QED is a gauge theory on the circle group. Then 'tHooft showed renormalization applied to gauge theories over other groups. Since the known particles were classified by group representations of other groups, that opened the way to the Standard Model. They just had to use the groups already linked to the the particles, and apply gauge theory renormalization.
Gauge theory was the only known renormalizable theory, so there was no choice.
Not everyone agrees that renormalizability is so important. The later invention of effective field theory seemed to bypass renormalization. String theory also provides another approach.
Attempts to quantize gravity have failed because general relativity is not renormalizable. This led people to say string theory is the only game in town, except for maybe loop quantum gravity. Neither approach has produced a quantum gravity theory.
I did not know that general relativity could be easily modified to a theory that is renormalizable.
Luca Buoninfante posts a new paper:
An important theoretical achievement of the last century was the realization that strict renormalizability can be a powerful criterion to select Lagrangians in the framework of perturbative quantum field theory. The Standard Model Lagrangian (without gravity) is strictly renormalizable from a perturbative point of view. On the other hand, the inclusion of gravity seems not to respect this criterion, since general relativity is perturbatively non-renormalizable. The aim of this work is to provide concrete evidence that strict renormalizability is still a valid criterion even when applied to gravity. First, we show that adding quadratic curvature terms to the Einstein-Hilbert action gives rise to a strictly renormalizable theory known as quadratic gravity. Second, we argue that this unique theory represents the most conservative approach to quantum gravity and, at the same time, is highly predictive, as it can explain new physics beyond general relativity already in the sub-Planckian regime.The simplest way to define a physics theory is to specify the Lagrangian. If you do that for the Standard Model, you can fit it on a t-shirt.
General relativity is the theory derived from the scalar curvature R being the Lagrangian. Or subtract a constant, for general relativity with a cosmological constant. This paper says that you just have to add a quadratic term in the curvature, such as R2 or other contractions of the squared Riemann tensor, and you get a renormalizable theory. News to me. This model is sometimes called Starobinsky inflation, and used to explain the early universe.
We do not have any way to test quantum gravity, so the best argument for this approach is that renormalizability has been such a crucially important criterion in the past. It is how we got the Standard Model.
Adding a quadratic term is a bit like Einstein adding the cosmological constant to general relativity. It could not be measured at the time, and was intended to improve the global properties of the theory. It was only measured 80 years later.
Maybe someday this quadratic gravity will be seen as the natural way to modify general relativity to handle extreme conditions.
Everybody always says that quantum mechanics and gravity are incompatible. There is no experiment that shows a problem, so there is only a theoretical incompatibility that might only apply at the center of a black hole or in the first nanosecond of the big bang.
Now I question this. As this paper explains, just add a couple of quadratic terms to the gravity Lagrangian, and there is no problem renormalizing quantum field theory predictions. The only problem is that we do not have experimental data to determine the coefficients of those extra terms. Presumably they are small enough not to affect the known celestial mechanics and cosmology.
So we have a perfectly good quantum gravity theory, with a couple of undetermined coefficients. Those coefficients are too small to affect any of our observations. Viewed that way, it is incorrect to say that there is any incompatibility between gravity and quantum theories.
A few years ago, you could have said that general relativity was incompatible with the concept of a quantum zero point energy. Now the cosmological constant is accepted, and that is believed to be the energy. Maybe we just need to add one or two more cosmological constants, and quantum gravity will cease to be a theoretical issue.
CFT,
ReplyDeleteDo you want to take the first shot? starting right from the title of this post? Or should I go ahead?
--Ajit
Roger,
ReplyDeletewith respect,
and to Ajit with a smirk,
'showed how infinities could be canceled out' my ass.
Might as well divide by zero while you're at it.
Eliding over renormalization like it is a minor aesthetic quibble, minor gentleman's disagreement, or a 'clever' technique, is like saying "Oooops, I was only off by infinity, but hey, if I wave around my hands like so around this teeny tiny little detail and truncate where I please...VOILA! Gee Whiz! Suck it up Jesus, you could only do 'multiplication' with fishes and loaves, but I can make infinity my finite bitch!
It's a MIRACLE! Look how accurate QED is!!!"
The cosmological constant is only off 'naturalness' by an order of 100 magnitude according to Sabine Hossenfelder. Renormalization is 'only' off by a magnitude of infinity. details, shmetails.
I don't give a shit what you want to call this 'dippy process', but it isn't math or legitimate accounting. It's a kludge. A fudge. A hack. A bogus. A temporary half measure. A vile crusty botch of nature. It is physics throwing in the towel and saying, 'hey, who cares if we are covering up stop gap fraud with 'it's just convenient...and I was taught it this way in college so... who cares'.
And from the horse's mouth:
"The shell game that we play to find n and j is technically called renormalization. But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. ... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
p.128 of "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
Love and kisses,
Richard P. Feynman
Why the smirk?
DeleteJust that you asked me to take the first shot.
DeleteIt made me smile.
Hmmm....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhether you think renormalization is a kluge is beside the point. It was crucial for QED, crucial for SM, and it is reason why everyone says gravity and QM are incompatible.
ReplyDeleteSo, Roger, Berkeley Maths PhD, which part of the reality or reason do you think interfered to create the hallucination in your mind that ``Whether you think renormalization is a kluge is beside the point''?
DeleteThe first comment was made by me, also the second. But I think you all are a bit too smart for your own good, anyway. [Check the IP address, Roger. Do you think you know computer security and all? Do you? Do you think you are the only one(s) who do? Huh?]
DeleteA warning, well in time. Take it or leave it. Yours is not George Washington's country, Roger. You included. Take it from me. Or, as always, leave it.
This post was about whether gravity is renormalizable.
DeleteAnd the SM was built in reference to experimental findings. Portraying the matters as if renormalization lead to SM is essentially the same as portraying / supposing that Newton's laws can predict the number of moons for a planet.
DeleteWell, it's your blog. Bye.
As usual (for me), editing is necessary. Not just for typos (like lead -> led etc.) or grammar (for -> of) but for expressions too. What I meant was the following:
DeleteDon't give me that bit about Heschel and all. Give me the specific procedure whereby, using Newton's laws alone (taken as validated using observations of objects on earth only) *and* without making a single astronomical observation (whether by the telescope or by the naked eye), you can calculate the number of moons of a planet in our solar system. I don't expect the calculation to be capable enough to predict the number of moons of saturn; I will happily settle for one that tells the number of moons of the earth.
And, yes, they were searching for a particle that gives mass to other particles. All using renormalization. What a brilliant idea!
What next? Using renormalization to predict the fundamental constants?
Mathematicians. They will never stop trying. Who knows, they will try that next idea too.
Bye anyway. [Won't correct any mistakes / misleading statements here. Take it or leave it.]
Those moons were discovered with eyes and telescopes. I guess you do not like renormalization, but it is a historical fact that it was crucial to developing the SM.
DeleteThe point I was ALSO making Roger, hence the quote,
ReplyDeleteIs that the man who pretty much invented renormalization as a solution thought it was bogus mathematically. That isn't just ME being picky-picky, that is the guy who invented the damn thing, Richard P. Feynman, being critical of the fact he knew it was just dressed up expert hand waving. That is not a small uninformed indictment, that is a very well informed indictment.
Convoluted hand waving is about the only way you can correct for being off by infinity and then claiming success, FEYNMAN said so. Just because folks are comfortable with nonsense, mostly because they just shrug their shoulders and accept what they were taught in college (like pretty much everything else they learn in college) does not make it legitimate mathematics. Following or parroting bullshit dressed up in complicated math once or a million times over moves you no closer to the truth, mathematically or otherwise.
You can fudge anything you like to get agreement with experiment, god knows they do it all the time at the LHC, but that doesn't really mean anything. Making up a bullshit mechanism is what dug the damn hole to begin with, digging deeper isn't going to improve the outlook.
Renormalization is not nonsense, and Feynman did not disavow it. It correctly predicts experiments. Regardless, this post was about whether gravity is renormalizable.
DeleteYes, you can improve the perturbative behavior by adding higher curvature terms, and that's mathematically interesting. But the real problem is that quantum field theory itself should be reinterpreted. Fields are classical stochastic objects with natural cutoffs. Quantum effects are statistical, not fundamental. Thus, asking whether "gravity can be renormalized" is missing the deeper need to rethink what fields — and quantum behavior — really are. What we are dealing with are explicit nonlinearities in the field interactions and measurements.
ReplyDeleteIn QED and QCD, and even more in gravity, nonlinearity is not an annoyance; it's what makes the field real and interactive. Trying to quantize linear fields and then treat nonlinearity as perturbative is conceptually backwards. Instead, you should start with nonlinear stochastic fields, and recognize measurement itself as a nonlinear physical interaction with the field. Quantum mechanics, in this view, emerges because we are measuring nonlinear stochastic fields in a particular way — not because nature is fundamentally "quantized."
Stanley Deser made an elegant first-order, "self-interacting" (nonlinear) field theory of gravity in flat space that is far superior to quantization and curvature ideas. Curvature is an redundant and abstract metaphysics to describe all physical fields. Fields have their own physical geometry.