A Questions about scale dependence and renormalization schemes

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaac0427
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Renormalization
Click For Summary
The discussion addresses scale dependence in various renormalization schemes, specifically the on-shell (OS) and momentum-subtraction (MO) schemes. It questions whether the OS scheme has scale dependence, contrasting it with sources that incorporate dimensional regularization. The MO scheme's use of two scales, one from the physical mass and another from dimensional regularization, is also examined. Additionally, the possibility of mixing schemes, leading to multiple scales, is raised, along with inquiries about how these scales relate to each other and to experimental momenta in scattering processes. The conversation emphasizes that the choice of renormalization scheme is largely based on convenience and the specific context of the calculations.
Isaac0427
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
163
TL;DR
How do the scale dependences of different renormalization schemes relate?
Hi,

I have several related questions about scale dependence in different renormalization schemes.

1. Is there scale dependence in the on-shell (OS) scheme? Peskin & Schroeder chapter 10 goes through on-shell renormalization without involving an auxiliary scale, but other sources (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.06573 chapter 1) do include the scale from dimensional regularization in the on-shell scheme.

2. A similar question about the momentum-subtraction (MO), also called the "off-shell" scheme. This scheme is like the OS scheme, but instead of placing a condition on the propagator and vertex function at ##p^2=m^2## where m is the physical mass, the condition is placed at ##p^2=-M^2##. In Peskin & Schroeder, M would be the scale. But, if you also included the scale from dimensional regularization, now we would have two scales. How does this work?

3. I have seen it said that you can mix different schemes (such as treating the propagator in the MS scheme but the vertex function in the MO scheme). If you do this, you would get multiple scales simultaneously. How does this work?

4. How do the scales in different schemes relate to each other, and how do they relate to the momenta used in a scattering experiment where you try to determine the value of the coupling constant at a particular scale?

Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK I had hoped someone with more recent practice as well as having a copy of Peskin & Schroeder QFT book.

Forewarning its been years since I last went through this but I can offer some hints and suggestions to your questions above.
First and foremost the majority of your questions above is commonly answered by studying the the Pauli_Villars dimensional regularization scheme.

https://fma.if.usp.br/~burdman/QFT1/lecture_22.pdf

see 22.72 with regards to p^2=m^2

Now hopefully you have also studied the Langrangian counter term as the Feymann rules requires a propagator, a vertex, a propagator counter term and a counter term vertex. Though you also need to have the Bare Langrangian

In regards to MS shouldn't that be minimal subtraction and not momentum subtraction ?

https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/2022f/ms.pdf

anyways hope that helps like I stated its been several years since I last looked at renormalization schemes
 
Last edited:
Forgot to add the renormalization scheme used is largely a matter of convenience and choice. Though you will want to use one scheme per graph where you will typically have more than one graph involved.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...

Similar threads