In physics, mathematics and statistics, scale invariance is a feature of objects or laws that do not change if scales of length, energy, or other variables, are multiplied by a common factor, and thus represent a universality.
The technical term for this transformation is a dilatation (also known as dilation), and the dilatations can also form part of a larger conformal symmetry.
In mathematics, scale invariance usually refers to an invariance of individual functions or curves. A closely related concept is self-similarity, where a function or curve is invariant under a discrete subset of the dilations. It is also possible for the probability distributions of random processes to display this kind of scale invariance or self-similarity.
In classical field theory, scale invariance most commonly applies to the invariance of a whole theory under dilatations. Such theories typically describe classical physical processes with no characteristic length scale.
In quantum field theory, scale invariance has an interpretation in terms of particle physics. In a scale-invariant theory, the strength of particle interactions does not depend on the energy of the particles involved.
In statistical mechanics, scale invariance is a feature of phase transitions. The key observation is that near a phase transition or critical point, fluctuations occur at all length scales, and thus one should look for an explicitly scale-invariant theory to describe the phenomena. Such theories are scale-invariant statistical field theories, and are formally very similar to scale-invariant quantum field theories.
Universality is the observation that widely different microscopic systems can display the same behaviour at a phase transition. Thus phase transitions in many different systems may be described by the same underlying scale-invariant theory.
In general, dimensionless quantities are scale invariant. The analogous concept in statistics are standardized moments, which are scale invariant statistics of a variable, while the unstandardized moments are not.
Derivation of Poincare Invariance from general quantum field theory
C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen
Annalen der Physik, Volume 14, Issue 1-3 , Pages 115 - 147 (2005)
Special Issue commemorating Albert Einstein
Starting from a very general quantum field theory we seek to derive Poincare...
The "hole argument" and diffeomorphism invariance
First, let me give a summary of my understanding of the "hole argument": Consider a space-time completely filled with matter with exception of a finite space-time volume that contains no matter (a hole). The hole is located between two spatial...
Gents,
Is it possible to have the not singular chiral current (singularity is due to the product of fermionic operators) and at the same time the translational invariance. Normaly to get rid of singularity in chiral current one is useing the point splitting regularisation (little shift of...
Recently a question asked by sparsh stimulated my gray matter regarding the invariance of lengths in galilean relativistic classical mechanics. First I state the question.
A man X is sitting at the rear end of a long compartment of a train running at constant horizontal velocity with respect...
Hi, I'm hoping someone can give a little guidance, my taks is to prove that the Lagrangian equations are invariant under a change of coordinates.
So what I've done is said if we have a set of coordinates say
\left{ q_{i} \right\} , i = 1, \ldots ,N
where I'll assume this first set is...
Hi,
I was wondering if there was a way to prove the invariance of the space-time interval just from postulating a constant speed of light and an isotropic space-time. Most arguments go "from the Lorentz transformations it can be seen that the interval is invariant." Can we show the...
Right or wrong? Specifically, an equation is said to be Galilean invariant if a substitution
x \rightarrow x \pm v_x t
y \rightarrow y \pm v_y t
z \rightarrow z \pm v_z t
t \rightarrow t
doesn't change the equation.
If right, would simply showing that
x \rightarrow x \pm vt
y...
Is someone able to proove the invariance under Galilean transformations of F=dp/dt within a system of variable mass? In particular is the momentum invariant? i.e. p=p', as Goldstein states? Please answer me! :wink:
Just need a couple of things confirmed for me guys.
Firstly, lines of invariance are always real eigenvectors right?
Secondly, how is this line of invariance related to rotational matrices? My line of invariance happens to be the same axis. Finally, how is the angle of the rotation...
Maybe this is really easy, but...
Can someone show me how the sign reversal between the space and time components of Minkowski spacetime make its intervals Lorentz invariant (mathematical derivation) ? Thanks... :wink:
Hi, I know I'm probably going to get shot down in flames. I'm a total amateur to all of this. But I do try to read things and I do try to understand them - so I hope you guys will at least be patient with me.
But in any case I have been reading around about Noether's theorem and about the...
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507020
Title: Charge Conjugation Invariance of the Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem
Authors: J. W. Moffat
Comments: 14 pages, Latex file, No figures
We propose a method of field quantization which uses an indefinite metric in a Hilbert space of...
For a positive natural number n, we use
|n|= \log_{2}n
as the measure of the size of n (which is the number of bits in n's binary representation). however, in most cases the size of n can be written as log n without giving an explicit base (the omitting case is the natural base e). Show...
Clauset and Young, in their new paper http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0502/0502014.pdf , apply standard modern statistics to a database of terrorist strikes ordered by the number of people killed or injured. They find that extreme cases, such as 9/11, are not outliers, but find their...
In non-relativistic QM when one transforms to a different frame the wavefunction is also transformed:
(1) \psi ' = \psi e^{-\frac{imvx}{\hbar}-\frac{imv^{2}t}{2\hbar}}
This looks a hell of a lot like:
(2) \psi ' = \psi e^{-i\frac{<p>x+<E>t}{\hbar}
where <p> and <E> are obviously...
Hi All,
I'm new to this forum. I'm a third-year undergrad Physics Major in Australia, about to go on to Honours, very exciting project in Helium atom detection.
To the point. My 3rd year Special Rel project is an investigation of the development of relativistic QM (RQM). I have to...
This principle is needed for a theory on the quantization of spacetime at the infinitesimal region.
The properties of this principle are:
1. Top-right-front 2. Top-left-front 3. Top-right-back 4. Top-left-back
5. Down-right-front 6. Down-left-front 7. Down-right-back 8. Down-left-back...
The following is a thought experiment devised by David Chalmers which suggests that the physical constitution of a conscious system doesn't have any bearing on that system's state of consciousness. Rather, Chalmers argues that the only relevant properties of a system in determining its state of...
The more I read about group theory and SU(3), the stronger is my suspicion that they are very similar to the principle of directional invariance, which is based on the ideas of describing a dynamic one-dimensional cube and its eight properties.
Maybe I am wrong and too engross in my own ideas...
In trying to get my head round GR and quantum gravity, I'm puzzled about the following questions:
Is the gauge group for gravity defined as the group of all possible Weyl tensors on a general 4D Riemann manifold? How is this group defined in matrix algebra? Is it a subgroup of GL(4). How do...
I am asked to prove that the d'Alembertian operator (the 4 dimensional Laplacian operator) |_|^2 is a lorentz invariant operator. Do I just multiply the Lorentz transformation matrix by the second partial derivatives with respect to four space?
If I were to attempt to prove that the dot product of an electric and magnetic field is invariant under the conditions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, how would I do this? Would the proof be very involved and complicated? Or should I just use hypothetical magnetic and electric fields...
If I were to attempt to prove that the dot product of an electric and magnetic field is invariant under the conditions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, how would I do this? Would the proof be very involved and complicated? Or should I just use hypothetical magnetic and electric fields...
maybe someone else can clarify;
these recent papers suggest a surprising turnaround in the quantization of General Relativity, contrary to some earlier papers by other people, they predict no quantum gravity dispersion in longrange transmission of light:
On low energy quantum gravity induced...