A Is It Known For Sure Infinites In QFT Are Caused Using a Continuum?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date Start date
Messages
10,941
Reaction score
3,816
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians.

The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT:

'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of
physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and
at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the
case of Quantum Field Theory, it creates multiple problems, and in particular the infamous
infinities (in the form of diverging integrals).'

I think that, based on what I have read, it is a likely cause, but has it been proven?

It is not an issue in EFT because a cutoff is used to get finite answers. Could a cutoff be looked at as approximating a lattice model?

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two kinds on infinities in QFT, UV infinities and IR infinities. UV infinities are due to using a continuum (in both space and time), while IR infinities are due to using infinite extension (in both space and time). And yes, it is known for sure that this is the case.
 
I've always been under the impression that the Nielson-Ninomiya theorem precludes the possibility of spacetime having a fundamental lattice-type structure, and that the infinities that appear in QFT a result of using the unphysical bare coupling constants🤔
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...
Back
Top