• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

204 submissions , 162 unreviewed
5,026 questions , 2,180 unanswered
5,344 answers , 22,683 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
815 active unimported users
More ...

  Is renormalization associated with a volume scale or with an energy-momentum and length scale?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Given that real-space renormalization blocks together small volume elements to construct larger volume elements, is it more appropriate/helpful to consider the renormalization scale to be a volume scale instead of an energy scale?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 25, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Peter Morgan (1,230 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments
In a quantum mechanical theory momenta and inverse length scales are related, organizing degrees of freedom by length or momentum scales is equivalent, which one to use is a matter of convenience (and I think both are used in practice). I think the relation to energy (rather than momentum) scale is specific to relativistic theories. Those are general purpose comments, maybe you are asking a more specific question?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks, Moshe. It's a Question that comes out of my current computations, in which it appears to be much more natural to think of renormalization in terms of measure instead of in terms of lengths. I hope, I suppose, that someone will be struck enough by a similar aspect in their own research that they feel the urge to Comment or Answer. Long shot, of course.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The distinction is not clear in the question, at least not to me, more detail will probably increase the likelihood of helpful answers.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The question doesn't make sense to me at all. In hbar = c = 1 units length = 1 / energy and of course volume = length ^ 3. So energy scale defines length scale defines volume scale. It is the same thing.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
For a volume scale, one only needs the tensor $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$, one does not need any metric. This is splitting hairs at some level, of course, but I take it that conceptual progress is about making a personal choice of what distinctions to take seriously and which to put aside for another day.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
@Squark, you can vote to close, presumably as "not a real question". I tried to tease out a question here, but to my mind unsuccessfully. On the other hand, I don't want to make all decisions for the community.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I'm not sure what harm having this question here does, nor am I sure what benefit there is in closing it. The point of the question is to ask whether anyone else is doing research in which this kind of distinction is of interest. I don't take it to be a strong argument unless you have yourselves done calculations in which such a distinction makes sense, but if one *is* interested in other structure than just scale, a volume scale is not the same as an energy scale.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights