Timeline for Is there a way to justify perturbation theory in QFT?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2017 at 9:12 | comment | added | FraSchelle | @AccidentalFourierTransform Indeed, I didn't wanted to enter too much details, feel free to post your own answer to complete mine. I had the feeling my answer gently introduces the concept of perturbation series. It seems the OP never opened a book on QFT so I just gave handwaving arguments. | |
| Apr 18, 2017 at 9:11 | comment | added | FraSchelle | @annav Indeed, I completely forget renormalisation, thanks for pointing this out. It's a shame indeed. Feel free to complete my answer. I had the feeling my answer gently introduces the concept of perturbation series. It seems the OP never opened a book on QFT so I just gave handwaving arguments. | |
| Apr 18, 2017 at 8:50 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | IMHO, this answer completely neglects the nature of asymptotic series, which are the core of the question. Also, the claims about "physicists being unable to do things rigorously" is completely unjustified. | |
| Apr 18, 2017 at 8:48 | comment | added | anna v | where does renormalization enter in this argumetn? I thought it was invented in order to avoid the infinities. Is it a different story? see physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys851/Luty/notes/renorm.pdf | |
| Apr 18, 2017 at 8:43 | history | answered | FraSchelle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |