Xi'\ h, } since two matrices $g\,\Xi$ and $\Xi'$ which describe the
same field configuration differ by an $H$ transformation. That $h$ is
non-trivial is a well-known property of rotations in three dimensions. Take a
vector and rotate it from $A$ to $B$ and then to $C$. This transformation is
not the same as a direct rotation from $A$ to $C$, but can be written as a
rotation about $OA$, followed by a rotation from $A$ to $C$.  The
transformation $h$ in eq.~\curvedh\ is non-trivial because the Goldstone boson
manifold $G/H$ is curved.

The transformation eq.~\curvedh\ is usually written as
\eqn\ccwztrans{
\Xi(x) \rightarrow g\ \Xi(x)\ h^{-1}(g,\Xi(x)),
} where we have made clear the implicit dependence of $h$ on $x$ through its
dependence on $g$ and $\Xi(x)$. Eq.~\ccwzform\ and \ccwztrans\ give the CCWZ
choice for the Goldstone boson field, and its transformation law. Any other
choice gives the same results for all observables, such as the $S$-matrix, but
does not give the same off-shell Green functions.

\newsec{The QCD Chiral Lagrangian}

The CCWZ formalism can now be applied to QCD. In the limit that the $u$, $d$
and $s$ quark masses are neglected, the QCD chiral Lagrangian has a
$SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ chiral symmetry under which the left- and right-handed
quark fields transform independently,
$$
\psi_L(x) \rightarrow L\ \psi_L(x),\qquad
\psi_R(x) \rightarrow R\ \psi_R(x),
$$
where
$$
\psi = \pmatrix{u\cr d \cr s\cr}.
$$
The $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken to the
vector $SU(3)$ subgroup by the $\vev{\bar\psi\psi}$ condensate. The symmetry
group is $G=SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$, the unbroken group is $H=SU(3)_V$, and the
Goldstone boson manifold is the coset space $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R/SU(3)_V$
which is isomorphic to $SU(3)$. The generators of $G$ are $T^a_L$ and $T^a_R$
which act on left and right handed quarks respectively, and the generators of
$H$ are the flavor generators $T^a=T^a_L+T^a_R$. There are two commonly used
bases for the QCD chiral lagrangian, the $\xi$-basis and the $\Sigma$-basis,
and we will consider them both. There are many simplifications that occur for
QCD because the coset space $G/H$ is isomorphic to a Lie group. This is not
true in general; in the $O(N)$ model, the space $S^{N-1}$ is not isomorphic to
a Lie group for $N\not=4$.

\subsec{The $\xi$-basis}

The unbroken generators of $H$ plus the broken generators $X$ span the space of
all symmetry generators of $G$. One choice of broken generators is to pick
$X^a=T^a_L-T^a_R$. Let the $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ transformation be
represented in block diagonal form,
\eqn\gblock{
g=\left[\matrix{L&0\cr 0&R\cr}\right], } where $L$ and $R$ are the $SU(3)_L$
and $SU(3)_R$ transformations, respectively. The unbroken transformation have
the form eq.~\gblock\ with $L=R=U$,
\eqn\hblock{
h = \left[\matrix{U&0\cr 0&U\cr}\right].  } The $\Xi$ field is then defined
using the CCWZ prescription eq.~\ccwzform
$$
\Xi(x) = e^{i X\cdot \pi(x)} = \exp i \left[\matrix{T\cdot\pi&0\cr 0& -
T\cdot\pi\cr}\right] = \left[\matrix{\xi(x)&0\cr 0&\xi^\dagger(x)\cr}
\right],
$$
where
$$
\xi = e^{i T\cdot \pi}
$$
denotes the upper block of $\Xi(x)$.  The transformation rule eq.~\ccwztrans\
gives
$$
\left[\matrix{\xi(x)&0\cr 0&\xi^\dagger(x)\cr}\right]
\rightarrow
\left[\matrix{L&0\cr 0&R\cr}\right]
\left[\matrix{\xi(x)&0\cr 0&\xi^\dagger(x)\cr}\right]
\left[\matrix{U^{-1}&0\cr 0&U^{-1}\cr}\right].
$$
This gives the transformation law for $\xi$,
\eqn\xitrans{
\xi(x) \rightarrow L\ \xi(x)\ U^{-1}(x) = U(x)\ \xi(x)\ R^\dagger,
} which defines $U$ in terms of $L$, $R$, and $\xi$.

\subsec{The $\Sigma$ basis}

The $\Sigma$-basis is obtained from the CCWZ prescription using $X^a=T^a_L$ for
the broken generators. In this case, eq.~\ccwzform\ gives
$$
\Xi(x) = e^{i X\cdot \pi(x)} = \exp i \left[\matrix{T\cdot\pi&0\cr 0&
0\cr}\right] = \left[\matrix{\Sigma(x)&0\cr0&1\cr}\right]
$$
where
$$
\Sigma = e^{i T \cdot \pi}
$$
denotes the upper block of $\Xi(x)$.  The transformation law eq.~\ccwztrans\ is
$$
\left[\matrix{\Sigma(x)&0\cr 0&1\cr}\right]
\rightarrow
\left[\matrix{L&0\cr 0&R\cr}\right]
\left[\matrix{\Sigma(x)&0\cr 0&1\cr}\right]
\left[\matrix{U^{-1}&0\cr 0&U^{-1}\cr}\right],
$$
which gives $U=R$, and
\eqn\sigtrans{
\Sigma(x) \rightarrow L\ \Sigma(x)\ R^\dagger.
} Comparing with eq.~\xitrans, one sees that $\Sigma$ and $\xi$ are related by
\eqn\sigxi{
\Sigma(x)=\xi^2(x).
}

\subsec{The Lagrangian}

The Goldstone boson fields are angular variables, and are dimensionless. When
writing down effective Lagrangians in field theory, it is convenient to use
fields which have mass dimension one, as for any other spin-zero boson
field. The standard choice is to use
$$
\xi = e^{iT\cdot\pi/f},\qquad \Sigma=e^{2iT\cdot \pi/f},
$$
where $f\sim93$~MeV is the pion decay constant. The $\pi$ matrix is
$$
\bfm\pi=\pi^a T^a,
$$
where the group generators have the usual normalization $\tr T^a T^b =
\delta^{ab}/2$,
\eqn\pifield{
\bfm\pi = {1\over\sqrt2}\left[\matrix{\bfrac1{\sqrt2}\pi^0 +
\bfrac1{\sqrt6}\eta&\pi^+&K^+\cr\pi^-&-\bfrac1{\sqrt2}\pi^0 +\bfrac1{\sqrt6}
\eta&K^0\cr K^-&\bar K^0&-\bfrac2{\sqrt6}\eta}\right].
}

The low energy effective Lagrangian for QCD is the most general possible
Lagrangian consistent with spontaneously broken $SU(3)\times SU(3)$
symmetry. Unlike our weak interaction example, one cannot simply compute the
effective Lagrangian directly from the original QCD Lagrangian. The connection
between the original and effective theories is non-perturbative. The effective
Lagrangian has an infinite set of unknown parameters, but we will see that it
can still be used to obtain non-trivial predictions for experimentally measured
quantities.

It is easy to construct the most general Lagrangian invariant under the
transformation $\Sigma \rightarrow L \Sigma R^\dagger$. The most general
invariant term with no derivatives must be the product of terms of the form
$\Tr \Sigma \Sigma^\dagger\ldots
\Sigma \Sigma^\dagger$, where $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma^\dagger$'s
alternate. However, $\Sigma \Sigma^\dagger=1$, so all such terms are constant,
and independent of the pion fields. This is just our old result that all
Goldstone bosons are derivatively coupled. The only invariant term with two
derivatives is
\eqn\lii{
\CL_2 = \bfrac{f^2}4 \Tr\, \partial_\mu \Sigma\ \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger.
} Expanding $\Sigma$ in a power series in the pion field gives
\eqn\liiexp{
\CL_2 = \Tr\, \partial_\mu \pi\ \partial^\mu \pi + \bfrac 1 {3f^2}
\Tr\,\left[\pi,\partial_\mu\pi\right]^2 + \ldots
} The coefficient of the two-derivative term in eq.~\lii\ is fixed by requiring
that the kinetic term for the pions in eq.~\liiexp\ has the standard
normalization for scalar fields. The Lagrangian eq.~\lii\ only has terms with
an even number of pions, since the pion is a pseudoscalar.  The Lagrangian
eq.~\lii\ determines all the multi-pion scattering amplitudes to order $p^2$ in
terms of a single constant $f$. For example, the $\pi-\pi$ scattering amplitude
is given by the term $\Tr\left[\pi,\partial_\mu\pi\right]^2/3f^2$, etc.

\subsec{The Chiral Currents}

Noether's theorem can be used to compute the $SU(3)_L$ and $SU(3)_R$ currents.
If a Lagrangian $\CL$ is invariant under an infinitesimal global symmetry
transformation with parameter $\epsilon$, the current $j_\mu$ is given by
computing the change of the Lagrangian when one makes the same transformation,
with $\epsilon$ a function of $x$,
$$
\delta \CL = \partial_\mu\epsilon(x)\ j^\mu(x).
$$
The infinitesimal form of the $SU(3)_L$ transformation $\Sigma\rightarrow L
\Sigma$ is
\eqn\ltrans{
\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma + i \epsilon_L^a\, T^a\ \Sigma,
} where $L=\exp i \epsilon_L^a T^a \approx 1 + i \epsilon_L^a T^a + \ldots$.
The change in eq.~\lii\ under \ltrans\ is
$$
\delta\CL =  \partial_\mu \epsilon_L^a\ \Tr\, T^a\ \Sigma\, \partial^\mu
\Sigma^\dagger
$$
so that the $SU(3)_L$ currents are
$$
j^\mu_L = \bfrac i 2\, f^2 \,\Tr\, T^a\ \Sigma\, \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger.
$$
The right handed currents are obtained by applying the parity transformation,
$\pi(x)\rightarrow -\pi(-x)$ or by making an infinitesimal $SU(3)_R$
tranformation, so that
$$
j^\mu_R = \bfrac i 2\, f^2\,\Tr\, T^a\ \Sigma^\dagger\, \partial^\mu\Sigma.
$$
The axial current has the expansion
\eqn\jaxial{
j^{\mu a}_A = j^{\mu a}_R - j^{\mu a}_L = -f \partial^\mu \pi^a + \ldots } The
matrix element $\bra 0 j^{\mu a}_A \ket {\pi^b} = i f p^\mu\delta^{ab}$, so
that $f$ is the pion decay constant. The experimental value of the $\pi$ decay
rate, $\pi\rightarrow \mu \bar\nu$ determines $f\approx 93$~MeV.

The low-energy effective theory of the weak interactions is an expansion in
some low mass scale (such as $m_c$ or $\lqcd$) over $M_W$. The QCD chiral
Lagrangian is an expansion in derivatives, and so is an expansion in $p/\lchi$.
The pion couplings are weak, as long as the pion momentum is small compared
with $\lchi$. There are two important questions that have to be answered before
one can use the effective Lagrangian: (i) What terms in the effective
Lagrangian are required to compute to a given order in $p/\lchi$ (ii) What is
the value of $\lchi$? This provides an estimate of the neglected higher-order
terms in the expansion, and the energy at which the effective theory breaks
down. In addition, it is useful to eliminate all redundant terms in the
effective Lagrangian. One can often eliminate many terms in the effective
Lagrangian by making suitable field redefinitions.  Field redefinitions are not
very useful in renormalizable field theories, because they make renormalizable
Lagrangians look superficially non-renormalizable. For example, a field
redefinition
\eqn\fredef{
\phi \rightarrow \phi + \epsilon \phi^2,
} turns
\eqn\renlag{
\CL = \bfrac12 \partial_\mu\phi\,\partial^\mu\phi - \bfrac12 m^2\phi^2
-\lambda \phi^4 } into
\eqn\rennew{
\CL= \bfrac12 \partial_\mu\phi\, \partial^\mu\phi - \bfrac12 m^2\phi^2
-\lambda \phi^4 + \epsilon\left(2\phi\, \partial_\mu\phi \, \partial^\mu\phi -
m^2\phi^3 - 4 \lambda \phi^5\right) + \CO\left(\epsilon^2\right), } which looks
superficially like a non-renormalizable interaction.  Eq.~\rennew\ and \renlag\
define identical theories, and the field redefinition eq.~\fredef\ has turned a
simple Lagrangian into a more complicated one. However, in the case of
non-renormalizable theories which contain an infinite number of terms, one can
use field redefinitions to eliminate many higher-order terms in the effective
Lagrangian (see Ref.~6). The way this is usually done in practice is to use the
equations of motion derived from the lowest-order terms in the effective
Lagrangian to simplify or eliminate higher order terms.


\subsec{Weinberg's Power Counting Argument}

The QCD chiral Lagrangian is
$$
\CL=\sum_k \CL_k,
$$
where $\CL_2$, $\CL_4$, etc.\ are the terms in the Lagrangian with two
derivatives, four derivatives, and so on. Consider an arbitary loop graph, such
as the one in
\fig\pprandom{Random graph}. It
contains $m_2$ interaction vertices that come from terms in $\CL_2$, $m_4$
interaction vertices from terms in $\CL_4$, etc. The general form of the
diagram is
\eqn\genform{
\CA = \int \left(d^4 p\right)^L \bfrac 1 {\left(p^2\right)^I}
\prod_k \left( p^k \right)^{m_k},
}
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig13.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 13:}
\centerline{\tenrm A loop graph for multipion interactions.}
\endinsert
\noindent
where $L$ is the number of loops, $I$ is the number of internal lines, and $p$
represents a generic momentum. The factors are easy to understand: there is a
$d^4 p$ integral for each loop, each internal boson propagator is $1/p^2$, and
each vertex in $\CL_k$ gives a factor of $p^k$. In a mass-independent
subtraction scheme, the only dimensional parameters are the momenta $p$. Thus
the amplitude $\CA$ must have the form $\CA \sim p^D$, where
\eqn\done{
D = 4 L - 2I + \sum_k\ k\ m_k, } from eq.~\genform. For any Feynman graph, one
can show that
\eqn\euler{
V-I+L=1, } where $V$ is the number of vertices, $I$ is the number of internal
lines, and $L$ is the number of loops. Combining eqs.~\done,\euler, and using
$V=\sum_k m_k$, one gets
\eqn\weini{
D = 2 + 2L + \sum_k\left(k-2\right) m_k.  } The chiral Lagrangian starts at
order $p^2$, so $k\ge2$, and all terms in eq.~\weini\ are non-negative. As a
result, only a finite number of terms in the effective Lagrangian are needed to
work to a fixed order in $p$, and the chiral Lagrangian acts like a
renormalizable field theory. For example, to compute the scattering amplitudes
to order $p^4$, one needs
$$
4 = 2 + 2L + \sum_k\left(k-2\right) m_k,
$$
which has the solutions $L=0$, $m_4=1$, $m_{k>4}=0$, or $L=1$ and
$m_{k>2}=0$. That is, one only needs to consider tree level diagrams with one
insertion of $\CL_4$, or one-loop graphs with the lowest order Lagrangian
$\CL_2$ to compute all scattering amplitudes to order $p^4$.

\subsec{Naive Dimensional Analysis}

Consider the $\pi-\pi$ scattering amplitude to order $p^4$. The power counting
argument implies that there are two contributions to this: a tree level graph
with one insertion of $\CL_4$, and a loop graph using $\CL_2$. The loop graph
is of order
\eqn\loopest{
I\sim\int {d^4p\over\left(2\pi\right)^4}\ \bfrac{p^2}{f^2}\ \bfrac{p^2}{f^2}\
\bfrac{1}{p^4},
} where $1/p^4$ is from the two internal propagators, and each four-pion
interaction vertex is of order $p^2/f^2$, from eq.~\liiexp. Estimating this
integral gives
\eqn\iest{
I\sim \bfrac{p^4}{16\pi^2}\,\bfrac1{f^4}\ \log\mu, } where $\mu$ is the
$\bar{MS}$ renormalization scale. A four derivative operator in the Lagrangian
of the form
\eqn\fourder{
a \tr\, \partial_\mu \Sigma\ \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger\ \partial_\nu \Sigma
\ \partial^\nu \Sigma^\dagger,
} produces a four-pion interaction of order $a p^4/f^4$ when one expands the
$\Sigma$ field in a power series in $\pi/f$. The total four-pion amplitude,
which is the sum of the tree and loop graphs, is $\mu$-independent.  A shift in
the renormalization scale $\mu$ is compensated for by a corresponding shift in
$a$. A change in $\mu$ of order one produces a shift in $a$ of order $ \delta
a\sim {1/ 16\pi^2}$.  Generically, $a$ must be at least as big as $\delta a$,
\eqn\ashift{
a \gtap \delta a \sim {1\over 16\pi^2}, } because a shift in the
renormalization point of order one produces a shift in $a$ of this size. Write
the effective Lagrangian as
\eqn\lstd{
\CL = \bfrac {f^2} 4\left[ \tr \partial_\mu \Sigma\partial^\mu
\Sigma^\dagger + \bfrac1{\lchi^2} \CL_4 + \bfrac{1}{\lchi^4}\CL_6 + \ldots
\right]
} where $1/\lchi$ is the expansion parameter of the effective Lagrangian,
i.e. eq.~\lstd\ gives an expansion for scattering amplitudes in powers of
$p/\lchi$. The estimate eq.~\ashift\ for the size of the four derivative term
implies that
\eqn\lchiest{
\lchi \ltap 4\pi f.
} One can show that a similar estimate holds for all the higher order terms in
$\CL$, i.e. the six derivative term has a coefficient of order $1/\lchi^4$,
etc. Numerous calculations suggest that in QCD, the inequality eq.~\lchiest\
can be replaced by the estimate
\eqn\lvalue{
\lchi \sim 4\pi f \sim 1\ {\rm GeV},
} for the expansion parameter of the effective Lagrangian. This parameter is
large enough that one can apply chiral Lagrangians to low energy processes
involving pions and kaons. If the expansion parameter were $f$ instead of $4\pi
f$, chiral lagrangians would not be useful even for pions, since $m_\pi > f$.

The naive dimensional analysis estimate equivalent to eq.~\lstd\ is that a term
in the Lagrangian has the form
\eqn\ndest{
f^2 \lchi^2 \left(\bfrac{\pi}f\right)^n \left(\bfrac{\partial}{
\lchi}\right)^m,
} as can be seen by expanding the eq.~\lstd\ in the pion fields. For example,
the kinetic term $\Tr\, \partial_\mu \Sigma\, \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger$ has
a coefficient of order
$$
f^2\lchi^2 \left(\bfrac{\partial}{\lchi}\right)^2 \sim f^2,
$$
the four derivative term $\Tr\,
\partial_\mu \Sigma\, \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger \partial_\nu \Sigma\,
\partial^\nu \Sigma^\dagger$ has a coefficient of order
$$
f^2\lchi^2 \left(\bfrac{\partial}{\lchi}\right)^4 \sim \bfrac{f^2}{\lchi^2}\sim
\bfrac1{16\pi^2}, \ \ etc.,
$$
which agrees with the earlier estimates.

\newsec{Explicit Symmetry Breaking}

The light quark masses explicitly break the chiral $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$
symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian. The quark mass term in the QCD Lagrangian is
\eqn\lmass{
\CL_m=-\bar \psi_L M \psi_R + h.c.,
} where
\eqn\mmatrix{
M = \left[\matrix{ m_u &0 & 0\cr 0 & m_d & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &m_s \cr} \right], } is
the quark mass matrix. The mass term $\CL_m$ can be treated as chirally
invariant if $M$ is an external field that transforms as
\eqn\mtrans{
M\rightarrow L M R^\dagger } under chiral $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$. The symmetry
breaking terms in the chiral Lagrangian are terms that are invariant when $M$
has the transformation rule eq.~\mtrans. The symmetry is then explicitly broken
when $M$ is fixed to have the value eq.~\mmatrix. The lowest order term in the
effective Lagrangian to first order in $M$ is
\eqn\mterm{
\CL_m=\mu\bfrac {f^2} 2 \tr\left(\Sigma^\dagger M + M^\dagger \Sigma\right),
} which breaks the degeneracy of the vacuum and picks out a particular
orientation for $\Sigma$. All vacua $\Sigma={\rm constant}$ are no longer
degenerate, and $\Sigma=1$ is the lowest energy state. Expanding in small
fluctuations about $\Sigma=1$ gives
$$
\CL_m = - 2 \mu \tr M \pi^2.
$$
Substituting eq.~\mmatrix\ and \pifield\ for $M$ and $\pi$ and evaluating the
trace gives
\eqn\pimasses{\eqalign{
M^2_{\pi^\pm} &= \mu\left(m_u+m_d\right)+\Delta M^2,\cr M^2_{K^\pm} &=
\mu\left(m_u+m_s\right)+\Delta M^2,\cr M^2_{K^0,\bar K^0} &=
\mu\left(m_d+m_s\right), }} and the $\pi^0$, $\eta$ mass matrix
\eqn\etapimatrix{
\mu\left[\matrix{m_u+m_d&\bfrac{m_u-m_d}{\sqrt3}\cr
\bfrac{m_u-m_d}{\sqrt3}&\bfrac13\left(m_u+m_d+4m_s\right)\cr}\right].
} To first order in the isospin-breaking parameter $m_u-m_d$, the matrix
eq.~\etapimatrix\ has eigenvalues
\eqn\etapieigen{\eqalign{
M^2_{\pi^0} &= \mu\left(m_u+m_d\right),\cr M^2_{\eta} &=
\bfrac\mu3\left(m_u+m_d+4m_s\right).  }} There is an isospin breaking
electromagnetic contribution to the charged Goldstone boson masses $\Delta M^2$
(included in eq.~\pimasses), which is comparable in size to the isospin
breaking from $m_u-m_d$. To lowest order in $SU(3)$ breaking, $\Delta M^2$ is
equal for $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$, and vanishes for the neutral mesons. The
absolute values of the quark masses can not be determined from the meson
masses, because they always occur in the combination $\mu m$, and $\mu$ is an
unknown parameter. However, the meson masses can be used to obtain quark mass
ratios. From eq.~\pimasses--\etapimatrix\ one gets
\eqn\mumd{
\bfrac{m_u}{m_d} = {M^2_{K^+}-M^2_{K^0}+2M^2_{\pi^0}-M^2_{\pi^+}
\over M^2_{K^0}-M^2_{K^+}+M^2_{\pi^+}},
}
\eqn\msmd{
\bfrac{m_s}{m_d} = {M^2_{K^0}+M^2_{K^+}-M^2_{\pi^+}\over
M^2_{K^0}-M^2_{K^+}+M^2_{\pi^+}}, } and the Gell-Mann--Okubo formula
\eqn\gmo{
4 M^2_{K^0} = 3 M^2_\eta + M^2_\pi.  } Substituting the measured meson masses
gives the lowest order values
\eqn\mumdms{
\bfrac{m_u}{m_d} = 0.55,\qquad \bfrac{m_s}{m_d} =20.1.
} and $0.99\ {\rm GeV}^2=0.92\ {\rm GeV}^2$ for the Gell-Mann--Okubo formula.


There is an ambiguity in extracting the light quark masses at second order in
$M$. The matrices $M$ and $(\det M) M^{\dagger -1}$ both have the same $SU(3)_L
\times SU(3)_R$ transformation properties, and are indistinguishable in the
chiral Lagrangian. One has an ambiguity of the form
\eqn\mambig{
M\rightarrow M + \lambda\left(\det M\right) M^{\dagger -1} } in the quark mass
matrix at second order in $M$. This transformation can be written explicitly as
\eqn\mambigt{
\left[\matrix{ m_u &0 & 0\cr 0 & m_d & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &m_s \cr} \right]
\rightarrow
\left[\matrix{ m_u+\lambda m_d m_s &0 & 0\cr
0 & m_d+\lambda m_u m_s & 0 \cr 0 & 0 &m_s+\lambda m_um_d \cr} \right].  } One
cannot determine the light quark mass ratios to second order using chiral
perturbation theory alone, because of the ambiguity eq.~\mambig. This ambiguity
can be numerically significant for the ratio $m_u/m_d$, since it produces an
effective $u$-quark mass of order $m_d m_s/\lchi\sim m_d m_K^2/\lchi^2
\sim 0.3 m_d$. The value of $m_u$ is very important, because $m_u=0$ solves the
strong CP problem. The second order term $(\det M) M^{\dagger -1}$ produces an
effective $u$-quark mass that is indistinguishable from $m_u$ in the chiral
Lagrangian.  Various estimates of the ratio $m_u/m_d$ from different processes
(e.g. meson masses, baryon masses $\eta\rightarrow 3\pi$) all tend to give the
ratio $m_u/m_d\sim 0.56$, so $m_u$ can only be zero if second-order effects in
$M$ were of the same size in different processes. One way this could occur is
if instantons effects at the scale $\mu\sim1~{\rm GeV}$ were important. An
instanton produces an effective operator of the form $(\det M) M^{\dagger
-1}$. If instantons at $\mu\sim1~{\rm GeV}$ are important, they would lead to
an effective mass matrix in the chiral Lagrangian of the form $M_{\rm eff} = M+
\lambda\det M M^{-1}$, which would be the same for all processes. This produces
$(m_u/m_d)_{\rm eff}\sim 0.56$ in all processes, while still having
$m_u=0$. The only way to distinguish $m_u$ from $(m_u)_{\rm eff}$ is to do a
reliable computation that relates the QCD Lagrangian directly to the chiral
Lagrangian.

An on-shell particle has $p^2=M^2$. Since the meson mass-squared is
proportional to the quark mass $M$, the quark matrix $M$ counts as two powers
of $p$ for chiral power counting, i.e. terms in $\CL_2$ contain two powers of
$p$ or one power of $M$, terms in $\CL_4$ contain four powers of $p$, two
powers of $p$ and one power of $M$, or two powers of $M$, etc. One can then
show that the power counting arguments derived earlier still hold for the
effective Lagrangian, including symmetry breaking.


\newsec{$\pi$-$\pi$ Scattering}

We now have all the pieces necessary to compute the $\pi$-$\pi$ scattering
amplitude near threshold. The full chiral Lagrangian to order $p^2$ is
\eqn\ltwom{
\CL_2 = \bfrac{f^2}{4} \tr \partial_\mu\Sigma\partial^\mu\Sigma^\dagger +
\mu\bfrac {f^2}2 \tr \left(\Sigma^\dagger M + M^\dagger \Sigma\right).
} Expanding this to fourth order in the pion fields gives
\eqn\ltwomexp{
\CL_2=\bfrac1{3f^2}\Tr \left[\pi,\partial_\mu\pi\right]^2+
\bfrac23 \mu \Tr M \pi^4.
} The $\pi$-$\pi$ scattering amplitude has two contributions, one from the
kinetic term and the other from the mass term. Adding the two contributions
reproduces the result of Weinberg. The details are left as a homework problem.

The $\pi$-$\pi$ scattering amplitude at order $p^4$ has two contributions, the
one loop diagram \fig\pipiloop{}(a) involving only the lowest order Lagrangian,
and a tree graph \pipiloop(b) with terms from $\CL_4$. The answer has the form
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig14.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 14:}
\noindent\tenrm Diagrams contributing to $\scriptstyle \pi-\pi$ scattering to
order $\scriptstyle p^4$. The solid dot represents interaction vertices from
$\scriptstyle \CL_2$, and the solid square represents interactions from
$\scriptstyle \CL_4$.
\endinsert
\eqn\genform{
{A\over 16\pi^2}\ p^4\, \log p^2/\mu^2 + L(\mu)\ p^4, } where the first term is
from the loop diagram, and the second term is the tree graph contribution from
$\CL_4$. The coefficient $A$ of the loop graph is completely determined, since
there are no unknown parameters in $\CL_2$. The loop graph must have a
logarithmic term, the so-called chiral logarithm. When $s>4m^2_{\pi}$, the
$\pi$-$\pi$ scattering amplitude must have an imaginary part from the physical
$\pi\pi$ intermediate state, by unitarity. The imaginary part is generated by
the chiral logarithm. When $s>4m^2_{\pi}$, the argument of the logarithm
changes sign, and one gets an imaginary part since $\log (-\abs r) = \log \abs
r + i\pi$. The imaginary part is completely determined by the tree level graph
of order $p^2$, so that the chiral logarithm has a known coefficient. The tree
level terms in $\CL_4$ are known as counterterms. The total scattering
amplitude is $\mu$ independent, so the counterterms satisfy the renormalization
group equation
\eqn\rgct{
\mu {d\over d\mu} L(\mu) = {A\over 8\pi^2}.
} The naive dimensional analysis argument discussed earlier is the statement
that the counterterm $L(\mu)$ is typically at least as big as the anomalous
dimension $A/8\pi^2$.


A generic chiral perturbation theory amplitude has the form eq.~\genform. There
is a chiral logarithm and some counterterms. If one works in a systematic
expansion in powers of $p$, the chiral logarithm is determined completely in
terms of lower order terms in the Lagrangian. The counterterms involve
additional unknown parameters. There are three main approaches used in the
literature to extract useful information from eq.~\genform:
\item{(i)} One can hope that the chiral logarithm is numerically more important
than the counterterm, when one picks a reasonable renormalization point such as
$\mu\sim1$~GeV. This is formally correct, since $p^4\log p^2/\mu^2 \gg$ $p^4$
in the limit $p\rightarrow 0$. However, in practical examples, $p^2$ is of
order $m_\pi^2$ or $m_K^2$, and the logarithm is $-3.9$ and $-1.4$, which is
not very large (especially for the $K$). Nevertheless, the chiral logarithm
provides useful information. For example, the correction to $f_K/f_\pi$ has the
form
\eqn\fkfpi{
\bfrac{f_K}{f_\pi} = 1 - \bfrac{3M_K^2}{64\pi^2 f^2}\, \log M_K^2/\mu^2 +
L(\mu).  } Setting $\mu\sim\lchi$, and neglecting the counterterm gives
$f_K/f_\pi=1.19$, compared with the experimental value of $1.2$. The chiral
logarithm contribution alone gives a reasonable estimate of the size of the
correction (this is just naive dimensional analysis at work), but it also gets
the sign correct. The chiral logarithms are also useful in comparing numerical
QCD calculations in the quenched approximation, which do not have the full
chiral logarithms, with experimental data.

\item{(ii)} The systematic approach which has been used by Gasser and Leutwyler
is to write down the most general Lagrangian to order $p^4$, which contains
eight counterterms. This is used to compute $N>8$ different processes, so that
all the counterterms are determined, and one has non-trivial predictions for
the remaining $N-8$ amplitudes. This procedure has been more-or-less completed
in the meson sector to order $p^4$, and the results are in good agreement with
experiment.

\item{(iii)} The third method is to find a process for which there is no
counterterm. Typically, this occurs for electromagnetic processes involving
neutral particles, such as $K^0_S\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$. Since there is no
counterterm, the loop graph must be finite, but it can be non-zero. For
example, the leading contribution to $K^0_S\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ is from
the loop graph \fig\figkshort{kshort}, and gives an amplitude of order
$p^2$. There are no counterterms for this process at this order. The amplitude
at order $p^2$ is in good agreement with the experimental branching ratio for
this process.
\midinsert
\moveright1in\hbox{\epsfxsize=4 in
\epsffile{9507_fig15.eps}}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 15:}
\centerline{\tenrm Leading contribution to $\scriptstyle K^0_S \rightarrow
\gamma \gamma$.}
\endinsert

\newsec{Chiral Perturbation Theory for Matter Fields}

Chiral perturbation theory can also be applied to the interactions of the
Goldstone bosons with all other particles, which are generically refered to as
matter fields. The matter fields (baryon, heavy mesons, etc.) transform as
irreducible representations of $SU(3)_V$, but do not form representations of
chiral $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$. To discuss the interactions of matter fields,
it is more convenient to use the $\xi$-basis of section~(8.1). We will consider
the interactions of the pions with the spin-1/2 baryon octet. The
generalization to other matter fields will be obvious. The CCWZ prescription
for matter fields such as the baryon is that under a $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$
transformation, the transformation law is
\eqn\btrans{
B\rightarrow U B U^\dagger, } where $U$ is implicitly defined in terms of $L$
and $R$ in eq.~\xitrans, and the octet of baryon fields is
\eqn\bmatrix{
\left[\matrix{\bfrac1{\sqrt2}\Sigma^0 +
\bfrac1{\sqrt6}\Lambda&\Sigma^+&p\cr\Sigma^-&-\bfrac1{\sqrt2}\Sigma^0 +
\bfrac1{\sqrt6}\Lambda&n\cr\Xi^-&\Xi^0&-\bfrac2{\sqrt6}\Lambda}\right].
} Under a $SU(3)_V$ transformation, $L=R=U$, and the baryon transforms as an
$SU(3)_V$ adjoint. Any transformation that reduces to the adjoint
transformation law for $SU(3)_V$ transformations is acceptable. For example,
one can choose
$$
B \rightarrow L B L^\dagger,\qquad B \rightarrow U B R^\dagger,\qquad etc.
$$
The different choices are all equivalent, and correspond to redefining the
baryon field. For example, if $B$ has the transformation law eq.~\btrans, then
$\xi B\xi^\dagger$ and $B\xi$ transform as $B \rightarrow L B L^\dagger$ and $B
\rightarrow U B R^\dagger$ respectively.

The baryon chiral Lagrangian is the most general invariant Lagrangian written
in terms of $B$ and $\xi$. In writing the Lagrangian, it is convenient to
introduce the definitions
\eqn\avdef{\eqalign{
A^\mu &= \frac i 2 \left(\xi\partial^\mu \xi^\dagger - \xi^\dagger
\partial^\mu \xi\right) = \bfrac{\partial^\mu \pi}f + \ldots,\cr
V^\mu &= \frac 1 2 \left(\xi\partial^\mu \xi^\dagger + \xi^\dagger
\partial^\mu \xi\right)=\bfrac{1}{2f^2}\left[\pi,\partial^\mu \pi\right]
+\ldots, }} which transform as
\eqn\atrans{
A^\mu \rightarrow U A^\mu U^\dagger, } and
\eqn\vtrans{
V^\mu\rightarrow U V^\mu U^\dagger - \partial^\mu U U^\dagger, } under
$SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$. The covariant derivative on baryons is defined by
\eqn\covder{
D^\mu B = \partial^\mu B + \left[V^\mu,B\right], } which transforms as
\eqn\covtrans{
D^\mu B \rightarrow U\, D^\mu B\, U^\dagger.  } The most general baryon
Lagrangian to order $p$ is
\eqn\lbi{
\CL = \tr \bar B \left(i \Dsl-m_B\right) B + D \tr \bar B \gamma^\mu
\gamma_5 \left\{A_\mu,B\right\} + F \tr \bar B \gamma^\mu
\gamma_5 \left[A_\mu,B\right] + \CL_{\xi},
} where $\CL_{\xi}$ is the purely meson Lagrangian with $\Sigma = \xi^2$, $m_B$
is the baryon mass, and $F$ and $D$ are the usual axial vector coupling
constants, with $g_A=F+D$.

The presence of the dimensionful parameter $m_B$ in the Lagrangian ruins the
power counting arguments necessary for a sensible effective field theory. Loop
graphs in baryon chiral perturbation theory will produce corrections of order
$m_B/\lchi\sim1$, so the entire chiral expansion breaks down. There is an
alternative formulation of baryon chiral perturbation theory that avoids this
problem. The idea is to expand the Lagrangian about nearly on-shell baryons, so
that one has a Lagrangian that can be expanded in powers of $1/m_B$, and has no
term of order $m_B$. The method used is similar to that used for heavy quark
fields in HQET. Instead of using the Dirac baryon field $B$, one uses a
velocity-dependent baryon field $B_v$, which is related to the original baryon
field $B$ by
\eqn\bvdef{
B_v(x) = \bfrac{1+\slash v}{2}\, B(x)\ e^{im_B v \cdot x}, } where $v$ is the
velocity of the baryon. In the baryon rest frame, $v=(1,0,0,0)$, and
\eqn\brest{
B_v(x) = \bfrac{1+\gamma^0}{2}\, B(x)\ e^{im_B t}, } which corresponds to
keeping only the particle part of the spinor, and subtracting the baryon mass
$m_B$ from all energies. In terms of the field $B_v$, the chiral Lagrangian is
\eqn\lvii{
\CL_v = \tr \bar B \left(iv\cdot D\right) B + D \tr \bar B \gamma^\mu
\gamma_5 \left\{A_\mu,B\right\} + F \tr \bar B \gamma^\mu
\gamma_5 \left[A_\mu,B\right] +\CO\left(\bfrac{1}{m_B}\right)+ \CL_{\xi}.
} The baryon mass term is no longer present, and the baryon Lagrangian now has
an expansion in powers of $1/m_B$. Note that the baryon chiral Lagrangian
starts at order $p$, whereas the meson Lagrangian starts at order $p^2$.

A similar procedure can be applied to other matter fields, not just to baryons,
provided one can factor the common mass (such as $m_B$) out of the Feynman
graphs. For baryon chiral perturbation theory, this is possible because baryon
number is conserved, so one can remove a common mass $m_B$ from all baryons. A
similar method also works for hadrons containing a heavy quark, such as the $B$
and $B^*$ mesons, because $b$-quark number is conserved by the strong
interactions, and the $B$ and $B^*$ are degenerate in the heavy quark limit.
It cannot be used for processes such as $\rho\rightarrow\pi \pi$, because the
$\rho$ mass $m_\rho$ turns into the pion energy in the final state.

