• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

202 submissions , 160 unreviewed
4,981 questions , 2,140 unanswered
5,339 answers , 22,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
813 active unimported users
More ...

  Can a non-renormalizable relativistic quantum field theory exist?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Can a non-renormalizable relativistic quantum field theory exist as an exact (rather than effective) theory?

asked Oct 2, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Arnold Neumaier (15,767 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

There are theories that are non-renormalizable according to standard perturbation theory but are (at the usual level of rigor in theoretical physics) renormalizable when perturbed around the large N limit. See, e.g.,

G. Parisi, The theory of non-renormalizable interactions: The large N expansion, Nuclear Physics B 100.2 (1975): 368-388.

A fully rigorous construction of such a theory has been given in 2 space-time dimensions. See

K. Gawedski and A. Kupiainen, Renormalization of a non-renormalizable quantum field theory, Nuclear Physics B 262 (1985), 33-48.

In general, the only difference between renormalizable and non-renormalizable theories is that the collection of the former/latter forms a finite/infinite-dimensional manifold of theories. But of course, infinite-dimensional manifolds contain lots of finite-dimensional ones; for example those that set all but finitely many of the parameters to zero. The problem is just identifying the right ones to describe given physics is much harder, especially if one aims at an infinitely accurate (''fundamental'') description of Nature. 

answered Oct 2, 2016 by Arnold Neumaier (15,767 points) [ no revision ]

An " infinitely accurate (''fundamental'')" QFT is, by definition, a Theory of Everything, isn't it? In this sense, it cannot exist since we do not know and may not know everything.

If we do not intend to describe everything, then there may be infinite number of QFT constructions amongst which there may be those who does not need renormalization at all, I guess. I tried to give a toy model of such theories here (so far without any reaction from the physical community). This, third option, is avoided by the physical community as a crackpottery (non-mainstream direction of approximate physics description).

@VladimirKalitvianski: yours is neither a QFT nor invariant under a relativistic group, hence it is nothing but a toy for you personally.

All relativistic QFT need renormalization, since the covariant interactions one can easily write down are too singular to make sense with a finite coupling constant.

@ArnoldNeumaier: The "easiness" of writing such an interaction is "compensated" with heaviness of renormalizations and interpretations. You may not exclude the third possibility, you cannot prove its impossibility. And any new direction has started first from toy models, historically. You cannot speak for all physics community. Okay, you underappreciate this direction and my toy model in particular, but it is your personal underappreciation, which you extrapolate implicitly to the whole third direction. Too bad.

IMHO the moot point is that the correct theory won't need renormalization.

@JohnDuffeld: You implicitly imply there may only be one "correct theory" whereas there may be many of them.

 @Vladimir Kalitvianski : I was thinking of one theory for one subject.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights