An expression for the mass ?

In summary, the mass of a particle in a non-renormalizable theory is determined by an infinite series of divergences, which can be recursively expressed in terms of a finite constant c and a starting value a0. For truncated series, the mass is finite due to a finite constant k and the fact that c, b, and k are all finite.
  • #1
eljose
492
0
An expression for the "mass"?..

Let,s suppose we have a NOn-renormalizable theory, and that we wish to calculate the mass of a particle for that theory with lagrangian L, the "mass" will have an expression in terms of an infinite series:

[tex] m \sim a(0)+ga(1)+g^{2}a(2)+g^{3}a(3)+... [/tex]


where every a(n) diverges in the form [tex] a(n)=\Lambda ^{n+1} [/tex] [tex] \Lambda \rightarrow \infty [/tex] (regulator)

then my question is let,s suppose we truncate the series for a number N :

[tex] m \sim a(0)+ga(1)+g^{2}a(2)+g^{3}a(3)+...g^{N}a(N) [/tex]

where g is a finite constant and N say N=139 (for example), of course in that case we have 139 types of divergences, but let,s suppose we could express every divergence recursively in the form:

.a(n)= c(n)+a(n-1)+a(n-2)+....+a(0) where c(n) are finite constants and a(0) is the value of the regulator, being this formula valid for every n=1,2,3,4,...139 so we could calculate our value for the mass in the form:

[tex] m \sim C(0)a(0)+gc(1)b(1)+g^{2}b(2)c(2)+g^{3}b(3)c(3)+... [/tex]

so we have only the divergence a(0) left, then we apply the renormalization process to 2absorb2 this a(0)-->k (finite value) so our finite value for the mass would be:

[tex] m \sim C(0)k+gc(1)b(1)+g^{2}b(2)c(2)+g^{3}b(3)c(3)+...g^{N}c(N)b(N) [/tex] finite due to the fact that c(n),b(n) and k are finite constants.

The question is if we could express always the ultraviolet divergences by a recursion formula...could we calculate any physical parameter truncating the series..even for Non-renormalizable theories?..thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmm; your statement,

[tex]a(n)=c(n)+a(n-1)+a(n-2)+\ldots+a(0)[/tex]​

doesn't sound quite right. Let us consider the case [itex]n=1[/itex] for your formula:

[tex]a(1)=c(1)+a(0).[/tex]​

You stated earlier that [itex]a(n)[/itex] diverges like [itex]\Lambda^{n+1}[/itex]. So, referring to the previous equation, since [itex]a(0)[/itex] diverges linearly and since you've fixed [itex]c(1)[/itex] to be a finite number, how could [itex]a(1)[/itex] possibly diverge quadratically?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
eljose said:
Let,s suppose we have a NOn-renormalizable theory, and that we wish to calculate the mass of a particle for that theory with lagrangian L, the "mass" will have an expression in terms of an infinite series:

[tex] m \sim a(0)+ga(1)+g^{2}a(2)+g^{3}a(3)+... [/tex]


where every a(n) diverges in the form [tex] a(n)=\Lambda ^{n+1} [/tex] [tex] \Lambda \rightarrow \infty [/tex] (regulator)

then my question is let,s suppose we truncate the series for a number N :

[tex] m \sim a(0)+ga(1)+g^{2}a(2)+g^{3}a(3)+...g^{N}a(N) [/tex]

where g is a finite constant and N say N=139 (for example), of course in that case we have 139 types of divergences, but let,s suppose we could express every divergence recursively in the form:

.a(n)= c(n)+a(n-1)+a(n-2)+....+a(0) where c(n) are finite constants and a(0) is the value of the regulator, being this formula valid for every n=1,2,3,4,...139 so we could calculate our value for the mass in the form:

[tex] m \sim C(0)a(0)+gc(1)b(1)+g^{2}b(2)c(2)+g^{3}b(3)c(3)+... [/tex]

so we have only the divergence a(0) left, then we apply the renormalization process to 2absorb2 this a(0)-->k (finite value) so our finite value for the mass would be:

[tex] m \sim C(0)k+gc(1)b(1)+g^{2}b(2)c(2)+g^{3}b(3)c(3)+...g^{N}c(N)b(N) [/tex] finite due to the fact that c(n),b(n) and k are finite constants.

The question is if we could express always the ultraviolet divergences by a recursion formula...could we calculate any physical parameter truncating the series..even for Non-renormalizable theories?..thanks.
You can find the answer to your question in http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0209025. It is the paper where to consider the case of non-Newtonians Physics where Lagrangian is depend of coordinates and momentums (velocity) only.
 
  • #4
although it can be very 2fuzzy2 mi intention was to express every UV divergence recursively..so if we knew how to give a "finite" meaning to

[tex] \int_{0}^{\infty}dp [/tex]


we could give a 2finite2 meaning to every integral of the form:


[tex] \int_{0}^{\infty}dpp^{m} [/tex] m>0

via a recursion formula..of course this would imply that we should "truncate" the series for a finite m in case there are infinitely many m.

Another question, i have not been able to do that but...what would happen if we could obtain a finite value for the difference:

[tex] \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n^{m}-\int_{0}^{\infty}dxx^{m} [/tex] m>0

Is always the difference above a finite quantity (let,s say C(m) where the constant C depends only on m a similar case is Euler Constant:

[tex] \sum_{N=1}^{K}n^{-1}-ln(K)=\gamma [/tex] K-->oo
 

1. What is the formula for calculating mass?

The formula for calculating mass is mass = density x volume, or m = ρV.

2. How is mass different from weight?

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on an object. Mass is constant, while weight can vary depending on the strength of gravity.

3. What is the unit of measurement for mass?

The unit of measurement for mass is kilograms (kg) in the SI system. In the imperial system, it is measured in pounds (lbs).

4. Can mass be negative?

No, mass cannot be negative. It is always a positive value, as it represents the amount of matter in an object.

5. How is mass measured in a laboratory setting?

Mass is typically measured using a balance or scale, which compares the unknown mass to a known mass. In the SI system, the mass is measured in kilograms, while in the imperial system, it is measured in pounds.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
462
Replies
27
Views
900
Replies
2
Views
947
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
993
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
853
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
783
Replies
2
Views
689
Back
Top