Struggles with the Continuum - Part 5 - Comments

  • Insights
  • Thread starter john baez
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Continuum
In summary, John Baez has submitted a new PF Insights post titled "Struggles with the Continuum - Part 5" which discusses the concept of renormalization in quantum mechanics and its relation to the magnetic dipole moment of an electron. He also mentions his tutorial on renormalization for those interested in a simpler setting. The conversation also includes a discussion on the conceptual mistake of working with imaginary "bare" particles and the importance of fixing this mistake through renormalization.
  • #1
john baez
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
286
266
john baez submitted a new PF Insights post

Struggles with the Continuum - Part 5

spacetime5.png


Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba, BvU and Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nice explanation!

Those who want to see renormalization in a simpler toy setting not involving fields but just ordinary quantum mechanics might be interested in my tutorial on renormalization.
 
  • Like
Likes stevendaryl and bhobba
  • #3
Really nice write up.

I can see myself linking to it often when discussions of re-normalisation come up.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes john baez
  • #4
A. Neumaier said:
Nice explanation!

Those who want to see renormalization in a simpler toy setting not involving fields but just ordinary quantum mechanics might be interested in my tutorial on renormalization.

Nice to see you again!
 
  • #5
john baez said:
Nice to see you again!
Well, your former ''this week's find in mathematical physics'' was far more attractive for me than your current blog. Online, I am now mainly active on PhysicsOverflow. But this term I have a sabbatical, which gives me more time to spend on discussions, so I became again a bit active here on PF.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Greg Bernhardt
  • #6
Wonderful post! This is the first time since I read Feynman's popular little book, QED, that I have felt that I have learned something solid this subject. Can't wait for the next installment!

However, one of many puzzlements: if the integrals diverge, then why not change the measure?
 
  • #7
Steven Wenner said:
However, one of many puzzlements: if the integrals diverge, then why not change the measure?

In that regard the following is likely of interest:


Very nice series of lectures on what divergence really is and even the why of quantitisation. I have viewed them a few times now and enjoy it every time.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #8
Steven Wenner said:
However, one of many puzzlements: if the integrals diverge, then why not change the measure?
One can avoid the divergences from the outset by using a carefully chosen mathematical setting. This is described in Scharf's book cited in the article, and in more detail in my insight article.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
  • #9
I wrote:

For example, consider the magnetic dipole moment of the electron. An electron, being a charged particle with spin, has a magnetic field. A classical computation says that its magnetic dipole moment is

$$ \vec{\mu} = -\frac{e}{2m_e} \vec{S} $$

where ##\vec{S}## is its spin angular momentum. Quantum effects correct this computation, giving

$$ \vec{\mu} = -g \frac{e}{2m_e} \vec{S} $$

for some constant ##g## called the gyromagnetic ratio, which can be computed using QED as a sum over Feynman diagrams with an electron exchanging a single photon with a massive charged particle:

electron_magnetic_moment.png


Someone asked me a good question about this:

I’m a graduate student at UMass Boston and I really enjoyed your "Struggles with the Continuum” paper. I was wondering if you could give me a little more explanation for one part. I’m by no means a particle physicist, which is probably why I didn’t get what was probably a simple point. When we want to compute the magnetic dipole moment of an electron as predicted by QED, why should we consider a process where an electron exchanges a photon with a “massive charged particle”? Basically I want to know what intuition leads one to realize this is the calculation we want to do.

I replied:

I'm no experimentalist, but to measure the magnetic dipole moment of an electron basically amounts to measuring its magnetic field. Like its electric field, the magnetic field of an electron consists of virtual photons. So when you "measure" its electric or magnetic field, it's exchanging a virtual photon with some charges in your detector apparatus.

The easiest way to model this is to imagine your detector apparatus is simply a single charged particle and compute the force on this particle as a function of its position and velocity, due to the virtual photon(s) being exchanged. (The magnetic force is velocity-dependent.)

But if that charged particle is light, quantum mechanics becomes important in describing its behavior: the uncertainty principle will make it impossible to specify both its position and velocity very accurately. So, it's better to take the limit of a very massive particle. In that limit, you can specify both position and momentum exactly.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Greg Bernhardt
  • #10
Steve Wenner:

However, one of many puzzlements: if the integrals diverge, then why not change the measure?

"Imposing a cutoff" or "regularization" is one way to change the measure to get a convergent integral. This is an important first step. But in making this step, you are led to inaccurate answers to physics questions. This step amounts to pretending that virtual particles with large momenta are impossible, or less likely than we'd otherwise expect. That's not really true.

It's like saying "my calculations show that I'll be in debt if I buy a Cadillac. But I don't want to be in debt, so I'll do the calculation differently."

To get the right answers, you don't want to make false assumptions just in order to get integrals that converge! You want to figure out why the integrals are diverging, understand what conceptual mistake you're making, and fix that conceptual mistake. That's renormalization.

There are ways to do this, like Scharf's way, where you never get the divergent integrals in the first place. But I believe for most people those are harder to understand than what I explained here. My explanation is more "physical" - or at least, most physicists use this way of thinking.

So what's the conceptual mistake?

The conceptual mistake is trying to work with imaginary "bare" particles separated from their virtual particle cloud. There is no such thing as a bare particle.

It's not an easy mistake to fix, because the particle-with-cloud is a complicated entity. But renormalization is how we fix this mistake. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. I think my explanation should be enough to get the idea. The actual calculations are a lot more work.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #11
john baez said:
This step amounts to pretending that virtual particles with large momenta are impossible, or less likely than we'd otherwise expect. That's not really true.

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I wonder if John, or someone else, could comment on why it works. My limited understanding is its really a mathematical trick to decouple low energy physics we are more certain of from high energy physics that's a bit of a mystery.

Thanks
Bill
 

1. What is the "continuum" in this context?

The continuum refers to the concept of space and time being continuous and interconnected, rather than separate and discrete entities. It is often used in discussions about relativity and the nature of the universe.

2. What does "Part 5 - Comments" refer to?

"Part 5 - Comments" is likely a section or installment of a larger discussion or series on struggles with the continuum. It could refer to a specific aspect or problem related to the continuum that is being addressed or discussed in this particular part.

3. Can you explain the significance of this topic?

The concept of the continuum and struggles with it has significant implications for our understanding of the universe and how it works. It is a topic that has been explored by scientists and philosophers for centuries, and continues to be a subject of study and debate.

4. What are some common struggles with the continuum?

Some common struggles with the continuum include understanding the concept of space-time, reconciling it with our everyday experiences, and finding a unified theory that explains both gravity and quantum mechanics.

5. How does this relate to other scientific theories or discoveries?

The concept of the continuum is closely tied to many other scientific theories and discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Big Bang theory. It also has implications for our understanding of black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the nature of time itself.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
395
Views
20K
Back
Top