0
$\begingroup$

I am trying to make a sentence more approachable to a general audience by not using technical language. I fear I'm however losing precision in this new language.

Original sentence:

The use of perturbation theory in quantum field theory (QFT) has been wildly successful to the point of developing the most rigorously tested theory of physics, the Standard Model. However, perturbation theory, in the same vein as Taylor series expansions, relies on the ability to expand about a small quantity, notably the coupling or interaction strength in the system. When the system is strongly interacting, i.e. the interaction strength in the system is large, the same perturbation theory is not successful to describe the properties of the so-called non-perturbative system. Other methods need to be explored to describe these properties.

New sentence:

The use of perturbation theory in quantum field theory (QFT) has been wildly successful to the point of developing the most rigorously tested theory of physics, the Standard Model. However, perturbation theory relies on the ability to modify a known solution by introducing small perturbations that are proportional to the interaction\coupling strength in the system. When the system is strongly interacting, i.e. the interaction strength in the system is large, the same perturbation theory is not successful in describing the properties of the so-called non-perturbative system. Other methods need to be explored to describe these properties.

Have I accurately represented perturbation theory in this new sentence?

Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.