- #1

- 51

- 1

I have a project on the topic: " Explaining Why gravity is a non renormalizable theory?". I have downloaded many papers but i need your advice about which paper you think would most benefit me.

Thank you

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- #1

- 51

- 1

I have a project on the topic: " Explaining Why gravity is a non renormalizable theory?". I have downloaded many papers but i need your advice about which paper you think would most benefit me.

Thank you

- #2

Science Advisor

- 1,964

- 232

One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation. G. 't HOOFT (*) and M. VELTMAN

and

The ultraviolet behavior of Einstein gravity. Goroff and Sagnotti

The heuristic proof of the power counting argument for the nonrenormalizability of the Einstein Hilbert action can be found in many textbooks. For instance Zee, quantum field theory in a nutshell.

- #3

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

In order not to raise false beliefs, you should also explain in your project why, in spite of its nonrenormalizability, canonical quantum gravity is perfectly valid as an effective field theory:

C.P. Burgess, Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory, Living Reviews in Relativity 7 (2004), 5

- #4

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

canonical quantum gravity is perfectly valid as an effective field theory:

Effective to what energy scales?

Also, does that effective means without other forces? Or just gravity? What is the importance of this:

"this constitutes hard evidence that the asymptotic safety program indeed can give rise to a consistent quantum theory of gravity within the framework of quantum field theory along the lines envisioned by Weinberg"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.01800v1.pdf

How does this new work relate to the doubts posed by Distler?

- #5

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

Such that the leading effects become noticeable. below that, quantum gravity is not needed; sufficiently above that, one would have to fit a few further constants to the experiments, the number of constants needed slowly increases with the energy.Effective to what energy scales?

In the paper just gravity. But nothing fundamental is in the way of treating in the same way gravity plus standard model, except that one probably cannot do the computations anymore.

Asymptotic safety is a possible way to raise canonical gravity from an effective field theory to a fundamental one. On first sight, the paper looks very promising.

I don't know the doubts posed by Distler. Note that I am not an expert in quantum gravity, though I know enough QFT to understand the paper I cited.

Last edited:

- #6

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

- #7

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

Ah, I had written it so long ago that I didn't remember all the details. Here is Distler's criticism:you posted the links in your website to his criticism, so I thought you could help me understand.

''The trouble is that all hell breaks loose for ε∼1. Then all of these infinite number of coupling become equally important, and we lose control, both computationally and conceptually.''

He writes ##\varepsilon## for the square of ##E/M_p##, where ##E## is the energy and ##M_p## is the Planck mass. Yes, I agree with his criticism, but none of us will live till the time when this regime can be experimentally probed. Thus I am happy to leave the resolution of this difficulty to the future.

But there are others who are more impatient than I am. Since the trouble would be cured by giving a nonperturbative definition of gravity, asymptotic safety will do it, if it can be demonstrated nonperturbatively. The paper you cited shows that asymptotic safety is, or seems to be [I haven't checked the details] present on the perturbative level. Thus the prospects are good that it is also valid nonperturbatively.

Last edited:

- #8

Science Advisor

- 14,794

- 3,342

But there are others who are more impatient than I am. Since the trouble would be cured by giving a nonperturbative definition of gravity, asymptotic safety will do it, if it can be demonstrated nonperturbatively. The paper you cited shows that asymptotic safety is, or seems to be [I haven't checked the details] present on the perturbative level. Thus the prospects are good that it is also valid nonperturbatively.

Perturbatively the prospects have been good for a long time, eg. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2909 - but how can one go from perturbative to non-perturbative - I think that's where asymptotic safety is stuck.

- #9

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

Just like any other approach. This doesn't count against it.non-perturbative - I think that's where asymptotic safety is stuck.

Nonperturbatively, even standard QED or QCD are stuck.

- #10

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

Nonperturbatively, even standard QED or QCD are stuck.

But aren't those proved in principle, by counting the divergence of the terms?

- #11

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

This only proves the existence of the renormalized perturbative series.counting the divergence of the terms?

But this doesn't define the theory since it gives only an asymptotic series for the physical quantities, which is not good enough since infinitely many functions have the same asymptotic series.

That's why people talk about nonperturbative construction. One can treat quantum field theories on the lattice, which counts as nonperturbative, but the lattice approach has other difficulties. In particular, it breaks all continuous symmetries. To recover these, one has to take a continuum limit, and there all problems resurface.

