You cannot imagine how much this video (the original) has been important for me, it sparked so much new understanding and interest! Thank you so much and I would love to see more of your videos!
Thanks for the explanation. I came to the idea of renormalization by way of particle physics, and the concept was a mystery to me for decades. This video helped to start to dispel some of that mystery (though I'd have to look more closely at the math and play with it myself, to really understand it). And as a bonus, you also explained the shape of phase transition diagrams, which is something from chemistry class that always bugged me, with its seeming arbirariness.
It's rare that I find a video that somehow just makes the world make more sense but this is such an insightful explanation for a formerly seemingly magical phenomenon (phase transitions).
Wow i really didn't thought that renormalization can be visualized that beautifully and enlightening when i learned in. You really nailed it! Please make more videos of advanced topics like that!
Although I am not a fan of this idea of emergence I have to thank you for the explanation. It is much better to understand and to the point than on the big channels ❤
Thank you for the vid. I'll have to rewatch it, of course, maybe even several times, but this makes some things clear which I kind of already knew due to lectures in statistical mechanics. BTW it explains how we can be pretty sure about the large scale fate of our universe in some 10¹⁰⁰ years while not being able to even predict the wheather on Earth in precisely 4 months.
Thanks for a fantastic video As the ignoramus that I am I cant claim that I followed the maths fully. But despite this I felt that I could grasp the gist of the main principles! Which says a lot about the quality of the video imho :) Best regards
seeing the phase plot makes my control theory ass so excited, maybe we can establish some Lyapunov stability of a renormalization fix point. I don't know if it is useful or not
Sorry if I'm wrong, but it seems like there should be A_0 a + 6 A_2 b instead of A_0 a + 6 A_4 b in the numerator of \bar{a}. And thank you for the video!
I felt like I understood how the phase transitions were explained by renormalization, but I still don't understand what this has to do with the divergences of QED.
So the primar assumption behind renormalisation is that this systems are scale invariant? How can that assumption be true in quantum physics where we already know that quantum objects have different abilities than larger objects (f.e. larger objects can't be in two places at once).
This was really good, but I'm not sure how we apply this concept to fundamental quantities like mass and charge. If mass and charge are simply parameters in the normalization flow, what are the microscopic constituents that determines them? Makes little sense.
Thank you so much for this! I am not a physics major, but I need a basic understanding of RG flow to understand this recent book "The Principles of Deep Learning Theory", Roberts, Yaida, 2022. This helps a lot!! I have a question though. So from what I understand now, there are these couplings that can 'run' with the flow. And these couplings can be relevant, irrelevant or marginal. I was thinking what this means for the flow diagram. Am I correct in assuming that if I were to flow to a surface of fixed points but there are relevant couplings, you could move over this surface in the dimensions that correspond to the relevant couplings? Or how else should I view this distinction between the relevant / irrelevant and marginal? Thanks again this video is awesome 😊
It depends on which aspects of it you like. If the topic in this video appeals to you, then you might be interested in anything from pure mathematics to the more practical (but still complex) topic of engineering. In my opinion, physics strikes a balance between those two extremes (my degree is in engineering, but I've always loved mathematics, so I tend to get drawn to pure physics)
That said, your decision is in no way final. You may major in one thing, and ultimately get a degree in that. But that doesn't have to be your final destination.
"a fairly good description of the properties of water". Water modells can not model all properties of water at all densities and temperatures correctly, and a sane person should from this conclude that our model of water, and matter as such has been falsified as wrong. Now to avoid this conclusion the fancy term "emergence" has been invented.😢
No. It doesn't matter how much you stack in front of it or what you relate it to. It is not mathematically legitimate. Physics as a field has slowed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down and seems like we could **guess** because that's fun that this concept is in the way.