The velocity-dependent Lagrangian $\CL_v$ has no dimensionful coefficients in
the numerator. This implies that the power counting arguments of an effective
field theory are valid. One has two expansion parameters, $1/m_B$ and
$1/\lchi$. The power counting rule eq.~\weini\ is now
\eqn\weinii{
D = 1 + 2L + \sum_k m_k\left(k-2\right) + \sum_k n_k\left(k-1\right), } where
$m_k$ is the number of vertices from the $p^k$ terms in the meson Lagrangian,
and $n_k$ is the number of vertices from the $p^k$ terms in the baryon
Lagrangian. The proof of this result is similar to eq.~\weini, and will be
omitted. The difference between the meson and baryon terms arises because the
meson propagator is $1/k^2$, whereas the baryon propagator is $1/k\cdot v$.

The naive dimensional analysis estimate eq.~\ndest\ is now
\eqn\ndab{
f^2\lchi^2\left(\bfrac{\pi}f\right)^n
\left(\bfrac{\partial}{\lchi}\right)^m
\left(\bfrac{B}{f\sqrt\lchi}\right)^r
} For example, the kinetic term $\bar B\left(i v\cdot D \right)B$ has a
coefficient of order
$$
f^2\lchi^2
\left(\bfrac{\partial}{\lchi}\right)^1\left(\bfrac{B}{f\sqrt\lchi}\right)^2
\sim 1,
$$
and the four-baryon term $\bar B B\ \bar B B$ has a coefficient of order
\eqn\fourbary{
f^2\lchi^2\left(\bfrac{B}{f\sqrt\lchi}
\right)^4\sim\bfrac 1{f^2}.
}

Similar power counting arguments hold for all strongly interacting gauge
theories. For example, in tests for quark and lepton substructure, one uses the
operator
$$
\bfrac{4\pi}{\Lambda_{ELP}^2}\ \bar q q\ \bar q q,
$$
and places limits on $\Lambda_{ELP}$. A quark field has the same power counting
rules as a baryon field in baryon chiral perturbation theory. Comparing with
eq.~\fourbary, we see that
$$
\Lambda_{ELP} = \Lambda/\sqrt{4\pi},
$$
where $\Lambda$ is the scale of the composite interactions defined by analogy
with the chiral scale $\lchi$: i.e. scattering amplitudes vary on a momentum
scale $\Lambda$.

A simple application of the baryon chiral Lagrangian is the computation of $\pi
-N$ scattering amplitude at threshold, to order $p$. From eq.~\weinii, the only
graphs which contribute are tree graphs which involve terms from the meson
Lagrangian at order $p^2$, and the baryon Lagrangian at order $p$. The two
diagrams which contribute are shown in \fig\figpiN{pi N}. The pion-nucleon
vertex in \figpiN(a) vanishes at threshold, since it is proportional to $\bfm
p$. The two-$\pi$ nucleon vertex in \figpiN(b) is
\midinsert
\epsffile{9507_fig16.eps}
\centerline{\tenrm FIGURE 16:}
\centerline{\tenrm Contributions to $\scriptstyle \pi N$ scattering at order
$\scriptstyle p$.}
\endinsert
\eqn\piNvertex{
\bfrac {i}{2f^2} \bar B\left[\pi,\partial^\mu\pi\right] v^\mu B.
} The amplitude can be rewritten using $\pi=\pi^a T^a_B$, where $T^a_B$ are the
flavor matrices in the baryon representation. The pions are in the adjoint
representation of flavor, so the flavor matrices acting on pions can be written
in terms of the structure constants
$$
\left(T^c_\pi\right)_{ba} = i f_{abc}.
$$
Using the commutation relations $\left[T^a_B,T^b_B\right]=if_{abc} T^c_B$, and
evaluating \figpiN\ using the interaction eq.~\piNvertex\ gives the amplitude
\eqn\piNamp{
\CA =- \bfrac i {f^2}\ M_\pi\ T_\pi \cdot T_B,
} where we have used $E=M_\pi$ for the energy of the pion.  Changing from the
non-relativistic normalization of baryon states to the relativistic
normalization (where the states are normalized to $2E$) gives the
Weinberg-Tomozawa formula for the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude
\eqn\weintom{
\CA =- \bfrac {2i} {f^2}\ M_B M_\pi\ \left(T_\pi \cdot T_B\right).
} $T_\pi\cdot T_B=1/2\left[(T_\pi+T_B)^2-T_\pi^2-T_B^2\right]=1/2\left[
I(I+1)-2-3/4\right]$, so that $T_\pi\cdot T_B$ is $-1$ in the isospin-1/2
channel and $1/2$ in the isospin-3/2 channel.

\subsec{Non-Analytic Terms}

The chiral Lagrangian for matter fields can be used to compute loop
corrections. The matter field Lagrangian has an expansion in powers of $p$,
whereas the Goldstone boson Lagrangian had an expansion in powers of
$p^2$. Consequently, loop integrals for matter field interactions can have
either even or odd dimension. The even dimensional integrals have the same
structure as for the mesons, and lead to non-analytic terms of the form
$(M^{2r}/16\pi^2 f^2) \log M^2/\mu^2$, where $M$ is a $\pi$, $K$ or $\eta$
mass, and $r$ is an integer. The $\mu$ dependence is cancelled by a
corresponding $\mu$ dependence in
a higher order term in the Lagrangian. The odd dimensional integrals lead to
non-analytic terms of the form $(M^{2r+1}/16\pi f^2)$, where $r$ is an integer.
These odd-dimensional terms do not have a multiplying logarithm, since the
$\mu$ dependence cannot be absorbed by a higher dimension operator in the
effective Lagrangian. The operator would have to have the form
$M^{2r+1}$ which is proportional to $m_q^{r+1/2}$, where $m_q$ is the quark
mass. Such an operator cannot exist in the Lagrangian, since it contains a
square-root of the quark mass matrix. Also note that the odd-dimensional
integrals have one less power of $\pi$ in the denominator.


\newsec{Chiral Perturbation Theory for Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark}

Chiral perturbation theory can also be applied to hadrons containing a heavy
quark. The hadrons are treated as matter fields, and one writes down the most
general possible Lagrangian consistent with the chiral symmetries, as for the
spin-1/2 baryons. In additional, one can constrain some of the terms in the
Lagrangian using heavy quark symmetry. As a simple example, consider the
interaction of the pseudoscalar and vector mesons $B$ and $B^*$ (or $D$ and
$D^*$) with pions. These mesons can be treated using the velocity dependent
formulation, since $b$-quark number is conserved by the strong interactions,
and the $B$ and $B^*$ are degenerate in the heavy quark limit. It is
conventional to combine $B$ and $B^*$ into a single field $H$ defined by
$$
H = \bfrac{1+\slash v}{2}\left[B^*_\mu \gamma^\mu - B\gamma_5\right],
$$
where $B$ and $B^*$ are column vectors which contain the states $b\bar u$,
$b\bar d$, and $b\bar s$. The transformation law for $H$ under heavy quark spin
symmetry transformation $S_Q$ and $SU(3)_V$ flavor symmetry transformation $U$
is
$$
H \rightarrow S_Q H U^\dagger.
$$
The most general Lagrangian consistent with these symmetries to order $p$ is
\eqn\hqetl{
\CL = \tr \bar H \left(iv\cdot D\right) H + g \tr \bar H H \gamma^\mu\gamma_5
A_\mu, } where
\eqn\hcovder{
D^\mu H = \partial^\mu H - H V^\mu.  } There is only a single coupling constant
$g$ which appears to this order, so the $B B^*\pi$ and $B^* B^*\pi$ couplings
are related to each other by the heavy quark spin symmetry. The other possible
interaction term,
$$
 \tr \bar H \gamma^\mu\gamma_5 H A_\mu
$$
is forbidden by heavy quark spin symmetry, and is suppressed by one power of
$1/m_Q$. This term splits the $B B^*\pi$ and $B^* B^*\pi$ couplings at order
$1/m_Q$.

The chiral Lagrangian eq.~\hqetl\ can be used to compute corrections to various
quantites for heavy hadrons. For example, one can show that
\eqn\fratio{
\bfrac{f_{B_s}}{f_B} = 1 - \frac56\left(1+3g^2\right){M_K^2\over
16 \pi^2 f^2}\log {M_K^2\over\mu^2}, } and
\eqn\bratio{
\bfrac{B_{B_s}}{B_B} = 1 - \frac23\left(1-3g^2\right){M_K^2\over
16 \pi^2 f^2}\log {M_K^2\over\mu^2}, } where $f_B$ and $B_B$ are the decay
constant for $B$ decay and the bag constant for $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixing
respectively. Further applications can be found in the literature.

\newsec{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank C.~Glenn Boyd and Richard~F.~Lebed for helpful comments
on the manuscript.  This work was supported in part by a Department of Energy
grant DOE-FG03-90ER40546, and by a Presidential Young Investigator award from
the National Science Foundation, .
\vfill\break\eject
\newsec{References}

\noindent Here are a few references which might be useful for students
interested in learning more about the subject.

\frenchspacing
\parindent=0.25truecm
\bigskip
\item{1.} These lectures rely heavily on:
\itemitem{}H.~Georgi, {\it Weak Interactions and Modern Particle
Theory,} (Benjamin/Cummings, 1984).
\bigskip
\item{2.} The Appelquist-Carazzone theorem:
\itemitem{}T.~Appelquist and J.~Carazzone,
{\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D11} (1975) 2856.
\bigskip
\item{3.} Some references to effective field theories:
\itemitem{}E.~Witten, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B122} (1977) 109\semi
S.~Weinberg, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf 91B} (1980) 51\semi L.J.~Hall, {\it
Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B178} (1981) 75.
\bigskip
\item{4.} Weak Interactions in the six-quark model:
\itemitem{} A.~Vainshtein, V.~Zakharov, and M.~Shifman, {\it JETP Lett.}
{\bf 22} (1975) 55\semi M.~Shifman, A.~Vainshtein, and V.~Zakharov, {\it
Nucl. Phys.}  {\bf B120} (1977) 316\semi F.J.~Gilman and M.B.~Wise, {\it Phys.\
Rev.}, {\bf D20} (1979) 2392, {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D27} (1983) 1128.
\bigskip
\item{5.} Non-local effective actions:
\itemitem{} V.~Bhansali and H.~Georgi, {\tt }.
\bigskip
\item{6.} Simplifying the effective Lagrangian using equations of motion:
\itemitem{} H.D.~Politzer, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B172} (1980) 349\semi
H.~Georgi, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}, {\bf B361} (1991) 339.
\bigskip
\item{7.} The CCWZ formalism:
\itemitem{} S.~Coleman, J.~Wess and B.~Zumino, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}, {\bf 177}
(1969) 2239\semi
C.~Callan, S.~Coleman, J.~Wess and B.~Zumino, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}, {\bf 177}
(1969) 2247.
\bigskip
\item{8.} A summary of many of the ideas on chiral perturbation theory
developed by Weinberg:
\itemitem{} S.~Weinberg, {\it Physica} {\bf A96} (1979) 327.
\bigskip
\item{9.} Naive dimensional analysis:
\itemitem{} A.~Manohar and H.~Georgi, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}, {\bf B234}
(1984) 189.
\bigskip
\item{10.} The existence of non-analytic terms in the chiral expansion:
\itemitem{} L.-F.~Li and H.~Pagels, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D5} (1972) 1509.
\bigskip
\item{11.} The meson Lagrangian to order $p^4$:
\itemitem{} J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler,
{\it Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B250} (1985) 465, {\it Ann.\ Phys.} {\bf 158} (1984)
142.
\bigskip
\item{12.} Quark Masses:
\itemitem{} S.~Weinberg, {\it Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci.}, {\bf 38} (1977) 185\semi
J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler, {\it Phys.\ Rept.} {\bf 87} (1982) 77\semi
D.B.~Kaplan and A.V.~Manohar, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, {\bf 56} (1986) 2004.
\bigskip
\item{13.} Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory:
\itemitem{}
P.~Langacker and H.~Pagels,  {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D10} (1974) 2904
\semi
J.~Bijnens, H.~Sonoda, and M.B.~Wise,  {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}, {\bf B261}
(1985) 185\semi
E.~Jenkins and A.~Manohar, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}, {\bf B255} (1991) 558, {\it
Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B259} (1991) 353.
\bigskip
\item{14.} A good reference to recent developments in chiral perturbation
theory is:
\itemitem{}{\it Effective Field Theories of the Standard Model}, edited by Ulf
Mei\ss ner, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).
\bigskip
\item{15.} Chiral perturbation theory for hadrons containing a heavy quark:
\itemitem{} M.B.~Wise, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}, {\bf D45} (1992) 2188\semi
G.~Burdman and J.~Donoghue, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}, {\bf B280} (1992) 287\semi
T.M.~Yan et al., {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D46} (1992) 1148.
\bigskip
\item{16.} Some applications of heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory:
\itemitem{} B.~Grinstein et al., {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}, {\bf B380} (1992) 376.
\bigskip

\bye

