Discover

In theoretical physics, '''renormalization group (RG)''' refers
to a mathematical apparatus that allows one to investigate the changes of a physical system as one views it at different distance scales.
In particle physics it reflects the changes in the underlying
force laws as one varies the energy scale at which physical
processes occur. A change in scale is called a "scale transformation"
or "conformal transformation." The renormalization group is intimately
related to "conformal invariance" or "scale invariance," a symmetry by which the system appears the same at all scales.
As one varies the scale, it as if changing the magnifying power of a microscope viewing the system. The system will
generally make a self-similar copy of itself, with slightly
different parameters describing the components of
the system. The components, or fundamental variables, may be atoms, or fundamental particles, or
atomic spins, etc. The parameters of the theory typically describe the interactions of the components.
These may be "coupling constants"
that measure the strength of various forces, or mass parameters
themselves.
The components themselves may appear to be composed of more of the self-same components as one goes to shorter distances.
For example, an electron appears to be composed
of electrons, anti-electrons and photons as one views
it at very short distances. The electron at very short
distances has a slightly different electric charge than
does the "dressed electron" seen at large distances, and
this change, or "running," in the value of the
elecric charge is determined by the renormalization group
equation.

Contents

History of the renormalization group

Block spin renormalization group

Elements of RG theory

Relevant and irrelevant operators, universality classes

Momentum space RG

Appendix: Exact Renormalization Group Equations

See also

References

Historical papers

Didactical reviews

Books

External links

History of the renormalization group

The idea of scale transformations and scale invariance is old and venerable in physics. Scaling arguments were commonplace for the Pythagorean school, Euclid and up to Galileo. They became popular again at the end of the 19th century, perhaps the first example being the idea of enhanced viscosity of Osborne Reynolds, as a way to explain turbulence.
The renormalization group was initially devised within particle
physics, but nowadays its applications are extended to solid-state physics, fluid mechanics, cosmology and even nanotechnology. An early article by E. C. G. Stueckelberg and A. Peterman in 1953 anticipates the idea in quantum field theory.
M. Gell-Mann and F.E. Low in 1954 opened the field.
They proposed the existence of a mathematical function of the coupling
parameter $g$ of a theory, $psi(g)$.
This function determines the differential change of the coupling constant
with a small change in energy scale $mu$ by
the "renormalization group equation:"

= rac{eta(g)}{g}
We indicate the more modern form, involving the function
introduced by Callan and Symansik
in the early 1970's. Early applications to Quantum Electrodynamics
are discussed in the influential book of N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov in 1959.
The remormalization group emerges
from the renormalization of the field variables, which
often has to deal with the problem of infinities in
a quantum field theory (the RG exists independently
of the infinities). This problem of dealing
with the infinities of quantum field theory was solved for
quantum electrodynamics by Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, who received the Nobel prize for their contributions. They effectively devised the theory of mass and charge renormalization in which the infinity is cut-off by an implicit
ultra-large mass scale, $Lambda$. The dependence
of physical quantities, such as the electric charge or electron mass, on $Lambda$ is hidden, effectively swapped
for the scales at which the physical quantities are measured.
It was the genius of Gell-Mann and Low to realize that the effective
scale can be arbitrarily defined as, $mu$, and
can vary to define the theory at any other scale. The main point of the RG is that, as we vary the scale $mu$, the theory makes a self-similar replica of itself, with the
tiny change in $g$ given by the RG equation
and $psi(g)$. The self-similarity stems from
the fact that $psi(g)$ depends only upon
the parameter(s) of the theory, not upon the scale $mu$.
A deeper understanding of the physical meaning of the
renormalization group comes from condensed
matter physics. Leo P. Kadanoff's paper in 1966 proposes
the "block-spin" renormalization group. The blocking idea is
a way to define the components of the theory at large distances
as aggregates of components at shorter distances. This
approach reached maturity with the many
contributions of Kenneth Wilson, and
its power was demonstrated with his solution of the Kondo problem and his development of the theory of
second order phase transitions and critical phenomena in
the early 1970's. He was awarded the Nobel prize for this contribution in 1982.
The RG in particle physics was reformulated in 1970 in more physical terms by C. G. Callan and K. Symanzik. The function, which describes the
"running of coupling constant" with scale,
is also found to be the "canonical trace anomaly" which represents the quantum mechanical breaking
of scale symmetry of a field theory. Remarkably, quantum mechanics
itself can induce mass through the trace anomaly and the running
coupling constant. Applications of the RG to particle physics
exploded in the 1970's with the canonization of
the Standard Model.
In 1973 it was discovered that a theory
of interacting colored quarks, called QCD had a negative
function. This means that an initial
high energy scale value of the coupling will produce
a special value of $mu$ at which the coupling
blows up (diverges). This special value is the scale
of the strong interactions, $mu\; =\; Lambda\_\{QCD\}$
and occurs at about 150 MeV. Conversely, the coupling becomes weak
at very high energies, and the quarks become observable as
point-like particles, as anticipated by Bjorken scaling.
Momentum space RG also became a highly developed tool in solid state physics, but its success was hindered by the extensive use of perturbation theory, which prevented the theory from reaching success in strongly correlated systems. In order to study these strongly correlated systems, variational approaches are a better alternative. During the 1980s some real space RG techniques were developed in this sense, the most successful being the density matrix RG (DMRG), developed by S. R. White and R. M. Noack in 1992.
The conformal symmetry is associated with the vanishing of the
function. This can occur naturally
if a coupling constant is attracted, by running, toward a
fixed point at which . In QCD
the fixed point occurs at short distances where $g$
ightarrow 0 and is called a (trivial)
ultraviolet fixed point. For heavy quarks, such
as the Top quark, it is found that the coupling to the
mass-giving Higgs boson runs toward a fixed non-zero (non-trivial) infrared fixed point.
In string theory one requires a fundamental symmetry that the
world-sheet of the string be conformally invariant, hence we
demand effectively . Here
is a function of the geometry of the space-time in which the string
moves.
This determines the space-time dimensionality of the string theory
and enforces Einstein's equations of general relativity
on the geometry.
The RG is of fundamental importance to string theory and
theories of grand unification. It is the modern key
idea underlying critical phenomena in condensed matter
physics.
Indeed, the RG has become one
of the most important tools of modern physics.

Block spin renormalization group

This section introduces pedagogically a picture of RG which may be
easiest to grasp: the block spin RG. It was devised by Leo P. Kadanoff in 1966.
Let us consider a 2D solid, a set of atoms in a perfect square array,
as depicted in the figure. Let us assume that atoms interact among
themselves only with their nearest neighbours, and that the system is
at a given temperature $T$. The strength of their
interaction is measured by a certain coupling constant $J$. The
physics of the system will be described by a certain formula, say
$H(T,J)$.

Now we proceed to divide the solid into 'blocks' of $2\; imes$
2 squares. Now we attempt to describe the system in terms of
'block variables', i.e.: some magnitudes which describe the
average behaviour of the block. Also, let us assume that, due to a
lucky coincidence, the physics of block variables is described by a
formula of the same kind, but with 'different' values for
$T$ and $J$: $H(T\text{'},J\text{'})$. (This isn't exactly true, of course, but it is often approximately true in practice, and that is good enough, to a first approximation)
Perhaps the initial problem was too hard to solve, since there were
too many atoms. Now, in the 'renormalized' problem we have only
one fourth of them. But why should we stop now? Another iteration of
the same kind leads to $H(T\text{'}\text{'},J\text{'}\text{'})$, and only one sixteenth
of the atoms. We are increasing the 'observation scale' with each
RG step.
Of course, the best idea is to iterate until there is only one very
big block. Since the number of atoms in any real sample of material is
very large, this is more or less equivalent to finding the long
term behaviour of the RG transformation which took $(T,J)\; o$
(T',J') and $(T\text{'},J\text{'})\; o\; (T\text{'}\text{'},J\text{'}\text{'})$. Usually, when
iterated many times, this RG transformation leads to a certain number
of 'fixed points'.
Let us be more concrete and consider a magnetic system (e.g.: the
Ising model), in which the ''J'' coupling constant denotes the
trend of neighbour spins to be parallel. Physics is dominated by
the tradeoff between the ordering ''J'' term and the disordering
effect of temperature. For many models of this kind there are three
fixed points:
(a) $T=0$ and $J\; oinfty$. This means that, at
the largest size, temperature becomes unimportant, i.e.: the
disordering factor vanishes. Thus, in large scales, the system appears
to be ordered. We are in a ferromagnetic phase.
(b) $T\; oinfty$ and $J\; o\; 0$. Exactly the
opposite, temperature has its victory, and the system is disordered at
large scales.
(c) A nontrivial point between them, $T=T\_c$ and
$J=J\_c$. In this point, changing the scale does not change
the physics, because the system is in a fractal state. It
corresponds to the Curie phase transition, and is also called a
critical point.
So, if we are given a certain material with given values of ''T''
and ''J'', all we have to do in order to find out the large scale
behaviour of the system is to iterate the pair until we find the
corresponding fixed point.

Elements of RG theory

In more technical terms, let us assume that we have a theory described
by a certain function $Z$ of the state variables
$\{s\_i\}$ and a certain set of coupling constants
$\{J\_k\}$. This function may be a partition function,
an action, a hamiltonian, etc. It must contain the
whole description of the physics of the system.
Now we consider a certain blocking transformation of the state
variables $\{s\_i\}\; o\; \{\; ilde\; s\_i\}$,
the number of $ilde\; s\_i$ must be lower than the number of
$s\_i$. Now let us try to rewrite the $Z$
function ''only'' in terms of the $ilde\; s\_i$. If this is achievable by a
certain change in the parameters, $\{J\_k\}\; o$
{ ilde J_k}, then the theory is said to be
'renormalizable'.
For some reason, most fundamental theories of physics such as quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and electro-weak interaction, but not gravity, are exactly
renormalizable. Also, most theories in condensed matter physics are
approximately renormalizable, from superconductivity to fluid
turbulence.
The change in the parameters is implemented by a certain
-function: $\{\; ilde$
J_k}=eta({ J_k }), which is said to induce a
'renormalization flow' (or RG flow) on the
$J$-space. The values of $J$ under the flow are
called 'running coupling constants'.
As it was stated in the previous section, the most important
information in the RG flow are its 'fixed points'. The possible
macroscopic states of the system, at a large scale, are given by this
set of fixed points.
Since the RG transformations are 'lossy' (i.e.: the number of
variables decreases - see as an example in a different context, Lossy data compression), there need not be an inverse for a given RG
transformation. Thus, the renormalization group is, in practice, a
semigroup.

Relevant and irrelevant operators, universality classes

Let us consider a certain observable $A$ of a physical
system undergoing an RG transformation. The magnitude of the observable
as the scale of the system goes from small to large may be (a) always increasing, (b) always decreasing or (c) other. In the first case, the
observable is said to be a 'relevant' observable; in the second,
'irrelevant' and in the third, 'marginal'.
A relevant operator is needed to describe the macroscopic behaviour of
the system, but not an irrelevant observable. Marginal observables
always give trouble when deciding whether to take them into account or
not. A remarkable fact is that most observables are irrelevant,
i.e.: the macroscopic physics is dominated by only a few observables
in most systems. In other terms: microscopic physics contains
variables, and macroscopic physics only a
few.
Before the RG, there was an astonishing empirical fact to explain: the
coincidence of the critical exponents (i.e.: the behaviour near a
second order phase transition) in very different phenomena, such as
magnetic systems, superfluid transition (Lambda transition), alloy physics... This was
called 'universality' and is successfully explained by RG, just
showing that the differences between all those phenomena are related
to 'irrelevant observables'.
Thus, many macroscopic phenomena may be grouped into a small set of
'universality classes', described by the set of relevant
observables.

Momentum space RG

RG, in practice, comes in two main flavours. The Kadanoff picture
explained above refers mainly to the so-called real-space
RG. 'Momentum-space RG' on the other hand, has a longer history
despite its relative subtlety. It can be used for systems where the degrees of freedom can be cast in terms of the
Fourier modes of a given field. The RG transformation proceeds
by ''integrating out'' a certain set of high momentum (high spatial frequency) modes. Since high spatial frequency is related to short length scales, the momentum-space RG results in an essentially similar coarse-graining effect as with real-space RG.
Momentum-space RG is usually performed on a perturbation expansion (i.e., approximation). The validity of such an expansion is predicated upon the true physics of our system being close to that of
a free field system. In this case, we may calculate observables by summing the leading terms in the expansion.
This approach has proved very successful for many theories, including most
of particle physics, but fails for systems whose physics is very far from any free system, i.e., systems with strong correlations.
As an example of the physical meaning of RG in particle physics we will
give a short description of charge renormalization in quantum electrodynamics
(QED). Let us suppose we have a point positive charge of a certain true
(or 'bare') magnitude. The electromagnetic field around it has a certain
energy, and thus may produce some pairs of (e.g.) electrons-positrons, which will be annihilated very quickly. But in their short life, the electron will be attracted
by the charge, and the positron will be repelled. Since this happens continuously,
these pairs are effectively 'screening' the charge from abroad. Therefore,
the measured strength of the charge will depend on how close to our probes it
may enter. We have a dependence of a certain coupling constant (the electric
charge) with distance.
Energy, momentum and length scales are related, according to
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The higher the energy or momentum scale we may reach, the lower the length scale
we may probe. Therefore, the momentum-space RG practitioners sometimes claim to
''integrate out'' high momenta or high energy from their theories.

