Article View: sci.physics
Article #4285Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
From: Bryan Carpenter
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 10:53
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 10:53
24 lines
1467 bytes
1467 bytes
In <29SEP199213190360@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: >In article <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes... >>... >Perhaps. My tendency to be "optimistic" in this sense is well known >to all. I would prefer to say that QED is not *proven* to be consistent, >though it is known(*) to be so. Certainly it is widely believed to be so. Have there been recent developments here? I'm a bit out of touch with field theory these days, but it used to be widely suspected that QED, like phi^4, is ``consistent'' (whatever that means, precisely) only in the case where the renormalised coupling vanishes---ie only as a theory of non-interacting particles. (The escape clause was this holds as the cutoff goes to infinity, and one hopes that new physics comes in at some enormous scale, so there is some large but finite effective cutoff). >(*) According to the Oracle at Berkeley. >-Scott Bryan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<12972@ecs.soton.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!sot-ecs!dbcReferences:
<1992Sep27.172211.1391@cnsvax.uwec.edu> <28SEP199211153430@csa1.lbl.gov> <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu> <29SEP199213190360@csa1.lbl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!sot-ecs!dbc From: dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy Message-ID: <12972@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Date: 1 Oct 92 10:53:49 GMT References: <1992Sep27.172211.1391@cnsvax.uwec.edu> <28SEP199211153430@csa1.lbl.gov> <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu> <29SEP199213190360@csa1.lbl.gov> Sender: news@ecs.soton.ac.uk Lines: 24 Nntp-Posting-Host: louis