Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,793 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  Is even the perturbative expansion of the QCD beta function expected to be divergent?

+ 0 like - 0 dislike
1108 views

The usual QCD folklore tells us that perturbative expansions are (at best) asymptotic. Recently a colleague of mine told me that the expansion of the beta function is thought to be convergent because , and I quote, "it only sees the UV".

This would-be argument does not convince me at all but I wonder if he really is full of shit or for some reasons that I don't yet comprehend he is right. So, is he right? and if so, why?

asked Apr 17, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Dmitry hand me the Kalashnikov (735 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 18, 2016 by dimension10

I don't know if your college supplemented it with other arguments, but just "it only sees the UV" looks completely nonsensical.

In the absence of theory, guesses about convergence are sujective plausibility reasoning. I think you should ask your collegue about what precisely he meant with his cryptic remark, and then expand here on your question. There may be something less trivial behind it.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...