Appendix: Exact Renormalization Group Equations

An 'exact renormalization group equation' ('ERGE') is one
that takes irrelevant couplings into account. There
are several formulations.
The 'Wilson ERGE' is the simplest conceptually,
but is practically impossible to implement. Fourier transform into momentum space after Wick rotating into Euclidean space. Insist upon a hard momentum cutoff, $p^2\; leq\; Lambda^2$ so that the only degrees of freedom are those with momenta less than Λ. The partition function is
:$Z=int\_\{p^2leq\; Lambda^2\}\; mathcal\{D\}phi\; expleft[-S\_Lambda(phi)$
ight].
For any positive Λ' less than Λ, define S_Λ' (a functional over field configurations φ whose Fourier transform has momentum support within $p^2\; leq\; Lambda\text{'}^2$) as
:$expleft(-S\_Lambda\text{'}[phi]$
ight) stackrel{mathrm{def}}{=} int_{Lambda' leq p leq Lambda} mathcal{D}phi expleft[-S_Lambda[phi]
ight].
Obviously,
:$Z=int\_\{p^2leq\; Lambda\text{'}^2\}mathcal\{D\}phi\; expleft[-S\_Lambda\text{'}[phi]$
ight].
In fact, this transformation is transitive. If you compute S_Λ' from S_Λ and then compute S_{Λ' '} from S_Λ', this gives you the same Wilsonian action as computing S_{Λ' '} directly from S_Λ.
The 'Polchinski ERGE' involves a smooth UV regulator cutoff. Basically, the idea is an improvement over the Wilson ERGE. Instead of a sharp momentum cutoff, it uses a smooth cutoff. Essentially, we suppress contributions from momenta greater than Λ heavily. The smoothness of the cutoff, however, allows us to derive a functional differential equation in the cutoff scale Λ. As in Wilson's approach, we have a different action functional for each cutoff energy scale Λ. Each of these actions are supposed to describe exactly the same model which means that their partition functionals have to match exactly.
In other words, (for a real scalar field; generalizations to other fields are obvious)
:$Z\_Lambda[J]=int\; mathcal\{D\}phi\; expleft(-S\_Lambda[phi]+Jcdot\; phi$
ight)=int mathcal{D}phi expleft(-rac{1}{2}phicdot R_Lambda cdot phi-S_{intLambda}[phi]+Jcdotphi
ight)
and Z_Λ is really independent of Λ! We have used the condensed deWitt notation here. We have also split the bare action S_Λ into a quadratic kinetic part and an interacting part S_{int Λ}. This split most certainly isn't clean. The "interacting" part can very well also contain quadratic kinetic terms. In fact, if there is any wave function renormalization, it most certainly will. This can be somewhat reduced by introducing field rescalings. R_Λ is a function of the momentum p and the second term in the exponent is
:
★ (p)R_Lambda(p) ilde{phi}(p)
when expanded. When $p\; ll\; Lambda$, R_Λ(p)/p^2 is essentially 1. When $p\; gg\; Lambda$, R_Λ(p)/p^2 becomes very very huge and approaches infinity. R_Λ(p)/p^2 is always greater than or equal to 1 and is smooth. Basically, what this does is to leave the fluctuations with momenta less than the cutoff Λ unaffected but heavily suppresses contributions from fluctuations with momenta greater than the cutoff. This is obviously a huge improvement over Wilson.
The condition that
:
can be satisfied by (but not only by)
:
ight)cdot rac{delta S_{intLambda}}{delta phi}-rac{1}{2}Trleft[rac{delta^2 S_{intLambda}}{delta phi, delta phi}cdot R_Lambda^{-1}
ight].
Jacques Distler claimed [1] without proof that this ERGE isn't correct nonperturbatively.
The 'Effective average action ERGE'
This involves a smooth IR regulator cutoff.
The idea is to take all fluctuations right up to a IR scale k into account and then applying mean field theory to all other fluctuations below that scale. As is well known from the study of critical phenomena, mean field theory can be completely way off. So, we'd expect that the 'effective average action' will only be accurate for fluctuations with momenta larger than k. But the smaller k is, the more accurate the effective average action will be. By the same reasoning, the large k is, the closer the effective action will be to the "bare action". So, the effective average action interpolates between the "bare action" and the effective action.
For a real scalar field, we add an IR cutoff
:
★ (p)R_k(p) ilde{phi}(p)
to the action S where R_k is a function of both k and p such that for
$p\; gg\; k$, R_k(p) is very tiny and approaches 0 and for $p\; ll\; k$, $R\_k(p)gtrsim\; k^2$. R_k is both smooth and nonnegative. Its large value for small momenta leads to a suppression of their contribution to the partition function which is effectively the same thing as neglecting large scale fluctuations. We will use the condensed deWitt notation
:
for this IR regulator.
So,
:$expleft(W\_k[J]$
ight)=Z_k[J]=int mathcal{D}phi expleft(-S[phi]-rac{1}{2}phi cdot R_k cdot phi +Jcdotphi
ight)
where J is the source field. The Legendre transform of W_k ordinarily gives the effective action. However, the action that we started off with is really S[φ]+1/2 φ⋅R_k⋅φ and so, to get the effective average action, we subtract off 1/2 φ⋅R_k⋅φ. In other words,
:
can be inverted to give J_k[φ] and we define the effective average action Γ_k as
:$Gamma\_k[phi]\; stackrel\{mathrm\{def\}\}\{=\}\; left(-Wleft[J\_k[phi]$
ight]+J_k[phi]cdotphi
ight)-rac{1}{2}phicdot R_kcdot phi.
Hence,
:
::::
ight
angle_{J_k[phi];k}-rac{1}{2}phicdot rac{d}{dk}R_k cdot phi
::::
ight)^{-1}cdotrac{d}{dk}R_k
ight]=rac{1}{2}Trleft[left(rac{delta^2 Gamma_k}{delta phi delta phi}+R_k
ight)^{-1}cdotrac{d}{dk}R_k
ight]
thus
:
ight)^{-1}cdotrac{d}{dk}R_k
ight]
is the ERGE.
As there are infinitely many choices of ''R''_''k'', there are also infinitely many different interpolating ERGEs.
Generalization to other fields like spinorial fields is straightforward.
Although the Polchinski ERGE and the effective average action ERGE look similar, they are based upon very different philosophies. In the effective average action ERGE, the bare action is left unchanged (and the UV cutoff scale -- if there is one -- is also left unchanged) but we neglect the IR contributions to the effective action whereas in the Polchinski ERGE, we fix the QFT once and for all but vary the "bare action" at different energy scales to reproduce the prespecified model. Polchinski's version is certainly much closer to Wilson's idea in spirit. Note that one uses "bare actions" whereas the other uses effective (average) actions.

