|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Renormalization and regularization}}
| | My name is Elizbeth (34 years old) and my hobbies are Baseball and Amateur geology.<br><br>My blog; [http://Www.Galerie-Indigo.ch/galerie/index.php?album=europart-ren-francillon&image=009.jpg Fifa 15 Coin Generator] |
| | |
| In [[physics]], especially [[quantum field theory]], '''regularization''' is a method of dealing with infinite, divergent, and non-sensical expressions by introducing an auxiliary concept of a '''regulator''' (for example, the minimal distance <math>\epsilon</math> in space which is useful if the divergences arise from short-distance physical effects). The correct physical result is obtained in the limit in which the regulator goes away (in our example, <math>\epsilon\to 0</math>), but the virtue of the regulator is that for its finite value, the result is finite.
| |
| | |
| However, the result usually includes terms proportional to expressions like <math>1/ \epsilon</math> which are not well-defined in the limit <math>\epsilon\to 0</math>. Regularization is the first step towards obtaining a completely finite and meaningful result; in [[quantum field theory]] it must be usually followed by a related, but independent technique called [[renormalization]]. Renormalization is based on the requirement that some physical quantities — expressed by seemingly divergent expressions such as <math>1/ \epsilon</math> — are equal to the observed values. Such a constraint allows one to calculate a finite value for many other quantities that looked divergent.
| |
| | |
| The existence of a limit as ε goes to zero and the independence of the final result from the regulator are nontrivial facts. The underlying reason for them lies in [[universality (dynamical systems)|universality]] as shown by [[Kenneth G. Wilson|Kenneth Wilson]] and [[Leo Kadanoff]] and the existence of a [[second order phase transition]]. Sometimes, taking the limit as ε goes to zero is not possible. This is the case when we have a [[Landau pole]] and for nonrenormalizable couplings like the [[Fermi interaction]]. However, even for these two examples, if the regulator only gives reasonable results for <math>\epsilon \gg 1/\Lambda</math> and we are working with scales of the order of <math>1/\Lambda'</math>, regulators with <math>1/\Lambda \ll \epsilon \ll 1/\Lambda'</math> still give pretty accurate approximations. The physical reason why we can't take the limit of ε going to zero is the existence of new physics below Λ.
| |
| | |
| It is not always possible to define a regularization such that the limit of ε going to zero is independent of the regularization. In this case, one says that the theory contains an [[anomaly (physics)|anomaly]]. Anomalous theories have been studied in great detail and are often founded on the celebrated [[Atiyah–Singer index theorem]] or variations thereof (see, for example, the [[chiral anomaly]]).
| |
| | |
| Specific types of regularization include
| |
| *[[Dimensional regularization]]<ref>'t Hooft, Veltman M.: ''Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields'', Nucl. Phys. B44 (1972), p.189–213.</ref>
| |
| *[[Pauli–Villars regularization]]
| |
| *[[Lattice regularization]]
| |
| *[[Zeta function regularization]]
| |
| *[[Causal perturbation theory|Causal regularization]]<ref>Scharf, G.: ''Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach'', Springer 1995.</ref>
| |
| *[[Hadamard regularization]]
| |
| | |
| ==Realistic Regularization==
| |
| | |
| ===Conceptual problem===
| |
| Perturbative predictions by [[quantum field theory]] about quantum scattering of [[elementary particles]], implied by a corresponding [[Lagrangian]] densities, are computed using the [[Feynman rules]], a regularization method to circumvent [[ultraviolet divergences]] so as to obtain finite results for [[Feynman diagrams]] containing loops, and a [[renormalization]] scheme. Regularization method results in regularized n-point Green’s functions ([[propagator]]s), and a suitable limiting procedure (a renormalization scheme) then leads to perturbative S-matrix elements. These are independent of the particular regularization method used, and enable one to model perturbatively the measurable physical processes (cross sections, probability amplitudes, decay widths and lifetimes of excited states). However, so far no known regularized n-point Green’s functions can be regarded as being based on a physically realistic theory of quantum-scattering since the derivation of each disregards some of the basic tenets of conventional physics (e.g., by not being Lorentz-invariant, by introducing either unphysical particles with negative metric or wrong statistic, or discrete space-time, or lowering the dimensionality of space-time, or some combination thereof. . . ). So the available regularization methods are understood as formalistic technical devices, devoid of any direct physical meaning. In addition, there are qualms about [[Renormalization#Attitudes and interpretation|renormalization.]] For a history and comments on this more than half-a-century old open conceptual problem, see e.g.<ref>T. Y. Cao and S. S. Schweber, "The Conceptual Foundations and Philosophical Aspects of Renormalization Theory," Synthese 97: 1 (1993) 33–108.</ref><ref>L. M.Brown, editor, ''Renormalization'' (Springer-Verlag, New York 1993).</ref>
| |
| .<ref name="Weinberg95">{{ cite journal |author= S. Weinberg |title= The Quantum Theory of Fields |journal= Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995. |pages=Vol. I, Sec. 1.3 and Ch.9}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Pauli's conjecture===
| |
| As it seems that the vertices of non-regularized Feynman series adequately describe interactions in quantum scattering, it is taken that their ultraviolet divergences are due to the asymptotic, high-energy behavior of the Feynman propagators. So it is a prudent, conservative approach to retain the vertices in Feynman series, and modify only the Feynman propagators to create a regularized Feynman series. This is the reasoning behind the formal Pauli-Villars covariant regularization by modification of Feynman propagators through auxiliary unphysical particles, cf <ref name="Villars60">{{ cite journal |author= F. Villars |title= Regularization and Non-Singular Interactions in Quantum Field Theory |journal= Theoretical Physics in the Twentieth Century, edited by M. Fierz and V. F. Weiskopf, Interscience Publishers, New York 1960.|pages=78–106}}</ref> and representation of physical reality by [[Feynman diagrams#Representation of physical reality|Feynman diagrams.]]
| |
| | |
| In 1949 [[Wolfgang Pauli|Pauli]] conjectured there is a realistic regularization, which is implied by a theory that respects all the established principles of contemporary physics.<ref name="Villars60"/><ref>Pauli, W., Villars, F. ''On the Invariant Regularization in Relativistic Quantum Theory'', [http://link.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/p434 Rev. Mod. Phys, 21, 434-444 (1949)]</ref> So its propagators (i) do not need to be regularized, and (ii) can be regarded as such a regularization of the propagators used in quantum field theories that might reflect the underlying physics. The additional parameters of such a theory do not need to be removed (i.e. the theory needs no renormalization) and may provide some new information about the physics of quantum scattering, though they may turn out experimentally to be negligible. By contrast, any present regularization method introduces formal coefficients that must eventually be disposed of by renormalization.
| |
| | |
| ===Opinions===
| |
| [[Paul Dirac|Dirac]] was persistently, extremely critical about procedures of renormalization. So in 1963 :“… in the renormalization theory we have a theory that has defied all the attempts of the mathematician to make it sound. I am inclined to suspect that the renormalization theory is something that will not survive in the future,…” <ref name="Dirac63 ">{{ cite journal |author= P.A.M. Dirac|title= The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature |journal= Scientific American, May 1963 |pages=45–53}}</ref> So he was expecting a realistic regularization.
| |
| | |
| About the skepticism that there is a realistic regularization [[Abdus Salam|Salam]]'s remark<ref>C.J.Isham, A.Salam and J.Strathdee, `Infinity Suppression Gravity Modified Quantum Electrodynamics', Phys. Rev. D5, 2548 (1972).</ref> in 1972 is still relevant: ”Field-theoretic infinities first encountered in Lorentz's computation of electron have persisted in classical electrodynamics for seventy and in quantum electrodynamics for some thirty-five years. These long years of frustration have left in the subject a curious affection for the infinities and a passionate belief that they are an inevitable part of nature; so much so that even the suggestion of a hope that they may after all be circumvented - and finite values for the renormalization constants computed - is considered irrational.
| |
| | |
| However, in [[Gerard 't Hooft|’t Hooft]]’s opinion:<ref>G. ’t Hooft, ''In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks'' (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997).</ref> “History tells us that if we hit upon some obstacle, even if it looks like a pure formality or just a technical complication, it should be carefully scrutinized. Nature might be telling us something, and we should find out what it is.”
| |
| | |
| By [[Paul Dirac|Dirac]]:<ref name="Dirac68 ">{{ cite journal |author= P.A.M. Dirac |year= 1968 |title= Methods in theoretical physics |journal= Unification of Fundamental Forces by A. Salam (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990) |pages=125–143}}</ref> “One can distinguish between two main procedures for a theoretical physicist. One of them is to work from the experimental basis . . . The other procedure is to work from the mathematical basis. One examines and criticizes the existing theory. One tries to pin-point the faults in it and then tries to remove them. The difficulty here is to remove the faults without destroying the very great successes of the existing theory.” ''The difficulty with a realistic regularization is that so far there is none, although nothing could be destroyed by its bottom-up approach; and there is no experimental basis for it.''
| |
| | |
| ===Minimal realistic regularization===
| |
| Considering distinct theoretical problems, Dirac<ref name="Dirac63"/> in 1963 suggested: ”I believe separate ideas will be needed to solve these distinct problems and that they will be solved one at a time through successive stages in the future evolution of physics. At this point I find myself in disagreement with most physicists. They are inclined to think one master idea will be discovered that will solve all these problems together. I think it is asking too much to hope that anyone will be able to solve all these problems together. One should separate them one from another as much as possible and try to tackle them separately. And I believe the future development of physics will consist of solving them one at a time, and that after any one of them has been solved there will still be a great mystery about how to attack further ones.”
| |
| | |
| According to Dirac:<ref name="Dirac68"/> ”[[Quantum electrodynamics]] is the domain of physics that we know most about, and presumably it will have to be put in order before we can hope to make any fundamental progress with other field theories, although these will continue to develop on the experimental basis.”
| |
| | |
| Dirac’s two preceding remarks<ref name="Dirac63"/><ref name="Dirac68"/> suggest that we should start searching for a realistic regularization in the case of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the four-dimensional [[Minkowski spacetime]], starting with the original QED [[Lagrangian]] density.
| |
| | |
| The [[path-integral formulation]] provides the most direct way from the Lagrangian density to the corresponding Feynman series in its Lorentz-invariant form.<ref name="Weinberg95"/> The free-field part of the Lagrangian density determines the Feynman propagators, whereas the rest determines the vertices. As the QED vertices are considered to adequately describe interactions in QED scattering, it makes sense to modify only the free-field part of the Lagrangian density so as to obtain such regularized Feynman series that the [[Lehmann-Symanzik-Zimmermann]] reduction formula provides a perturbative S-matrix that: (i) is Lorentz invariant and unitary; (ii) involves only the QED particles; (iii) depends solely on QED parameters and those introduced by the modification of the Feynman propagators—for particular values of these parameters it is equal to the QED perturbative S-matrix; and (iv) exhibits the same symmetries as the QED perturbative S-matrix. Let us refer to such a regularization as '''''the minimal realistic regularization''''', and start searching for the corresponding, modified free-field parts of the QED Lagrangian density.
| |
| | |
| ==Transport theoretic approach==
| |
| [[Ultraviolet divergence#Reason for ultraviolet divergence according to Bjorken and Drell|According to Bjorken and Drell]], it would make physical sense to sidestep [[ultraviolet divergence]]s by using more detailed description than can be provided by differential field equations. And [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] noted about the use of differential equations: “. . . for neutron diffusion it is only an approximation that is good when the distance over which we are looking is large compared with the mean free path. If we looked more closely, we would see individual neutrons running around.” And then he wondered, “Could it be that the real world consists of little X-ons which can be seen only at very tiny distances? And that in our measurements we are always observing on such a large scale that we can’t see these little X-ons, and that is why we get the differential equations? . . . Are they [therefore] also correct only as a smoothed-out imitation of a really much more complicated microscopic world?”<ref>R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands: ''The Feynman Lectures on Physics'', Vol. II (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1965), Sec.12–7.</ref> <br />
| |
| | |
| Already in 1938, [[Werner Heisenberg|Heisenberg]] <ref>{{ cite journal |author= W. Heisenberg |year=1938|title= Uber die in der Théorie der Elementarteilchen auftretende universelle Lange |journal= Annalen der Physik |volume=32 |pages=20–33}}</ref> proposed that a quantum field theory can provide only an idealized, large-scale description of quantum dynamics, valid for distances larger than some ''fundamental length'', expected also by [[Ultraviolet divergence#Reason for ultraviolet divergence according to Bjorken and Drell|Bjorken and Drell in 1965]]. Feynman's preceding remark provides a possible physical reason for its existence.
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| | |
| <references />
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Regularization (Physics)}}
| |
| [[Category:Quantum field theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Summability methods]]
| |
