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

206 submissions , 164 unreviewed
5,103 questions , 2,249 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,800 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  Is there a general theory for Wilsonian renormalization?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
680 views

I know that Wilson's renormalization group is not a theory per se and that there are many ways to implement it in a given system. Also, renormalization group techniques are applied in a large number of problems in e.g. QFT and Statistical mechanics.

However, I'd like to know if there is any general/abstract theory which rigorously formalizes all these incarnations or implementations in some unified way, so to give precise meaning to objects like renormalization group transformations, renormalization group flows etc, in which case these explicit implementations I mentioned become particular realizations of such a general theory. For instance, I know that we can define renormalization group maps on the space of measures and also on the space of Lagrangians. Thus, maybe these maps can be defined in abstract measure spaces or abstract functional spaces and some possible relations with, say, phase transitions and critica phenomena follow from theoretical considerations of this theory.

NOTE: I think "a general theory" accounting for all explicit models might be too much too ask, but I'd be happy with at least some general theory to some extent. It might be worth to mention that I'm mainly insterested in statistical mechanics.

EDIT 1: As pointed out in the comments, I should specify that the notion of renormalization I'm using here is Wilson's, as is now reflected in the title.

EDIT 2: I came across this beautiful article by Aernout van Enter, Roberto Fernández and Alan Sokal in which some abstract notion of renormalization group map on the space of measures and on space of Lagrangians is introduced. It seems to be possible to put Wilsonian renormalization group in a more abstract context, at least to some extent. This is the first paper (that I know) which treats renormalization in such general context (if there are other papers with similar approach, please let me know). However, I still have many questions to be answered. Some of them are listed below.

(1) The paper is pretty much self-contained but the section about renormalization group on Lagrangians is not very detailed in the sense that there are not many examples of explicit realizations of their definition of RG. Does the so-called renormalization group transformation or the renormalization group flow has anything to do with their definition, at least for finite volume systems?

(2) The authors seem to suggest that this general picture has, indeed, natural connections with the theory of Gibbs measures and, as a consequence, also with phase transitions. However, not much is said in the paper, so I'd like to know more about this. What kind of analyses can be made using this approach? What can physical phenomena can be explained by these general abstract approach?

(3) Is this approach just a particular point of view of the authors? Are there other aternative ways to define these objects? Is this the more general picture we have?

(4) Is it possible to relate this approach with dynamical systems? Is it possible to justify 'relevant directions' and fixed points and its consquences to physical theories?

NOTE 2: Although I posted the article and addressed some questions about it, it is not necessary to address the original question only in terms of this approach. My comments and questions on the paper only reflect the fact that I think this seems to be pretty much the most general picture one can come with, but I don't know much on the subject and I can be pretty much wrong, so any other approach is worthy to me.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2023-09-02 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user IamWill
asked Jun 24, 2020 in Theoretical Physics by IamWill (35 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Sep 2, 2023
Just a comment. "Renormalization" means different things to different people. It sounds like you mean "Wilsonian renormalization," unless there's some more specific label that you can attach to it. Perhaps that terminology should be reflected in your question.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2023-09-02 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user Igor Khavkine
@IgorKhavkine you are absolutely right! I will make and edit! Thank you!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2023-09-02 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user IamWill
Just a remark. At this point in time, a general rigorous theory might be too much to ask. One has a general philosophy/nonrigorous theory/loose set of methods and guidelines/...but within the scope of this philosophy there are examples treated rigorously. The general idea is very simple and surprisingly powerful when it can be implemented rigorously. See mathoverflow.net/questions/363119/…

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2023-09-02 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user Abdelmalek Abdesselam
@AbdelmalekAbdesselam I really enjoyed your answer on the question linked. You said a general theory might be too much to ask, and I already expected that. But what about the abstract formulation I cited? Sounds pretty general to me.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2023-09-02 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user IamWill

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
...