What is the significance of the renormalization scale μ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jodahr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Renormalization Scale
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the significance of the renormalization scale μ in dimensional regularization and its role in quantum field theory (QFT). Participants clarify that μ is introduced to maintain the correct mass dimension for couplings, particularly when transitioning from a bare coupling to a renormalized coupling that depends on μ. The conversation highlights that while μ can take arbitrary values, its relationship with other parameters, especially in high-energy contexts, is crucial for understanding the physics involved. References to the renormalization group and modern QFT texts are recommended for further exploration of this topic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dimensional regularization in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with coupling constants and their mass dimensions
  • Knowledge of renormalization procedures in QFT
  • Basic concepts of the renormalization group
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the renormalization group in detail to understand scale dependence
  • Explore modern quantum field theory textbooks for comprehensive coverage of renormalization
  • Investigate the implications of arbitrary scales in dimensional regularization
  • Learn about the differences between dimensional regularization and subtraction methods
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in quantum field theory, and researchers interested in the nuances of renormalization techniques and their applications in high-energy physics.

Jodahr
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody,

I have a short question about the renormalization scale.

For dimensional regularization we introduce a scale μ with mass dimension to preserve the correct mass-dimension for the coupling and so on so that it is independent of the value of d = 4-2ε. But why can that μ have any arbitrary value. Why not just say it is 1 times mass dimension? In dimensional regularization they always do net tell someone much about the scale.

In the subtraction method it is somehow clearer since it appears after regularization only for the renormalization prescription. So for regularization that scale is only needed in the dim.reg. case, not for the subtraction method. Only then for the renormalization procedure it appears also in the approach.

It would be nice if someone can explain the case in dim. reg. and maybe can make a connection between the appearance in both cases (dim. reg. and subtraction ). And maybe someone knows good references to learn more about that arbitrary scales?

Thanks in advance!

Cheers,

Marcel
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Choosing \mu to be 1 is fine, but what are your units? How are you measuring mass? Your equations will inevitably contain \mu in relation to other parameters - for example, at high energies you will usually have momentum dependence like \log\left( p^2/\mu^2 \right).

The main point is that by regulating your theory in the UV, you are essentially introducing a mass scale. You start with a "bare" coupling in the Lagrangian which does not know or care about renormalization procedures and is dimensionless and thus independent of energy scale. You then trade it for a "renormalized" coupling which depends on \mu. So you're trading a scale invariant parameter for two scale dependent parameters which depend on each other in a well-defined way.

This is all very clear for a finite cutoff method, but as you say it looks completely different in dim-reg. The point is that when you consider d<4, your coupling constant picks up a mass dimension, so the behavior of the term becomes dependent on scale. If your coupling has mass dimension 4 - \epsilon, the physics will depend on the ratio p^2/g^{2\epsilon-8}.

You asked for references on arbitrary scales. I would simply recommend studying the renormalization group. Any good modern QFT book should cover it extensively, and it's enormously useful across many fields of physics.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K