Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

edited tags; edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

I’m studying about the holographic RG with this paper.

In that paper they say Wilsonian action expects quasi locality, but I’m not sure what “quasi” locality“quasi-locality" exactly means.

If quasi locality-locality means sth “seems” local but not local exactly, then wilsonian rgWilsonian RG produces some local terms which didn’t appear in classical action?

Also I’m wondering why this property is not appeared in WdWWheeler-deWitt (WdW) formalism because there is no $\partial_z g_{zz}$ term in action.

I’m studying about the holographic RG with this paper.

In that paper they say Wilsonian action expects quasi locality, but I’m not sure what “quasi” locality exactly means.

If quasi locality means sth “seems” local but not local exactly, then wilsonian rg produces some local terms which didn’t appear in classical action?

Also I’m wondering why this property is not appeared in WdW formalism because there is no $\partial_z g_{zz}$ term in action.

I’m studying about the holographic RG with this paper.

In that paper they say Wilsonian action expects quasi locality, but I’m not sure what “quasi-locality" exactly means.

If quasi-locality means sth “seems” local but not local exactly, then Wilsonian RG produces some local terms which didn’t appear in classical action?

Also I’m wondering why this property is not appeared in Wheeler-deWitt (WdW) formalism because there is no $\partial_z g_{zz}$ term in action.

Source Link
Positron3873
Positron3873
  • 61
  • 3

Definition of “quasi-locality” in Wilsonian RG scheme

I’m studying about the holographic RG with this paper.

In that paper they say Wilsonian action expects quasi locality, but I’m not sure what “quasi” locality exactly means.

If quasi locality means sth “seems” local but not local exactly, then wilsonian rg produces some local terms which didn’t appear in classical action?

Also I’m wondering why this property is not appeared in WdW formalism because there is no $\partial_z g_{zz}$ term in action.