Re: When do we need renormalization
From: Arnold Neumaier (Arnold.Neumaier_at_univie.ac.at)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Previous message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:33:12 +0000 (UTC)
Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think these views are prevailing at the moment. My work on RQD,
>>>however, shows that all renormalization problems can be solved without
>>>such an assumption, and a consistent theory of charged particles and
>>>photons can be constructed on its own without any reference to
>>>something "more fundamental".
>>
>>You are claiming far too much.
>>
>>You haven't shown your theory to be consistent. You only constructed a
>>sequence of approximate Hamiltonians with neither Lorentz invariance
>>nor gauge invariance. Consistency would require that you can show
>>that a limiting Hamiltonian exists which gives rise to a theory
>>having both these properties.
>>
>>Arnold Neumaier
>
> I have said repeatedly that I agree with you.
If you'd really agree with me you'd moderate your claims.
You claim to have a 'consistent theory of charged particles and
photons' which you do not have, unless you use the term 'consistent'
in a very loose and misleading way.
> I do not have
> a proof that the series for the Hamiltonian converge. Just as
> traditional QED does not have a proof that the series for the
> S-matrix converges.
Without having a Hamiltonian, you do not have a Hamiltonian theory
of QED, and not even an S-matrix. What you have is a sequence of
Hamiltonians H_k and a corresponding sequence of dynamical theories,
of which you can prove that the corresponding S-matrices S_k agree
to order O(alpha^k) or O(hbar^k) with the S-matrices of QED.
But doing dynamics with some H_k probably drives you away from the
true dynamics of QED in a very short time...
Arnold Neumaier
- Next message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Previous message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: When do we need renormalization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
