Scale in mathematics vs in quantum physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of scale in quantum field theories (QFTs) compared to geometry, particularly focusing on the compatibility of scale dependence in QFTs with scale-invariant mathematical spaces such as R4 and M4. Participants explore theoretical implications, mathematical definitions, and the nature of scale invariance and dependence in both contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that QFTs are inherently scale-dependent, while classical field theories may exhibit scale invariance.
  • Others argue that realistic QFTs are not scale invariant due to the breaking of scale invariance upon quantization.
  • A few participants discuss the role of mass terms in the action and their implications for scale dependence.
  • There are inquiries into how scale invariance in classical theories contrasts with scale dependence in quantized theories, particularly regarding renormalization and quantum corrections.
  • Some participants question the definition of scale invariance in the context of R4 and M4, suggesting that any metric space inherently possesses a length scale.
  • Participants express interest in the mathematical soundness of renormalizable QFTs and the challenges posed by reconciling global symmetries with local gauge theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the compatibility of scale invariance and scale dependence, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about the implications of these concepts in QFTs and geometry.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of scale invariance and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps in reconciling the theories discussed.

  • #31
Demystifier said:
In general, one should distinguish symmetry of general laws from symmetry of special solutions.

Take, for instance, one free photon with 4-momentum ##k##. It is not a Lorentz invariant object (and hence not Poincare invariant object) because in another Lorenz frame it has momentum ##k'\neq k##. Nevertheless, this photon is described by Lorentz invariant laws. But one photon with one particular momentum is a particular solution of these laws, and it is not a Lorentz invariant solution. In free QED, which is the theory of free photons and electrons, the only Lorentz invariant solution is the vacuum.

Of course, free particles are not very interesting from a physical point of view, but the example above serves to understand the difference between symmetry of laws and symmetry of solutions. Equipped with this conceptual understanding, now we can try to understand something less trivial.

Now consider interacting QED. Take, for instance, scattering of two electrons with given initial momenta. In calculation of the scattering amplitude one encounters loop diagrams which appear divergent. To make them convergent one takes some cut-off, and this violates scale invariance and Poincare invariance. Physically, the effective (i.e. renormalized) coupling constant, which initially was a true constant, now depends on energy. Energy is not scale and Lorentz invariant, so naively one would say that scale and Poincare invariance are violated. But one should recall that it is obtained during a study of a special case: scattering of two electrons with given initial momenta. So this "violation" is merely the absence of symmetry in the special solution. The general laws are still Poincare and scale invariant.
Thanks for replying.
I'm aquainted with the distinction between symmetry in the laws vs the solutions. But note that I'm not referring to solutions in this thread, the theme in this thread is about comparing the symmetries in the laws of renormalized qft that reflect the absence of physical invariance of scale with the scale invariant symmetries of the mathematical model (gauge groups acting on Minkowski space) employed to embody those laws. And asking without succes if from this could be deduced an obstruction to the mathematical soundness of such model and if not why not.
So my question is more formal than about the physics behind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K