The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
General Science
General Science
renormalization
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
renormalization
2 Replies
4370 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wolram
(OP)
Sr. Member
103
Activity:
0%
renormalization
«
on:
20/02/2006 18:37:46 »
Can some one explain this mathematical tool? it seems to me to be a
(bodge) that makes some problem solvable, but does the ansewer reflect
the real world?
A born optomist
Logged
A born optomist
Ray hinton
Sr. Member
476
Activity:
0%
Re: renormalization
«
Reply #1 on:
21/02/2006 00:33:23 »
its an abacus,best mathematical tool of all.
Logged
its the drugs,y-know.
Solvay_1927
Sr. Member
383
Activity:
0%
Re: renormalization
«
Reply #2 on:
21/02/2006 23:46:55 »
wolram (would it be presumptuous of me to call you nibor?),
you could have a look at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
My understanding is that it IS a bodge, in the sense that the mathematics involved isn't "self-consistent". But the fact is, renormalisation works, so it must reflect the real world somehow.
As far as I can recall, it might only be considered a bodge if you believe that space (and time) are infinitely divisible - i.e. if you believe that space is a continuum and you can separate any two points in space by as small a distance as you want (whether that's 10^-100 or 10^-100000 metres).
However, if you believe in the quantisation of space (and time) - i.e. that two points can never be closer that a certain distance apart (say, the "Planck length", about 10^-35 m) - then renormalisation might make sense.
(But as I said, that's as far as I can recall. My memory ain't what it used to be, and my physics is getting rusty.)
And if you're not familiar with the concept of the quantisation of space & time (i.e. the idea that space and time come in indivisible - but tiny - quantities), don't dismiss it too easily. It's (apparently) accepted by alot of scientists working on "quantum gravity" (i.e. working on the elusive unification of quantum theory with general relativity).
Logged
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...