tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post8457987180807128255..comments2024-03-27T22:28:06.861-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: Frank Wilczek Teases Renormalization Breakthrough?Andrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-61565471705973034502016-05-10T17:20:14.038-06:002016-05-10T17:20:14.038-06:00This isn't about determining Nature's cons...This isn't about determining Nature's constants, and I don't know what you are mentioning the Planck CMB data (are you perhaps trying to comment on a different post?) as I don't see anything in the post about Planck CMB data (although I don't see in principle why Planck CMB data, like any other measurement, couldn't be used to measure some physical constant that would place bounds on more fundamental physical constants). It wouldn't produce an exact calculated value, but it would provide an experimental test of any other value you might determine by other means. For example, you could establish that the cosmological constant is not consistent with a source equal to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field with Planck CMB data.<br /><br />The issue in this post is that there has been real doubt about whether the renormalization technique used in particle physics is mathematically valid for the four decades since it was invented. Now, a leading physicists is hinting that indeed it is mathematically valid as demonstrated by his novel proof, although this purported break through is not discussed in his latest published paper.<br /><br />The constants that go into the beta function used for renormalization are known exactly and follow entirely from mathematics without result to any experimental measurements, except for the renormalization cutoff scale which is chosen arbitrarily by the physicist, and without any pretension that it represents an experimentally measurable quantity.<br /><br />Now, you can't do any quantum physics calculations unless you measure the physical constant to be renormalized at some given momentum scale. But, if, for example, you measure the strong force coupling constant alpha sub s at the Z boson mass momentum scale, you can determine the equivalent strong force coupling constant strength alpha sub s at any other momentum scale you wish to use so long as it isn't too close to your arbitrarily chosen renormalization calculation cutoff scale.<br /><br />The fact that this has held up experimentally (and to extreme precision in the case of electroweak measurements) means that the structure of the equations where renormalization is used is correct in all material respects. <br /><br />By analogy, it is an accurate conversion tool in much the same way that an equation for determining the length of a geodesic across a spherical surface based upon two coordinates on a spherical surface will reproduce reality if you are really on an object whose shape is very nearly spherical, with pure mathematics and one measured constant (in that case, the radius of the sphere).<br /><br />andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-49290116451695585492016-05-04T22:57:30.678-06:002016-05-04T22:57:30.678-06:00"...so perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree..."...so perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree about this breakthrough."<br /><br />Any tree cannot produce (calculate) the fruits of the nature constants (alpha, etc.) and the Planck CMB data is a dead tree.<br /><br />So, you are not barking up the wrong tree but up a dead tree.Tienzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.com