Is Renormalization Ruining Physics? A Deep Dive
Summary
At FriendZone | Make Friends & Chat ⋅ Active Social Fun ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC, we are diving deep into the philosophy of science. This announcement explores the controversial nature of renormalization in modern physics, questioning whether it is a mathematical shortcut or a barrier to a more rigorous theory. The discussion highlights the limitations of current models and encourages our community to explore alternatives like LQC and TQFTs to solve the fundamental problems of the universe.
It relies on parameterizing the divergent term using a cut-off, add imaginary counterterms, and take the limit to 'remove' the divergence. Firstly, it is nothing short of the butchery of mathematics, the very language physics is written in.
Your equation originally was never a limit, adding these ghost terms and taking the limit completely destroys your own equation and theoretical model. Is it the same equation as it was before ? Mathematically, no, we should not have even had divergent equations in the first place !
For the sake of it, however, let us assume this butchery to somehow be correct. This then yields some very amazing and remarkable results, 12 decimal points precise, or more. Modern physicists make rounds lauding renormalization for its results. But, should we not take this precision as a wake up call to realize that we are just some divergent terms away from an actually mathematically rigorous model which does not need renormalization in the first place ?
It is not even as if these models are completely invincible, they break down foolishly in many scenarios, take for example the Cosmological Constant Problem.
Back in the 19th century, physicists were introducing ghost planets to explain away [covergent,finite] discrepancies in Mercury's orbit rather than question Newtonian Gravity. Would we have been able to formulate Einstein's GR with differential geometry by the 1920s had we stuck to the ghosts planets ? Yet here we are introducing counterterms to explain away literal infinities.
What we need are new, mathematically rigorous theories that at the very least don't end up breaking down to give infinities [LQC,TQFTs,Skyrme]. We need to explore non linear, non local, topological theories with perhaps stochastic dynamics of solitons, and not be afraid to delve into even deeper mathematics like Einstein did introducing differential geometry and tensors back in the 1910s.
[This critique is purely from a mathematically rigorous standpoint]
this is so cool
I don't see much grandeur in it, more so tragic
i meant the perspective is cool, not that the situation is
Ah well, perhaps.
Not a new perspective, this has been said so since decades.
Say, even Dirac and Feynman critcised this.
cool yeah...i dont know what else to say
Nothing else to say, is there ? And neither is there anyone to listen.
It's been over 5-7 decades over this, same recycled theories, no real, global, or popular initiative within academia except ignored, localised efforts.
i hope you find someone as cool as you to debate this hot take with cuz im kinda dumb and don't know anything..yeah sorry
No worries lol, it's OK, you need not be an expert, for neither am I one.
It's difficult anyways to find someone truly interested in reading about long text walls about renormalization, so I appreciate this much by itself (: .
What
?
What 'what' ?
What
This hot take is long and i dont understand
Well, to explain in simple terms, Physics today just violates mathematics when their equations end up being wrong.
Oh i see
Imagine an equation as
A=B+C
And you find that B approaches infinity.
Any sane person would argue that there is something wrong.
physicists today assume it just be B, then add some imaginary term D
A=B+C+D
And somehow eliminate that.
...
So they make stuff up
Well yes.
What's queer is that this gives some very amazing results as I said.
Some values can be theoretically calculated with amazing precision.
What that should imply is that there's something wrong with your equation, maybe in B, without which your model would be perfect.
But rather than accept that and try something new, they stick to this renormalization as a saviour of their imperfect models.
Sometimes it fails hilariously.
So basically making an unsolvable/impossible equation a possible one?
Oh so they don't bother opening their minds to inaccuracies which could be fixed and perfect their original equations is what I'm getting at
Yes. Equivalent to just removing the problem right there rather than fix the core and hoping it works.
Correct.
Their fundamental equations they get from rigorous math are the same without anything wrong.
The moment they apply them in specific cases, they break down.
Rather than accept that and move on, make tweaks, they remove whatever is wrong.
Well ig they don't like admitting some parts aren't right so they don't improve
That's why I mentioned Newtonian gravity.
It would not blow up to infinity. Just a small numerical inconsistency in Mercury's orbit.
They first introduced a ghost planet, and then Einstein came up with relativity utilising more advanced math rather than accept such minor fixes
That is what we nee today.
Academia is toxic.
Controlled largely from the top that is obsessed with this an their own importance.
Why would they accept what they've insisted is right since 60 years ?
Tragic.
Might be better then for younger generations if they opened their minds some more, it's easier to change and correct things if they haven't stood by it for decades
That is the right but difficult way.
If you suggest anything like this, you get basically no funding.
Neither will your research papers reach anywhere at a grand scale.
The peer review culture heavily suppresses this as well.
Coming up from below is very difficult, especially so with radical ideas.
You'd find many Physicists [including Sabine on YT, AFAIK] criticising on what Academia has become.
Oh so they just want everyone to stick to renormalization to understand results which are finite (or smth like that)
someone please provide a tl;dr
Well, yes. Not willing to accept change.
What's comical is still these theories completely fall apart in other cases.
Off by 10^120 in one case LOL.
You can use an LLM, yes.
nah i don't wanna harvest these chats so that they can train on all of this data which is prolly valuable
Thanks
Yikes that doesn't give correct results at all with that closed mindedness
every token counts
Not everyone likes AI
Some people would rather ask others instead of AI
- ✅
Will not change unless someone comes up with something so absolute and beautiful it becomes undeniable.
We are yet to reach that point.
nga you use facebook 😭
What u wanna be called a kid💀
Not a big deal
Yet that can't work if they don't have the funds for their research I'm guessing
your phone is prolly being watched by Mark rn ngl
Rather use human brains than an algorithm
