Scale Invariance - Scale Invariance in Classical Field Theory

Scale Invariance in Classical Field Theory

Classical field theory is generically described by a field, or set of fields, that depend on coordinates, x. Valid field configurations are then determined by solving differential equations for, and these equations are known as field equations.

For a theory to be scale-invariant, its field equations should be invariant under a rescaling of the coordinates, combined with some specified rescaling of the fields:

The parameter is known as the scaling dimension of the field, and its value depends on the theory under consideration. Scale invariance will typically hold provided that no fixed length scale appears in the theory. Conversely, the presence of a fixed length scale indicates that a theory is not scale-invariant.

A consequence of scale invariance is that given a solution of a scale-invariant field equation, we can automatically find other solutions by rescaling both the coordinates and the fields appropriately. In technical terms, given a solution, one always has other solutions of the form .

Read more about this topic:  Scale Invariance

Famous quotes containing the words scale, classical, field and/or theory:

    ‘Tis very certain that each man carries in his eye the exact indication of his rank in the immense scale of men, and we are always learning to read it. A complete man should need no auxiliaries to his personal presence.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    Et in Arcadia ego.
    [I too am in Arcadia.]
    Anonymous, Anonymous.

    Tomb inscription, appearing in classical paintings by Guercino and Poussin, among others. The words probably mean that even the most ideal earthly lives are mortal. Arcadia, a mountainous region in the central Peloponnese, Greece, was the rustic abode of Pan, depicted in literature and art as a land of innocence and ease, and was the title of Sir Philip Sidney’s pastoral romance (1590)

    But the old world was restored and we returned
    To the dreary field and workshop, and the immemorial feud

    Of rich and poor. Our victory was our defeat.
    Sir Herbert Read (1893–1968)

    ... the first reason for psychology’s failure to understand what people are and how they act, is that clinicians and psychiatrists, who are generally the theoreticians on these matters, have essentially made up myths without any evidence to support them; the second reason for psychology’s failure is that personality theory has looked for inner traits when it should have been looking for social context.
    Naomi Weisstein (b. 1939)