Can Recursive Formulas Help Solve Divergences in Perturbation Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lokofer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Idea
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of recursive formulas to address divergences encountered in perturbation theory, particularly focusing on integrals of the form I(m) = ∫₀^∞ dp pⁿ for various values of n. Participants explore whether expressing these divergences in a recursive manner could be beneficial and discuss related mathematical formalism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that expressing divergences in a recursive form, such as I(m) = aI(m-1) + bI(m-2) + ... + zI(0), could be a useful approach, although they are uncertain about its validity.
  • Another participant points out that the integral presented does not exist and is infinite, indicating a need for clarification on the original question.
  • A participant mentions that the proposed mathematical formalism is unfamiliar to them.
  • One reply proposes a specific regularization technique involving substituting I(n) = ∫₀^∞ dp pⁿ e^{-εp} for n > 0 and addressing the limit as ε approaches zero for n < 0, but acknowledges this as a naive approach.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of Careful's integral, stating it becomes infinite as ε approaches zero.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the topic but asserts that summing an infinite series of non-zero fractional entities does not necessarily lead to infinity.
  • There is a reiteration that divergent expressions are common in physics, and regularization techniques can be applied by introducing a cutoff.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proposed recursive approach and the nature of the integrals involved. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of the recursive formulation or the regularization methods discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the mathematical formalism and the implications of divergence in integrals, as well as the dependence on specific regularization techniques that remain unresolved.

lokofer
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Hello..compared to most people of this forum I'm just a "newbie"...:redface: but once i read (or i think) that to deal with perturbation theory it would be a good idea if the divergences of the type:

[tex]I(m)= \int_{0}^{\infty}dpp^{n}[/tex] n>1,n=0 or n<0 could be expressed in a "recursive" form for example if we could write:

[tex]I(m)=aI(m-1) +bI(m-2) +...+zI(0)[/tex]

where a,b,c,d,e,...,z are "finite" and real numbers..is that true?..i think in other forums heard a similar idea but i don't know if it worth working on it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The integral that you presented doesn't exist, i.e. it is infinite. You will have to clarify your question.
 
It's a mathematical formalism I'm not familiar with.
 
lokofer said:
Hello..compared to most people of this forum I'm just a "newbie"...:redface: but once i read (or i think) that to deal with perturbation theory it would be a good idea if the divergences of the type:

[tex]I(m)= \int_{0}^{\infty}dpp^{n}[/tex] n>1,n=0 or n<0 could be expressed in a "recursive" form for example if we could write:

[tex]I(m)=aI(m-1) +bI(m-2) +...+zI(0)[/tex]

where a,b,c,d,e,...,z are "finite" and real numbers..is that true?..i think in other forums heard a similar idea but i don't know if it worth working on it.
Hi, what you propose seems meaningful since the divergences on the right hand side are less harmful than the ones on the left hand side. To make it accurate, I guess you might want to substitute for :
[tex]I(n)= \int_{0}^{\infty}dpp^{n} e^{- \epsilon p}[/tex] for n > 0, for n < 0 you have to remove the pole at p=0 and take the limit for epsilon to zero at the end of your calculation.
Anyway, this is just one particular naive regularization procedure.

Cheers,

Careful
 
Last edited:
Careful's integral is simply n!(eps)-n-1, which becomes infinite as eps ->0.
 
This stuff hurts my head, but, I am fairly confident that summing up an infinite series of non-zero fractional entities does not necessarily result in infinity.
 
mathman said:
Careful's integral is simply n!(eps)-n-1, which becomes infinite as eps ->0.
Sure, I typed that in, but the latex didn't get through. In physics such divergent expressions occur all the time, and we can regularize them in such ways by putting in a cutoff of some kind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K