Re: Is "Renormalization" normal??
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: Y.Porat: "Re: Charge on electron and proton."
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Basics Series I: NEWTON, MAXWELL, EINSTEIN HOAXES - REVEALED!"
- In reply to: Q-on: "Is "Renormalization" normal??"
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Is "Renormalization" normal??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:33:39 GMT
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108691874.332690.194310@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Is anyone having problems believing renormalization is normal? I
> mean. Could it be "doctored" or sweeping under the carpet
> problems of a theory that was inherently flawed as he put it?
>
> La Violette said:
>
> "The energy summation of all virtual particles momentarily
> existing around a Particle also poses a problem since quantum
> field theory predicts that a given virtual Particle cloud should
> have an infinitely large mass. For example, in creating each
> virtual photon the electron is assumed to "borrow" energy from
> the uncertainty relation "bank.' Although this energy is assumed
> to be "paid back" shortly thereafter to avoid violating the law
> of energy conservation, there would always be a net reservoir of
> virtual photon energy in the electron's photon cloud. When the
> individual packets of energy associated with each virtual photon
> are added up, however, the energy (and mass) of the electron
> together with its virtual particle cloud is found to be infinite.
> This blatantly contradicts experimental observation that shows
> the electron as having a finite rest mass, whose energy
> equivalent amounts to 510,000 electron volts.*
>
> Physicists have attempted to resolve this difficulty through a
> process called renormalization, or the ad hoc assumption that the
> "bare" electron core has an infinite negative mass of just the
> right amount to cancel out most of the infinite positive mass of
> the electron's photon cloud and leave a net positive residual
> equivalent to the electron~s observed mass. Further complicating
> matters, this ad hoc finely tuned renormalization procedure must
> be repeated for each force field that a particle is presumed to
> generate, since the clouds of virtual pions, gluons, and other
> particles required to mediate strong and weak forces and quark
> binding would similarly produce singularities. Many physicists
> find this technique unsatisfactory, since there is no reason to
> justify the infinite negative mass assumption other than the
> purported need to patch up the failing quantum electrodynamics
> theory. Paul Dirac, a famous British physicist known for his 1928
> pred iction of the existence of antimatter, played an important
> role in developing the foundations of quantum electrodynamics.
> But throughout his life he expressed his displeasure with the
> business of renormalization. He felt it was no more than a poorly
> executed attempt to sweep under the carpet problems of a theory
> that was inherently flawed."
You are right. Paul Dirac's comment:
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this
so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appaear in
its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not
sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity
when it turns out to be small"
Model Mechanics posits that the charge of a particle does not reside within
the particle. It is the distortion that the orbiting S-Particle created in
the E-Matrix. This means that the infinities were never there in the first
place. That's the reason why the renormalization procedure work.
Ken Seto
- Next message: Y.Porat: "Re: Charge on electron and proton."
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Basics Series I: NEWTON, MAXWELL, EINSTEIN HOAXES - REVEALED!"
- In reply to: Q-on: "Is "Renormalization" normal??"
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Is "Renormalization" normal??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
