Re: Renormalization in QED

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:13:50 -0400

"ksh95" <ksh95@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38a3ceaf.0407151036.375b41ab@posting.google.com...
> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:<10f7q869tis3086@corp.supernews.com>...
> > The original equations for QED are full of infinities.
> > A mathematical process call renoralization is used to
> > get rid of these infinities. Paul Dirac, one of the
> > founding father of QM considers the renormaliztion
> > technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
> > statement during a lecture in New Zealand in 1975:
> >
> > " I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation
> > because this so-called "good theory (QED)" does
> > involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations,
> > neglecting them in an arbituary way. This is just not
> > sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
> > neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small".
>
> This is more or less how the story goes. Renormalization pretty much
> moves the infinities from quanties we want to know to more fundemental
> quantities we can measure, like particle bare mass...etc.
>
> > Nevertheless the renormalized QED equations are very successful.
> > So the question is: Why? The answer to this question is as
> > follows: The infinites in the original equations were the results
> > of an assumption that the electric charge of a particle is residing
> > within the particle!!!
>
> More generally, the fact that we're working with point particles is
> part of the problem. BTW, there are also IR divergences that happen
> for different reasons.

Sure that's because point particle doesn't exist.

>
> > If the electric charge is not residing within
> > the particle then there is no infinity.
>
> This was somewhat similar to the general line of thinking back when
> quantum field theory was getting started. This is why all field
> theories are called "effective field theories", more or less meaning
> this is kinda sorta effectively what's going on: this is an effective
> long distance description of the real theory (which we don't know).

What this mean is that you need a new model for particles.

> During the search for the real theory people have tried all sorts of
> things like finite sized particles...etc. The problem with things like
> this is that the math is even sicker then with regular point
> particles. The ideas sounded good, but the math said, 'no dice'.

That's because they didn't have the right model for particles. My theory
Model
Mechanics (MM) is the correct model. The math derive from MM will be
simple and without any infinities. BTW, the MM model for particles
 includes the QFT math.

>One
> approach, using spread out particles, that's possibly removed some
> infinities is string theory, but people aren't even sure if string
> theory is truly finite to all orders.

That's no good either. The MM model is the only true model of our universe.
>
> > What this mean is that the
> > reason why the renormalization process works is that there were
> > no infinity to begin with.
>
> I don't know what that means

What this mean is that there were no infinites to begin with. That's why
when you remove the infinities from the equatioins it has no effect on
 the predictive power of those equations.

>
> > The next relevant question is:
> > Where is the charge of a particle resides? The answer is in the
> > paper in the following link:
> > A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
> > link.
>
> Good effort for a novice! but as most experts know, the idea is
> useless unless you can get the math to work and show quantitative
> results. That's the hard part, and that's the reason why most people
> need at least 15+ years of full time learning and thinking to make any
> contribution at all.

Ah....but the QFT math is not the exclusive properties of the QFT
interpretations.
The MM interpretations can use the same QFT math. The difference is
that the MM interpretations has a wider scope than the QFT interpretations.
The MM interpretations gives rise to a new theory of gravity that can be
unified with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces..

A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
    ... while Galois' proof requires a sophisticated brilliant ... any place in mathematics. ... (Only potential infinities, as Aristotle ... In my opinion, Satan created Math Analysis. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
    ... while Galois' proof requires a sophisticated brilliant ... any place in mathematics. ... (Only potential infinities, as Aristotle ... In my opinion, Satan created Math Analysis. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Universal grammar
    ... though there are practical problems when trying to implement it ... Working math also consists much of human cognitive ... If one wants to prove consistency of a theory that admits infinities as ... mathematics to prove either way whether all distributions can be ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Renormalization in QED
    ... The original equations for QED are full of infinities. ... Sensible mathematics involves ... of an assumption that the electric charge of a particle is residing ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Renormalization in QED
    ... The original equations for QED are full of infinities. ... Sensible mathematics involves ... of an assumption that the electric charge of a particle is residing ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)