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**

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

# Running couplings

Loading...

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