See also

★ Renormalized perturbation theory is the main technique associated to momentum-space RG.

★ Density matrix renormalization group is the most successful variational real-space RG technique up to date.

★ Critical phenomena

★ Fractals

★ Top quark

References

Historical papers

★ E.C.G. Stueckelberg, A. Peterman (1953): Helv. Phys. Acta, '26', 499.

★ Murray Gell-Mann, F.E. Low (1954): Phys. Rev. '95', 5, 1300. The origin of renormalization group

★ N.N. Bogoliubov, D.V. Shirkov (1959): The theory of quantized fields, Interscience. The first text-book on RG.

★ L.P. Kadanoff (1966): "Scaling laws for Ising models near $T\_c$", Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) '2', 263. The new blocking picture.

★ C.G. Callan (1970): Phys. Rev. D '2', 1541.[2] K. Symanzik (1970): Comm. Math. Phys. '18', 227.[3] The new view on momentum-space RG.

★ K.G. Wilson (1975): The renormalization group: critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. '47', 4, 773.[4] The main success of the new picture.

★ S.R. White (1992): Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. '69', 2863. The most successful variational RG method.

Didactical reviews

★ N. Goldenfeld (1993): Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group. Addison-Wesley.

★ D.V. Shirkov (1999): Evolution of the Bogoliubov Renormalization Group. arXiv.org:hep-th/9909024. A mathematical introduction and historical overview with a stress on group theory and the application in high-energy physics.

★ B. Delamotte (2004): A hint of renormalization. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 170u2013184, February 2004. A pedestrian introduction to renormalization and the renormalization group. For non subscribers see arXiv.org:hep-th/0212049

★ H.J. Maris, L.P. Kadanoff (1978): Teaching the renormalization group. American Journal of Physics, June 1978, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp. 652-657. A pedestrian introduction to the renormalization group as applied in condensed matter physics.

Books

★ L.Ts.Adzhemyan, N.V.Antonov and A.N.Vasiliev. ''The Field Theoretic Renormalization Group in Fully Developed Turbulence''. Gordon and Breach, 1999. [ISBN 90-5699-145-0] (Contents.)

★ Zinn Justin, Jean ; ''Renormalization and renormalization group: From the discovery of UV divergences to the concept of effective field theories'', in: de Witt-Morette C., Zuber J.-B. (eds), Proceedings of the NATO ASI on ''Quantum Field Theory: Perspective and Prospective'', June 15-26 1998, Les Houches, France, Kluwer Academic Publishers, NATO ASI Series C 530, 375-388 (1999) [ISBN ]. Full text available in ''PostScript''.

External links

★ Renormalization group on arxiv.org

★ Hopf algebra and renormalization

★ Exact renormalization on arxiv.org