I'm aware that we have a "regularization" tag, but I don't think this is the same as dimensional regularization. I've only just started learning about these concepts, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe regularization is the idea of finding divergencies in integrals. Dimensional regularization is a certain method to regularize integrals almost always corresponding to Feynman diagrams.

I believe the distinction between the two is large enough that it justifies the "dimensional regularization" tag. Especially, because "dimensional regularization" plays such an important role in quantum field theory. What do you think?

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that would be a good tag. There are tons if different tags describing non-physics terms mostly used for popular and very basic questions. So creating some more tags appropriate for and used in technical questions about advanced topics too is a good idea to support higher-level questions. BTW you can just create it by typing it into the corresponding text field for tags. And there is no need to discuss the creation of such a tag on meta, the site does not maintain a sophisticated professional strict tagging scheme anyway (unfortunately) ... $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Mar 1, 2014 at 16:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton yeah, I created the tag and used it for this question, but Qmechanic edited the tag to "regularization" with the comment "please do not introduce new tags unless necessary". Therefore, I thought I would bring this up. $\endgroup$
    – Hunter
    Mar 1, 2014 at 16:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, if the community wants a dimensional reg tag, I guess it is fine. I'm just trying to avoid the analogue of the Kessler syndrome for tags. Next in line are zeta function reg, Pauli-Villars reg, point-splitting reg, lattice reg, etc... Also note that it currently is possible to relatively easy search for dimensional reg even without a dimensional reg tag. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic Mod
    Mar 1, 2014 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic thanks for your reply. I understand what you mean and this is something we need to keep in mind. However, in this particular case, I would like to see this tag introduced due to the reasons I list in my original message. But I guess we will have to wait to see what the community thinks? $\endgroup$
    – Hunter
    Mar 1, 2014 at 16:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Hunter you dont need to worry too much, there are many users who create new tags just by typing them by accident, use everyday terms because they dont even know the correct subfield / physics tags for what they are asking bout, etc ... So there should really be nothing wrong with increasing the number of appropriate tags for higher-level questions about advanced topics either. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Mar 1, 2014 at 16:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton ok, thanks, I guess I will re-edit my question again. $\endgroup$
    – Hunter
    Mar 1, 2014 at 17:14


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .