Hi there!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm struggling a bit with running couplings. Srednicki introduces dimensional regularization and the [itex]\overline{\mathrm{MS}}[/itex] scheme, then calculates a squared transition amplitude for some reaction in [itex]\varphi^3[/itex] theory. Eventually, he calculates the beta function for the coupling and solves the renormalization group equation. Clear so far.

In the transition amplitude, a factor [itex]\ln(s/\mu^2)[/itex] occurs, where [itex]s[/itex] is a Mandelstam variable and [itex]\mu[/itex] is the factor arising from dimensional regularization. Now he says, to avoid large logarithms, we should put [itex]\mu^2 \sim s[/itex] (which we can do since physics must be independent of [itex]\mu[/itex]). Then, according to the beta function, the coupling runs with the involved momenta, the well-known behavior.

Now, [itex]\mu^2 \sim s[/itex] certainly is a convenient choice, but what if I choose [itex]\mu[/itex] to be constant (or something else), which I am free to do? Then, the coupling doesn't run at all. It seems to me that the running coupling is just a way of viewing things (here in particular by using the [itex]\overline{\mathrm{MS}}[/itex] scheme and [itex]\mu^2 \sim s[/itex])?

Another quick question: I read everywhere that renormalization is related to the behavior of the theory at small distances/large momenta. How are small distances and large momenta related? And what has renormalization to do with it?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Running couplings

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**