The act of renormalization

In summary, the physics community is fine with renormalization because it gives us the right answers experimentally to high precision, despite the fact that the coefficients in the equations are independent of the experimental inputs.
  • #1
romsofia
595
309
A question that has been bothering me for a while, is why are we as a physics community so fine with remormalization in QFT? Experimentally (QED especially) the field is VERY precise, however, looking at the mathematical side of renormalization, it doesn't look... very logical. We get divergent integrals, but then say that we weren't measuring the right process, or our constants need to normalized, etc, etc.

Where can I find work being done to make QFT more mathematically consistent? I'm just a newbie when it comes to research in QG (and like GR more than QFT), but this question has been bothering me for months, and I'm sure either missing something, or will have to just learn to 'accept' the mathematically inconsistencies of QFT!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would claim that renormalisation (or the need to do so) is not a problem of QFT itself, but rather a problem of constructing a specific realisation. In principle there are axiomatic frameworks like the Wightman axioms which specify QFT, but do not even mention renormalisation. It is to my knowledge an open question whether gauge theories can fit that framework, or if there are even such interacting QFTs in 4 spacetime dimensions. So in this sense our usual QFTs and in particular the standard model might not have a solid mathematical foundation. But if this would be the case, we could just regard renormalisation as an extension of (canonical) quantisation, which is not unique anyway.
 
  • #3
The physics community is fine with renormalization because it give us the right answers experimentally to high precision, despite the fact that the coefficients in the equations are independent of the experimental inputs.

Renormalization was not mathematically established as valid in a rigorous way when it was introduced as a technique, and my understanding from a recent blog conversation with a graduate student in a relevant subfield of mathematical physics is that this rigorous proof continues to be elusive and that its absence of a barrier to further progress in mathematical quantum physics. https://4gravitons.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/who-needs-non-empirical-confirmation/
 
  • #4
romsofia said:
looking at the mathematical side of renormalization, it doesn't look... very logical.

Well, imagine a function and that I want to get a measure of how it grows in a point x. I can try to define the quantity F(x+delta)/delta but then I get an infinity when delta goes to zero. I can give up and say that it makes not sense to consider "growing" of functions, or substract a counterterm, F(x)/delta, that also is infinity when delta goes to zero. But substracting both infinities I get a finite quantity that I can call the grow, or better, the fluxion, of F at the point x.
 
  • #5
Please, please stop for a second. This (divergent integrals) is not renormalization. This is regularization.

The problem of divergences is not something specific to QFT, or even QM. You get it classically - "what is the self-energy of an electron?" It basically comes about every time you have inverse powers of r and try and calculate something that goes down to r = 0. The answer has always been "we don't believe our theories are correct at these small scales" - even in the classical era. That may not be completely comforting, but it's probably true.
 
  • Like
Likes Jeff Rosenbury and FieldTheorist
  • #6
For relativistic QFTs that can be consistent at arbitrarily high energies, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107005094/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

However, we believe (without proof) that the physically important QFTs like the standard model of particle physics are not valid at all energies. In this case, one uses lattice gauge theory http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0211036. Much of the standard model can be rigourously formulated with lattice gauge theory, but whether chiral interactions with non-Abelian gauge fields can be done this way is still unknown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Putting renormalization on a more rigorous mathematical footing was claimed by the introduction by Kreimer’s method of Feynman diagram renormalization via Hopf algebra of rooted trees.
 
  • Like
Likes arivero
  • #8
Renormalization is done almost as an after thought in classical physics. It's common to take the observed mass of the electron, treat the electron as a point particle of this mass and, and simply ignore the infinite energy in the point coulomb field.
 

1. What is renormalization?

Renormalization is a mathematical procedure used in theoretical physics to remove infinities that arise in calculations involving quantum field theory. It involves adjusting the parameters of a theory to account for the effects of higher energy interactions.

2. Why is renormalization necessary?

Renormalization is necessary because in quantum field theory, calculations often result in infinite values for physical quantities, such as mass or charge. These infinities are unphysical and need to be removed in order for the theory to make accurate predictions.

3. How does renormalization work?

Renormalization works by adjusting the parameters of a theory at different energy scales. This is achieved by using a process called "running" where the values of the parameters change as the energy scale changes. This allows for the removal of the infinities and results in finite, physically meaningful values.

4. What are the applications of renormalization?

Renormalization has many applications in theoretical physics, particularly in the study of quantum field theories. It is used to make predictions about the behavior of particles at high energies, such as those in particle accelerators. It is also used in condensed matter physics and cosmology.

5. Are there any challenges or limitations to renormalization?

One of the challenges of renormalization is that it requires a high level of mathematical expertise and can be a complex and time-consuming process. Additionally, there are some theories, such as string theory, which are not easily renormalizable and require more advanced techniques. However, renormalization has been successfully used in many areas of physics and continues to be a fundamental tool in understanding the behavior of particles at the quantum level.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
928
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
3
Replies
71
Views
12K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top