Timeline for On-shell renormalization schemes, running couplings and grand unification
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11 at 22:09 | history | reopened |
Connor Behan Miyase Vincent Thacker |
||
| Oct 11 at 20:58 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 11 at 22:09 | |||||
| Oct 11 at 20:58 | comment | added | Connor Behan | I'll vote to reopen but I don't know which GUT calculation would have problems. The ones I've seen are based on the beta function. Beta functions for QCD in the on-shell scheme are indeed unknown but this is only because of confinement. It has nothing to do with the on-shell scheme being based on a conceptually distinct type of scale. See arxiv.org/abs/1207.2199 for the on-shell beta function of QED. | |
| Oct 11 at 20:19 | comment | added | phonon | @ConnorBehan I'm not sure why you're saying that because in the on-shell renormalization scheme there is clearly no $\mu$-dependence. The couplings are indeed determined by a choice of reference momentum, but this is conceptually distinct from the arbitrary parameter $\mu$ which is used in gauge coupling unification arguments. In any case, I think I have clearly explained why this question is distinct from the one you quoted. | |
| Oct 11 at 18:05 | comment | added | Connor Behan | There is no scheme that will tell you that couplings don't run. If you don't have the fake parameter $\mu$ in the Lagrangian, you will still need to pick a scale where correlation functions should take on prescribed values and use that scale to define your counterterms. The usual analysis of the Callan-Symanzik equation then goes through and leads to a beta function. See P&S chapter 12. | |
| Oct 11 at 14:10 | comment | added | phonon | @ConnorBehan I think my question is quite different because it deals specifically with on-shell renormalization schemes, in which there is no residual $\mu$-dependence and thus no notion of running in the sense of the other question. I've edited the OP (and the title) to reflect that. | |
| Oct 11 at 14:07 | history | edited | phonon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 11 at 14:00 | history | edited | phonon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 568 characters in body
|
| Oct 11 at 6:59 | history | closed |
Connor Behan Matt Hanson Roger V. |
Duplicate of Dependence by the renormalization scheme in the beta function coefficents in QCD | |
| Oct 11 at 0:28 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 11 at 6:59 | |||||
| Oct 11 at 0:10 | comment | added | Connor Behan | This question is similar to: Dependence by the renormalization scheme in the beta function coefficents in QCD. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. | |
| Oct 11 at 0:01 | history | edited | phonon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Oct 10 at 23:11 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | see also physics.stackexchange.com/q/311843/84967 | |
| Oct 10 at 19:28 | comment | added | MadMax | The baffling concept of "running with renormalization scale $\mu$" has unfortunately been peddled around for years. See here: physics.stackexchange.com/q/436173 | |
| Oct 10 at 18:45 | history | asked | phonon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |