Does this analogy make renormalization comprehensible
I have a scenario where a scientist is studying a grain of sand with the intention of counting every grain in a quadrant to then apply to the whole area of the sand terrain to get a rough estimate on how many grains of sand there are on this planet he's done this before however faces a problem on this planet essential the sand has a property everytime it is counted it then randomly multiplies so if he were to count it his efforts would be rendered counter intuitive because he's creating more sand the solution to this is to weight a pile then apply his previous knowledge of the weight of sand then use that to measure showing that renormalization is a means that make undefinable concepts such as forever multiplying sand quatifiable
Questions:
Does this seem accurate
Is this a good analogy
Can it be improved
Is it enjoyable
.