Register to reply

Mendel Sachs' unification.

by MathematicalPhysicist
Tags: mendel, sachs, unification
Share this thread:
A. Neumaier
#19
Feb27-11, 11:22 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,941
Quote Quote by mendels View Post
"whether it is really there" (the Landau pole) is the type of assertion that led Dirac to call QED an "ugly" theory, along with his belief that it is at the outset an inconsistent theory, leading him to seek an alternative!
Can you substantiate that? As I understood him, Dirac always referred to the infinities in the renormalization procedure as the defect of QFT, not the speculative Landau pole.
petergreat
#20
Feb27-11, 12:04 PM
P: 270
QED has an ultraviolet completion in terms of GUTs which are asymptotically free and therefore consistent, so the existence or not of the Landau pole, lying far beyond GUT energy, won't concern us.
revnaknuma
#21
Feb27-11, 12:10 PM
P: 32
I agree Suchs is a crackpot.
mendels
#22
Feb27-11, 01:00 PM
P: 10
Yes, you are right about Dirac's assertion, that the infinities in the renormalization procedure is the defect of QFT, that he saw as "ugly". All that I said previously was that the reference to the trouble with the Landau pole, is *a type of assertion* that he could not accept in a complete theory. But I am not aware of his actual reference to this particular trouble.
mendels
#23
Feb27-11, 01:07 PM
P: 10
There we go again! Referring to someone as a "crackpot" when there is no agreement or understanding of a technical argument.
negru
#24
Feb27-11, 03:02 PM
P: 308
People still refer to renormalization as some sort of undesirable artifact? I guess it depends on what qft textbook you use...if you still think of it as "sweeping infinities under a rug", perhaps you should take a condensed matter class to explain to you the procedure more clearly?

Also it's highly irrelevant what Dirac thinks about these topics. I don't like bringing up the Einstein story, but you know how it went in his later years..
I also believe it was Feynman who complained about the Landau pole.
atyy
#25
Feb27-11, 04:24 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,376
Quote Quote by A. Neumaier View Post
Can you substantiate that? As I understood him, Dirac always referred to the infinities in the renormalization procedure as the defect of QFT, not the speculative Landau pole.
Quote Quote by negru View Post
People still refer to renormalization as some sort of undesirable artifact? I guess it depends on what qft textbook you use...if you still think of it as "sweeping infinities under a rug", perhaps you should take a condensed matter class to explain to you the procedure more clearly?

Also it's highly irrelevant what Dirac thinks about these topics. I don't like bringing up the Einstein story, but you know how it went in his later years..
I also believe it was Feynman who complained about the Landau pole.
Well, Landau's pole may not be exactly the reason why we think QED is not consistent, but it's similar in spirit. The reason QED is inconsistent is that the fixed point of the renormalization flow is an IR fixed point, not a UV fixed point. This is what is meant nowadays by the "Landau pole", which is perhaps sloppy terminology, but isn't different in spirit. Eg. "This is known as a Landau pole (this terminology is properly associated with QED which, as we shall see, suffers the same fate). ... So the conclusion is, in the absence of a non-trivial fixed point, scalar QFT is not really a renormalizable theory in d = 4. This conclusion applies more or less to the scalar Higgs sector of the standard model, and so in this sense the standard model is not truly a renormalizable theory and so, in a sense, predicts its own demise." http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0859

Edit: Unless you are suggesting that QED is asymptotically safe?
mendels
#26
Feb28-11, 08:07 AM
P: 10
I respect your belief in the integrity of qft. But you must admit that there are varying opinions and that consensus of opinion is not a criterion for scientific truth. That Dirac called for an alternate for qft and Einstein sought a unified field theory, while rejecting the basis of the quantum theory, were not anti-scientific attitudes! Indeed, it was the rejection of their ideas by the physics community that was anti-scientific.

I have proposed and developed to an extent an alternative theory to qft, based on fully exploiting general relativity theory. It is published in books and papers since the 1960s. This research is my main focus, it is not the criticizing of qft (and its extension to the 'standard model').

On the Dirac and Einstein stories, their opinions for the future of physics, in their later years, were rejected by the physics community. But they were both relying on their scientific experience and intuition, not on consensus of opinion.
A. Neumaier
#27
Feb28-11, 08:26 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,941
Quote Quote by atyy View Post
Well, Landau's pole may not be exactly the reason why we think QED is not consistent, but it's similar in spirit. The reason QED is inconsistent is that the fixed point of the renormalization flow is an IR fixed point, not a UV fixed point.
An IR fixed point is not a proof of nonexistence, only a heuristic indicator (like the landau pole).

Quote Quote by atyy View Post
Unless you are suggesting that QED is asymptotically safe.
That is another possibility - see http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1928
trango
#28
Apr30-12, 09:17 PM
P: 1
A theory to be valid must pass 3 tests:

1. Does the theory agree with accepted experimental results?
2. does the theory have "infinities" that do not exist?
3. Does the theory predict novel results that are capable of being tested or possibly refuted?

I make no judgement as to the validity of Mr. Mendel Sachs' theory. It does not matter if the theory appears to be crazy if it satisfies the 3 conditions. If Mr. Sachs' theory cannot be tested, then it is of little use.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect Cosmology 4
Gregor Mendel Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 4
Unification makes me wonder what things we would actually understand Quantum Physics 7
Sachs-Wolfe effect and dark energy Cosmology 2