A Questions about scale dependence and renormalization schemes

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaac0427
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Renormalization
Isaac0427
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
163
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...

Similar threads

Back
Top