3

I know that they deliver the same answers if we are in the vicinity of a fixed point (but may have different beta functions otherwise), and that field-theoretic approaches are not as general, but I am having trouble disentangling why they are conceptually different.

jrex
  • 619
  • 1
    What do you mean by a "field-theoretical renormalization group?" – Andrew Jun 13 '21 at 02:24
  • Please revise the question. It's not obvious what your question is all about. – Mass Jun 13 '21 at 04:36
  • This is not a term I have come up with myself - it seems like some authors refer to an approach as "field theoretic" such as here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1375 or here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-05094-7_5. It is supposed to be distinct from Wilsonian RG. – jrex Jun 13 '21 at 19:48
  • 1
    This question is about comparing Wilson's work to an older paper by Gel-Mann and Low. They clearly use different schemes: one lending itself well to higher loop calculations, the other lending itself well to physical intuition. Whether they make further choices beyond this is something a lot of books appear not to answer. – Connor Behan Jun 14 '21 at 14:41
  • See my answer to a related question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/372306/what-is-the-wilsonian-definition-of-renormalizability/375571#375571 – Abdelmalek Abdesselam Jun 14 '21 at 15:31

0 Answers0