您的位置:站长主页 -> 繁星客栈 -> 观星楼 (自然科学论坛) -> 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法 May 5, 2024

我对重整化等的一点小小的想法

用户登陆 | 刷新 本版嘉宾: sage yinhow

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



发散的起源,均源于圈。

很自然的想法是怀疑真空在其中的作用。

所以我不禁想,这可能会与真空能~宇宙常数~量子引力等有深层的关系。

看过一个挺有意思的想法。

大家都知道谐振子有个1/2hbar的零点能,这是量子和经典理论的差别,和一个错误的理论:经典理论的差别,是否具有更深层的意义值得商榷。因为如果没有GR的话,我们是可以任意选择零点的。local gauge invariance甚至把这种argument推得更远。

但它的启示是:如果有量子理论,最理想不过的事情莫过于发现宇宙参数正是量子引力和经典理论----GR的能量差了。


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-10, 15:52:16 作者资料

星空浩淼

发表文章数: 1743
武功等级: 九阳神功
     (第五重)
内力值: 617/617

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



发散的直接来源是:当把粒子视为无穷小的抽象数学点时,便有了紫外发散。红外发散远没有那么严重,所以这里就不必提。

过去认为,发散是我们的理论到了一定的微观层次不再适用的标志。有了重整化理论之后,这种看法,在我看来即使没有被完全淘汰,至少也淡化了许多。在我看来,重整化表明,这种发散是实实在在存在的,而不是我们的理论遭遇适用范围所致,即高阶辐射修正的确是无穷大的,只是跟裸量抵消后,得到有限的结果进入我们的观测之中。

楼主如果有兴趣,不妨先按部就班地把量子场论系统学一下(可能还包括量子力学),到了学重整化的地方,自然就明白了。如果凭猜,最后只会越来越混乱,旁人讲也讲不清。


唯有与时间赛跑,方可维持一息尚存


发表时间:2005-04-11, 00:02:04 作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



呵呵,不奇怪。我的思想一直特别像民科,星空兄有这样的印象是自然的。

冒犯地说,星空兄的思想可能有点陈旧。Effective field theory的思想,现在基本是公认的。也许星空兄该先看看Renormalization Group。


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-12, 13:21:28 作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



另外,我并不认为QFT implies point particle。一切与你对点粒子的定义和你选择的Representation有关。

电子半径是可以容易定义的,无论是从最经典的compton wavelength,还是真空极化的观点。their localization to a region significantly smaller than the de Broglie wavelength
would need energies larger than that needed to create particle-antiparticle pairs, which changes the nature of the system. 或者你想说它的form factor是trival的?

事实上,我们平常所说的"point particle",更多的隐含意思是指它的作用是local的。这就不见得是发散的本质原因。


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-12, 14:18:35 作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



场论中电子,夸克这这种基本粒子是没有半径或尺寸的。它们经典看是场,量子化后
可认为是个点吧。

您引的话好像在郎道第四卷前言中看到过,和form factor没关系。form factor是
用点粒子作探针去碰撞,研究复合粒子结构中引入的。


发表时间:2005-04-13, 00:28:00 作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



You can say that the form factor of electron is indeed trivial. From Gordon decompsition of the current, the two form factors of electron are 1, trivial value.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 00:42:15 作者资料

sage

发表文章数: 1125
武功等级: 天山六阳掌
     (第六重)
内力值: 535/535

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



但它的启示是:如果有量子理论,最理想不过的事情莫过于发现宇宙参数正是量子引力和经典理论----GhR的能量差了。

Well, GR does not have a prediction for vacuum energy. I don't know how you do the subtraction.

Quantum gravity must also include GR as its classical limit. Therefore, if there is a quantum gravity and indeed it addresses the vacuum energy problem, it should just give the complete answer.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 01:14:34 作者资料

sage

发表文章数: 1125
武功等级: 天山六阳掌
     (第六重)
内力值: 535/535

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



过去认为,发散是我们的理论到了一定的微观层次不再适用的标志。

This is indeed the correct point of view and the only way to make sense of renormalization. This understanding has been beautifully illustrated in Wilson's approach. (again, see Peskin's book for a easier explanation. )

有了重整化理论之后,这种看法,在我看来即使没有被完全淘汰,至少也淡化了许多。在我看来,重整化表明,这种发散是实实在在存在的,而不是我们的理论遭遇适用范围所致,即高阶辐射修正的确是无穷大的,只是跟裸量抵消后,得到有限的结果进入我们的观测之中。