No interactive relativistic QFT in 1+3 dimensions is under full nonperturbative control - which would mean: has a sound mathematical basis. One can do it either with full control of all limits in lower dimension, or with uncontrolled approximations in 4D. To construct an interactive QFT in 4 dimensions in a fully sound way is one of the big unsolved problems. The simplest case to be constructed first is considered by many to be Yang-Mills theory (i.e., QCD without quarks, glueballs only). But even this is already deemed very hard - it is one of the 7 Clay Millennium problems.

Last edited:

- #12

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

- #13

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

Yes. This is called resumming the series. There are various ways of doing it. The most standard one is the use of the Schwinger-Dyson equation to get useful approximations to the renormalized propagators. The resulting propagators have poles at (approximations to) the physical masses, while the perturbation series itself doesn't show them. It is useful and necessary in practice.has anyone tried to arrange diagrames in predictable, infinite patters

But it is all black art without any real support in the math. It is known rigorously that for any arbitrary asymptotic series there exist infinitely many different functions that have this series as their Taylor expansion. Hence no amount of rearranging the series can supply the missing information needed to identify the right nonperturbative function.

There is another important resummation technique called Borel summation. This has a mathematical rigorous setting, and reconstructs under certain assumptions on the growth of the coefficients a unique function with the given asymptotic series. Thehe applicability of the math depends on assumptions on the analytic behavior of the limit function, which sometimes can be proved to work in lower dimension. But they haven't been verified in 4D QFT, and there are obstructions (renormalons) that are believed to invalidate this approach to 4D QFT.

Last edited:

- #14

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

But it seems some black art yields more confidence than others. So, how to increase the confidence?

- #15

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

If the results agree well with experiments, the black art is considered fully justified. This even justifies (with a little less force) the same black art applied to similar problems. (The amount of similarity is in the eyes of the beholder). With even less force, black art is considered justified if you can convince the referees of your research paper that what you do is plausible.how to increase the confidence?

Because of this, theoretical physics is quite different from mathematics. This is why much of physics can be non-rigorous without undue harm.

- #16

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

I would like a more technical answer...

- #17

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

I don't think there is any. As I indicated, it is a social process by which theoretical physics is justified. Much of it leads to predictions that are in good agreement with experiment. Everything that uses the thus established techniques is considered good scientific practice. Even if it is not (or not yet) backed up by experiment - as long as there are no contradictory experimental findings.I would like a more technical answer...

- #18

Gold Member

- 2,028

- 26

What do you think of this?

- #19

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

In order not to raise false beliefs, you should also explain in your project why, in spite of its nonrenormalizability, canonical quantum gravity is perfectly valid as an effective field theory:

C.P. Burgess, Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory, Living Reviews in Relativity 7 (2004), 5

I just found the following recent survey of canonical quantum gravity and its confrontation with exciting experimental data:

R.P. Woodard, Perturbative Quantum Gravity Comes of Age, Int. J. Modern Physics D 23 (2014), 1430020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4748.

Woodard writes in the introduction:

All of the problems that had to be solved for flat space scattering theory in the mid 20th century are being re-examined, in particular, defining observables which are infrared finite, renormalizable (at least in the sense of low energy effective field theory) and in rough agreement with the way things are measured. [...] The transformation was forced upon us by the overwhelming data in support of inflationary cosmology.

- #20

- 259

- 45

This only proves the existence of the renormalized perturbative series.

But this doesn't define the theory since it gives only an asymptotic series for the physical quantities, which is not good enough since infinitely many functions have the same asymptotic series.

That's why people talk about nonperturbative construction. One can treat quantum field theories on the lattice, which counts as nonperturbative, but the lattice approach has other difficulties. In particular, it breaks all continuous symmetries. To recover these, one has to take a continuum limit, and there all problems resurface.

No interactive relativistic QFT in 1+3 dimensions is under full nonperturbative control - which would mean: has a sound mathematical basis. One can do it either with full control of all limits in lower dimension, or with uncontrolled approximations in 4D. To construct an interactive QFT in 4 dimensions in a fully sound way is one of the big unsolved problems. The simplest case to be constructed first is considered by many to be Yang-Mills theory (i.e., QCD without quarks, glueballs only). But even this is already deemed very hard - it is one of the 7 Clay Millennium problems.

This makes me wonder just how fundamental and valid QFT as a framework really is, in general terms. I have only just begun studying QFT in recent weeks, so I'm still largely ignorant of the finer points and issues, but even in the most simplistic of textbook cases ( e.g. quantisation of Klein-Gordon fields ) there already seem to be fundamental issues and quite a bit of handwaving going on ("let's just subtract that infinity to fix that other infinity..."). I do not for a minute doubt or dispute the successes of the Standard Model in describing real-world physics, but the foundation this all stands on appears to me to be shaky and ad-hoc at best. Something just does not feel right about QFT to me; I can't put my finger on it, it's just a matter of intuition. I will keep learning, but there remains an itch that feels as if it badly needs to be scratched Am I the only one who feels that way ?

- #21

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 30,259

- 16,054

So, in just a few weeks of study you have concluded that everyone else is doing it wrong?

- #22

Science Advisor

- 8,378

- 4,317

The mathematical foundations of interacting relativistic quantum field theory in 4 dimensions are nonexistent but there is lots of evidence that there is a consistent foundation independent of all the handwaving: All approximate, ad hoc, and/or handwaving ways of doing things lead with proper care to exactly the same results where they are comparable, and no inconsistency has ever been found. (Quantum gravity being not renormalizable is not a counterexample.) That the foundations are one of the Clay Millennium Problems is indication that something very important is missing and worth the prize. Until someone solved it, we must be content with the established mess, no matter how badly one feels about it. You are definitely not an exception in this respect. I still have this feeling after nearly 30 years of studying quantum field theory.the foundation this all stands on appears to me to be shaky and ad-hoc at best. Something just does not feel right about QFT to me; I can't put my finger on it, it's just a matter of intuition. I will keep learning, but there remains an itch that feels as if it badly needs to be scratched Am I the only one who feels that way ?

Last edited:

- #23

Gold Member

- 2,814

- 605

- #24

- 259

- 45

So, in just a few weeks of study you have concluded that everyone else is doing it wrong?

Absolutely not, and to be honest I am quite surprised that this is how you interpreted my post. QFT is manifestly a very successful theory, there can be no doubt or argument over that. It is just that there are elements to it that feel ad-hoc and "messy" to me; it's a matter of intuition, I can't help it. And judging by A. Neumeier's comment as well as the link that ShayanJ has provided, it seems I am not the only person feeling that way.

Perhaps things will become clearer and more logical to me as I progress onwards and keep learning - time will tell.

- #25

- 259

- 45

I could not have put it more succinctly.

- #26

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

2022 Award

- 6,628

- 2,263

This makes me wonder just how fundamental and valid QFT as a framework really is, in general terms. I have only just begun studying QFT in recent weeks, so I'm still largely ignorant of the finer points and issues, but even in the most simplistic of textbook cases ( e.g. quantisation of Klein-Gordon fields ) there already seem to be fundamental issues and quite a bit of handwaving going on ("let's just subtract that infinity to fix that other infinity..."). I do not for a minute doubt or dispute the successes of the Standard Model in describing real-world physics, but the foundation this all stands on appears to me to be shaky and ad-hoc at best. Something just does not feel right about QFT to me; I can't put my finger on it, it's just a matter of intuition. I will keep learning, but there remains an itch that feels as if it badly needs to be scratched Am I the only one who feels that way ?

you have infinities in classical physics aswell. What is the potential energy for a system of two electrons positioned at the same point in space?

- #27

- 203

- 11

- #28

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

2022 Award

- 6,628

- 2,263

why is it an example beyond any scope of physics?

If quantum mechanics is correct, then there is a nonzero probability that two electrons can occupy the same position in space.

In order to solve this - you introduce an electron-radius, two electrons can not occupy the same point in space due to their spatial separation.

In quantum field theory, you solve this problem differently. There you postulate that only the energy-difference is observable - you can not observe the "bare" energy. By considering energy differences only, the infinities are removed (renormalized)

- #29

- 2,075

- 391

In quantum field theory, you solve this problem differently. There you postulate that only the energy-difference is observable - you can not observe the "bare" energy.

Not true in GR.

- #30

- 415

- 13

What becomes more and more clear is that GR is an effective, emergent theory that should not be quantized as such. It does not make sense to stare at the GR lagrangian und agonise about how to quantize it and make sense of loops, etc. It should be the other way around: nature is intrinsic quantum, and sometimes, in some limits, there is a reasonably good classical approximation to it. It seems that eg in black holes, macroscopic (non-local) quantum effects play a crucial role, holography as well, and there is no obvious way to get to there from starting with the Einstein lagrangian, modifying it, guessing fixed points, discretizing it, etc.

Share:

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 849

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 901

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K