[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 289 KB, 1042x466, 1497252075148.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9233155 No.9233155 [Reply] [Original]

Is there not a fundamental problem with the standard model when we have to resort to renormalization in order to make particles not have infinite mass and so on? Is this just a gimick from our mathematical formalism or should it be considered an ad hoc "yea dude [math]\textit{now}[/math] this looks just fine"? Conceptually it feels like we're cheating.

>> No.9233164

it's about pragmatism. you have to make concessions so the system can actually apply to what we deal with.

>> No.9233180

>>9233164
Is it really the best we could do though? We can never observe loop diagrams so we should not need them in our formalism.

>> No.9233210

>>9233155
I think that's an argument against the standard model, yes. Even if renormalization is all fine and dandy I'm pretty sure there's some other stuff going on that you might consider fishy or ad hoc. At the very least the SM isn't complete.

>> No.9233741
File: 146 KB, 1075x384, gaysex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9233741

>>9233155
>mathematical formalism
Renormalization is literally just a shift in energy scale. It's justified via physical arguments so there does not exist mathematical arguments for why it can be done at all.