Divergent, or infinity, is not physical. It is an artifact of the applicable range of our theory. As i said in the other post, renormalization only makes sense if there is higher scale which acts as a cutoff.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 01:17:44 作者资料

sage

发表文章数: 1125
武功等级: 天山六阳掌
     (第六重)
内力值: 535/535

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



场论中电子,夸克这这种基本粒子是没有半径或尺寸的。它们经典看是场,量子化后
可认为是个点吧。

您引的话好像在郎道第四卷前言中看到过,和form factor没关系。form factor是
用点粒子作探针去碰撞,研究复合粒子结构中引入的。

The form factor for electron is not trivial. This is why we have, for example, anomalous magnetic momentum. The physical picture is that electron is 'dressed up' by virtue photons around it. It appears to have some 'size'.

The notion of quantm field theory have point particle actually refers to the fact that the interactions in the Lagrangian are all local. Because it is local, it receives contribution from all momenta (much like the Fourier transformation of a delta-function). This is origin of divergence.

A physical cut-off will be, as we probe higher energy (therrefore smallar size) scales, some additional physical appears. Therefore, in the original Lagrangian, it only appears local for the long wave length modes.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 01:23:25 作者资料

星空浩淼

发表文章数: 1743
武功等级: 九阳神功
     (第五重)
内力值: 617/617

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



“过去认为,发散是我们的理论到了一定的微观层次不再适用的标志。
This is indeed the correct point of view and the only way to make sense of renormalization. This understanding has been beautifully illustrated in Wilson's approach. (again, see Peskin's book for a easier explanation. )
Divergent, or infinity, is not physical. It is an artifact of the applicable range of our theory. As i said in the other post, renormalization only makes sense if there is higher scale which acts as a cutoff.”

如果这样,我对重整化的感觉就会好多了,而且觉得既然如此,那象Feynman等人对重整化的看法就没有错,这里就有文章可作:去寻找更微观层次上对原理论的修改,从而让重整化作为历史过渡被淘汰掉。我对重整化的看法一直摇摆不定,有时候比较正统,有时候比较另类(我发现以前我在繁星发过一个关于重整化话题的帖子,感谢昌海兄还保留着,我自己都忘了自己曾发过这么一个帖子:-))

我记得在重整化方法中,高能截断最后都是要让它趋于无穷的,由此所导致的发散被抵消项抵消(或被裸量吸收,依赖于不同的重整化方法)。

有一本书《Finite Quantum Electrondynamics》(昌海兄上次回国买到过),朋友当初跟我介绍这本书时说,这本书就是专门针对不满意重整化方法而发展出来的理论,即不用重整化方法也得到那些有限的结果。不知昌海兄看过没有,是不是这么回事?


唯有与时间赛跑,方可维持一息尚存


发表时间:2005-04-13, 03:29:00 作者资料

星空浩淼

发表文章数: 1743
武功等级: 九阳神功
     (第五重)
内力值: 617/617

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



“The form factor for electron is not trivial. This is why we have, for example, anomalous magnetic momentum. The physical picture is that electron is 'dressed up' by virtue photons around it. It appears to have some 'size'.”

我的印象中,电子的anomalous magnetic moment好像对the form factor for electron 没有贡献。人们常常希望通过辐射修正来赋予粒子以非平凡的物理性质,例如人们想过,粒子质量本来都是零,由于某种辐射修正才使得它有质量,借此摆脱对Higgs机制的依赖;甚至考虑过万有引力可能不是基本的,可能是另外三种力的高阶效应...但都没有成功。

为了解释T/CP不守恒,人们给出一种理论,假定电子有电矩(相当于假定电子除了有自旋张量之外,还有一个张量,那是将自旋张量换成它的对偶张量,即在原Dirac矩阵基础上多乘了个伽马5矩阵),为此作了大量实验测量电子的电矩(等效于测量电子半径),但到目前位置,半径倾向于零。

BTW,回kanex:我虽然知识的确陈旧了点,但重整化群还是学过的,那是QCD的基础。有效场论大部分内容学过,但当时不知道它的来龙去脉。

别人从读研到读博,是一个知识充电和迅速提高的过程;我从读研到读博,却是一个对原来的知识的荒废过程,因为我学的是工科,其课程对我知识的提高没有任何帮助,反而浪费我的时间和精力。我的这点基础,是读完本科在企业上班时业余自学的,但我自学是系统的、严肃的(可惜当年连买一本量子力学都困难,更不用说量子场论、英文原著了,现在可是天壤之别了)。现在我倒是院校正规科班的了,感觉还不如当年在企业自学时。只是时间充足些。可见关键在于学习的方式和态度,而不在于是否在学校。如果学校不对口,如果老师很差劲,读研读博还是要靠自学。


唯有与时间赛跑,方可维持一息尚存


发表时间:2005-04-13, 04:03:06 作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



"GR does not have a prediction for vacuum energy"
===============
True, it's hard coded into the theory. And it affects the curvature of the spacetime.

"场论中电子,夸克这这种基本粒子是没有半径或尺寸的。它们经典看是场,量子化后
可认为是个点吧。"
===============
我觉得经典的观点看基本粒子是点,不是场。量子化后才是场,但它在Path Integral formalism中的Lagrangian是经典的,所以微扰展开后的费曼图“看上去”像是描述点粒子之间的作用。仅此而已,费曼图是一种助记的符号,根本不是具体过程。所谓的虚粒子等等,也是完全不存在的数学结构。然而它造成了很多的思想混乱,就如同费曼的“反粒子是在时间中逆向运动的粒子”。


"This is indeed the correct point of view and the only way to make sense of renormalization. This understanding has been beautifully illustrated in Wilson's approach. (again, see Peskin's book for a easier explanation. )
Divergent, or infinity, is not physical. It is an artifact of the applicable range of our theory. As i said in the other post, renormalization only makes sense if there is higher scale which acts as a cutoff."
===============
是的,这是我看过的较新的场论书的一致认识。

"我记得在重整化方法中,高能截断最后都是要让它趋于无穷的,由此所导致的发散被抵消项抵消(或被裸量吸收,依赖于不同的重整化方法)。"
===============
是的。这是Renormalization的一种方法。一定要让截断趋于无穷,否则就触犯了Lorentz Invariance。把东西从动量空间傅立叶变换回去就清楚了:如果截断不趋于无穷,你将不能得到delta function。


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-13, 05:20:39 作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



If the elementary particles did exist as "point particles" (in reality), our life would be much easier. You know, we didn't have to develop field theory at all.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 13:11:17 作者资料

sage

发表文章数: 1125
武功等级: 天山六阳掌
     (第六重)
内力值: 535/535

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



If the elementary particles did exist as "point particles" (in reality), our life would be much easier. You know, we didn't have to develop field theory at all.

================================================================

why? what do you mean? Do you mean if they did NOT exist, we don't have to have field theory?

This is not true. Even the particle have some fundamental size (such as strings), their properties at scales much bigger than their size will be described by effective field theory.

Quantum field theory and renormalization only makes sense as effective field theory anyway.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 15:27:10 作者资料

卢昌海

发表文章数: 1617
武功等级: 北冥神功
     (第一重)
内力值: 602/602

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



I guess what No-go meant is IF elementary particles didn't have any dress-up (therefore "did exist as point particles"), our life "would be much easier", ..., we "don't have to develop field theory at all". That is true, because that is possible only if there is NO non-trivial interaction, and our life would indeed be much easier in such a world - since there won't be any life for us to live. :))


宠辱不惊,看庭前花开花落
去留无意,望天空云卷云舒


发表时间:2005-04-13, 16:03:17 作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



What I meant is that the elementary particles cannot be regarded as "point particles", which are the resemblance of something like dust in the obervable world to our eyes. If so, the extension of particle Hamiltonian to quantum
level (e.g. the performance to obtain hydron spectra in QM text book) will be sufficient. Isn't an easier life?

Contrary to Kanex, I hold that field is more fundamental than particle, which I believe is created by a^{\dager} after the quantization of field. To me, electron and photon are no fundamental difference; they are all fields, one spin half and one spin one. Maybe that is only my own fancy.

However, "particle" is not dipensable in physics. Our observational start point,reference frame, should be regarded as a massive point or a body.
It is from this very "point" all the measurements on what are happening are defined.


发表时间:2005-04-13, 20:25:03  作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



"I hold that field is more fundamental than particle"
============================

It seems that you didnt get my ideas at all. I hold the same belief too.

But the situation is a bit different in path integal formalism and canonical formalism!


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-13, 21:32:26  作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



Actually there is boundary between "particle" and "field" in QFT.

You may call photon a particle, and you may call it the EM field, and you may call it the quanta of the EM field as well. It is just a matter of semantics.


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-13, 21:40:16  作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



Right, the form factor of electron is non-trivial cause there is vertex correction giving rise anomalous magnetic moment. Habitually I looked at things from classical viewpoint (only do the Gordon decomposition of the current from classical Lagrangian).

