Timeline for What justifies the dependence of the coupling renormalization constant in the dimensional regularization regulator?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 1:04 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 9:52 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 21:35 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 17, 2016 at 8:14 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 6:24 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 14, 2016 at 10:34 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jun 28, 2016 at 12:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 18, 2016 at 23:48 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| S Jan 13, 2016 at 21:08 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jan 13, 2016 at 21:08 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 11, 2016 at 18:41 | history | edited | Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 7:59 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/686095089261752320 | ||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 3:46 | comment | added | Andrew | @AleksandrSokolov That's why you need to pick a scheme to fix the ambiguity in what you choose for $Z$. The point of MSbar is that you only subtract the divergent piece (so there are no finite pieces in $Z$ as you send $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$). This is a choice. The scheme dependence drops out of any physical quantity though, which is guaranteed by setting up RG equations. Also, you are right the form of $Z$ is not obvious without doing some work, they have omitted the calculation of the relevant loop diagrams (which is perfectly acceptable since there are no new ideas in that calculation). | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 3:08 | answer | added | Nogueira | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 12:59 | comment | added | Yossarian | @ACuriousMind but can we define it this way? I mean, can we choose whatever we like for the $Z$? | |
| Jan 6, 2016 at 13:35 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | They explain it directly after that equation in a footnote: "Physical quantities can be made finite even if we include terms of order $\epsilon^0,\epsilon^1,\epsilon^2$ in $Z_i$. This corresponds to taking other renormalization prescription." and "The reason why the MS scheme is used more often than other schemes is that empirically perturbative series for various physical quantities exhibit good convergence behaviors.", i.e. this form of the constant is the definition of the MS scheme. | |
| S Jan 5, 2016 at 19:21 | history | bounty started | Yossarian | ||
| S Jan 5, 2016 at 19:21 | history | notice added | Yossarian | Draw attention | |
| Dec 30, 2015 at 17:19 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Dec 30, 2015 at 16:11 | history | asked | Yossarian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |