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

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?

-
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? –  user566 Dec 25 '11 at 23:02
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. –  Peter Morgan Dec 26 '11 at 0:17
The distinction is not clear in the question, at least not to me, more detail will probably increase the likelihood of helpful answers. –  user566 Dec 26 '11 at 0:27
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. –  Squark Dec 26 '11 at 17:00
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. –  Peter Morgan Dec 26 '11 at 17:08