BTW, kanex, what do you think the difference between canonical and path-integral formalism?


发表时间:2005-04-13, 23:57:34  作者资料

No-go

发表文章数: 369
武功等级: 太极剑法
     (第一重)
内力值: 242/242

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



How about the interactions in string theory, which I know nothing? They are non-local cause string is extended body?


发表时间:2005-04-14, 00:02:45  作者资料

sage

发表文章数: 1125
武功等级: 天山六阳掌
     (第六重)
内力值: 535/535

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



如果这样,我对重整化的感觉就会好多了,而且觉得既然如此,那象Feynman等人对重整化的看法就没有错,这里就有文章可作:去寻找更微观层次上对原理论的修改,

this is exactly what people have been doing all along

QED->Standard Model -> (maybe supersymmetry, maybe something else )......-> (maybe string theory? )


从而让重整化作为历史过渡被淘汰掉。

Renormalization as physics, its meaning is vey well understood. Nobody treats it as a problem any more. In this sense, you could call it history. Renormalization as a convenient method to calculate radiative correction and isolate our ignorance about high energy physics, it is still very useful and essential.

我对重整化的看法一直摇摆不定,有时候比较正统,有时候比较另类(我发现以前我在繁星发过一个关于重整化话题的帖子,感谢昌海兄还保留着,我自己都忘了自己曾发过这么一个帖子:-))

我记得在重整化方法中,高能截断最后都是要让它趋于无穷的,由此所导致的发散被抵消项抵消(或被裸量吸收,依赖于不同的重整化方法)。

The cutoff does not have to be taken to infinity.


发表时间:2005-04-14, 00:33:52  作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



Right, the form factor of electron is non-trivial cause there is vertex correction giving rise anomalous magnetic moment. Habitually I looked at things from classical viewpoint (only do the Gordon decomposition of the current from classical Lagrangian).

==========================================

You may still regard spin as energy-momentum flow at the surface of the electron.


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-14, 06:05:46  作者资料

kanex

发表文章数: 860
武功等级: 弹指神通
     (第六重)
内力值: 343/343

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



How about the interactions in string theory, which I know nothing? They are non-local cause string is extended body?
====================
以前看过一点点string,后来还是感觉味道不太合意,就没看了。不过string的作用在worldsheet空间是non-local的(例如最简单的Nambu Goto action),这个在画成费曼图后很清晰。


this is exactly what people have been doing all along
QED->Standard Model -> (maybe supersymmetry, maybe something else )......-> (maybe string theory? )
====================
fully agree.


The cutoff does not have to be taken to infinity.
====================
When we have a good understanding of quantum gravity.


江畔何人初见月`江月何年初照人`


发表时间:2005-04-14, 06:14:53  作者资料

星空浩淼

发表文章数: 1743
武功等级: 九阳神功
     (第五重)
内力值: 617/617

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



“从而让重整化作为历史过渡被淘汰掉。
Renormalization as physics, its meaning is vey well understood. Nobody treats it as a problem any more. In this sense, you could call it history. Renormalization as a convenient method to calculate radiative correction and isolate our ignorance about high energy physics, it is still very useful and essential. ”

呵呵,有道理。正如量子力学涵盖了牛顿经典力学,但这并不意味着我们计算天体运转时从此不再使用牛顿力学而一切改从量子力学出发了。

“The cutoff does not have to be taken to infinity. ”
这是否就是说:只要发散常数被吸收或被处理掉了,就不在乎它还取不取无穷大极限?


唯有与时间赛跑,方可维持一息尚存


发表时间:2005-04-14, 07:36:06  作者资料

卢昌海

发表文章数: 1617
武功等级: 北冥神功
     (第一重)
内力值: 602/602

Re: 我对重整化等的一点小小的想法



一个可重整的理论是一个对 cut-off 的具体数值不敏感的理论。因此在形式上,cut-off 取不取无穷都可以。不过重整化的数学自洽性却有赖于 cut-off 的存在,因为如果原则上不存在 cut-off,那么重整化方法在数学上实际上是把对 cut-off 趋于无穷的极限过程与有限 cut-off 下的代数处理(比如对 Feynman 图的 summation)做了次序上的对调。这种对调在数学上是不成立的。因此对于一个可重整理论, cut-off 取不取无穷都可以,但它的存在却很重要(不包括渐进自由或耦合常数具有有限不动点的理论)。


宠辱不惊,看庭前花开花落
去留无意,望天空云卷云舒


发表时间:2005-04-14, 10:07:48  作者资料

walk_f