Timeline for Could a theory that looks like an effective field theory also be fundamental?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2021 at 21:38 | comment | added | oliver | Thanks for these very interesting references! I am always surprised to find that there are so many subtle and equally important facts I have never heard about. | |
| Apr 8, 2021 at 21:27 | vote | accept | oliver | ||
| Apr 8, 2021 at 21:26 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @oliver Depends on what you mean by "fundamental". There is no reason a renormalizable theory has to be gauge. There are good reasons the SM, as the "most fundamental QFT" describing world excluding gravity, is formulated as a gauge theory. But due to the non-renormalizability of QFTs with gravity, people do not believe that the "fundamental" that describes our world is a QFT at all. Whether or not QG will be a "gauge theory" is meaningless. Also, "gauge theory" is not inherent in a system, see physics.stackexchange.com/q/13870/50583, physics.stackexchange.com/q/257018/50583 | |
| Apr 8, 2021 at 21:13 | comment | added | oliver | So I am trying to rephrase it: there is no known hard reason why a supposed fundamental theory need to be a gauge theory (except for some effective regimes that correspond to today's standard model), right? Of course, except that such a theory would have to explain conservation of charges, but other than that... | |
| Apr 8, 2021 at 17:44 | history | answered | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |