Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 6, 2022 at 18:03 history bounty ended CommunityBot
Jun 29, 2022 at 11:45 comment added East Thanks for the answer and it is interesting to hear that closer attention to distributions can also potentially remove UV infinities. I do think however that the core of this question (though I accept I motivated it by QFT) is really about the use of the reals in the Lorentz irreps and how this relates to the info perspective. I also think that the 'information' perspective is misunderstood here. The universe doesn't need to be a computer for us to find that an infinite amount of information, which is physical and must be encoded in physical systems, in finite space is suspect.
Jun 28, 2022 at 18:28 comment added Valter Moretti No, I agree with you! I am saying with you that they are not the problem, just a complicated way to approach the problem…I wrote my comment in support to your answer…+1
Jun 28, 2022 at 18:02 history edited Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 4.0
added 195 characters in body
Jun 28, 2022 at 17:59 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Valter Moretti: Are you saying that I think that UV infinities are the problem when I manifestly said they weren't?
Jun 28, 2022 at 17:43 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Valter Moretti: Why are you quoting back my answer to me? I already said that "the UV infinities ... come from the indiscriminate use of distributions". I find this baffling. Did you read my post?
Jun 28, 2022 at 16:50 comment added Valter Moretti In fact, infinities are not the problem, the problem is that the use of local interactions gives rise to ambiguously defined operations with distributions. These ambiguities are the finite renormalization terms. It is not necessary going to infinity and coming back to finite to get them.
Jun 28, 2022 at 16:42 history answered Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 4.0