Skip to main content

All Questions

1 vote
1 answer
57 views

Definition of “quasi-locality” in Wilsonian RG scheme

I’m studying about the holographic RG with this paper. In that paper they say Wilsonian action expects quasi locality, but I’m not sure what “quasi-locality" exactly means. If quasi-locality ...
Positron3873's user avatar
0 votes
1 answer
101 views

Understanding this abstract Lagrangian of effective field theory

I'm learning Wilson's approach to renormalization and the Effective Field Theory. Typically, the theory is defined by a Lagrangian valid up to some scale $Λ$. I saw these two definitions for 4-...
IGY's user avatar
  • 1,783
2 votes
2 answers
502 views

Locality of interactions and their high energy behavior

In a classic Georgi review of EFT, I have read the following quote The result of eliminating heavy particles is inevitably a nonrenormalizable theory, in which the nontrivial effects of the heavy ...
GaloisFan's user avatar
  • 1,742
2 votes
1 answer
200 views

Why does the Lagrangian Density have to be a polynomial of the field?

In a lecture, a professor appeared to have said that the Lagrangian can only contain terms that have powers of $\phi$ and a term with $\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi$ . I imagine this would make any ...
John K's user avatar
  • 305
10 votes
1 answer
316 views

Why don't we have logarithms or exponentials of the fields in the Lagrangians?

All the Lagrangian densities I have seen have always been polynomials of the fields. Is this a coincidence or is there a reason which forbids, say, Lagrangians with logarithms or exponentials of the ...
Yossarian's user avatar
  • 6,067
6 votes
1 answer
1k views

$U(1)$ abelian/axial/chiral anomaly in 4D

I am reading $U(1)$ abelian/axial/chiral anomaly in 3+1 dimensions using the path integral method (Fujikawa). Am I wrong in assuming that the anomaly can be cancelled by introducing a counter term in ...
SubhamDC's user avatar
  • 311