DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Tension Between Physics and Mathematics LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Published Version

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Tension Between Physics and Mathematics LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Published Version On the tension between physics and mathematics LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102962/ Version: Published Version Article: Miklós, Rédei ORCID: 0000-0001-5298-1443 (2020) On the tension between physics and mathematics. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. ISSN 0925- 4560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09496-0 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Journal for General Philosophy of Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09496-0 ARTICLE On the Tension Between Physics and Mathematics Miklós Rédei1 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Because of the complex interdependence of physics and mathematics their relation is not free of tensions. The paper looks at how the tension has been perceived and articulated by some physicists, mathematicians and mathematical physicists. Some sources of the tension are identified and it is claimed that the tension is both natural and fruitful for both physics and mathematics. An attempt is made to explain why mathematical precision is typically not welcome in physics. Keywords Mathematics and physics · Mathematical precision · Mathematical physics · Quantum theory 1 The “Supermarket Picture” of the Relation of Physics and Mathematics, and Tension of Type I According to what can be called the standard picture of the relation of physics and math- ematics, physics is a science in the modern sense because it is systematically mathematical, which means two things: (a) Physics carries out precision measurements aiming at determining values of operation- ally defined physical quantities. This is what quantitative experimental physics does, and this ensures descriptive accuracy of physics. (b) Physics sets up mathematical models of physical phenomena that make explicit the functional relationships among the measured quantities; i.e. physics formulates gen- This paper is a slightly expanded version of the plenary talk delivered at the 2019 Frühjahrstagung (München, March 17–22, 2019) of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG) on the invitation of the Arbeitsgruppe Philosophie der Physik of DPG. I wish to thank the representatives of the Arbeitsgruppe Philosophie der Physik, R. Dardashti, M. Kuhlman and C. Wüthrich, for the invitation. Written while staying at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilians University, supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary, K115593. * Miklós Rédei [email protected] 1 Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 M. Rédei eral quantitative physical laws. This is the main activity in theoretical physics and this enables physics to be predictively successful. Both descriptive accuracy and predictive success should be understood here with a number of qualifications: the descriptive accuracy is never perfect (experimental errors); the opera- tionally defined quantities are not purely empirical (theory-ladenness of observations), nat- ural laws may also refer to entities that are not observable strictly speaking, etc. While the standard picture of the relation of mathematics and physics as characterized by (a) and (b) captures crucial properties of the role of mathematics in physics, it is some- what naive because it is (tacitly) based on what I call here the ‘supermarket picture’ of the relation of mathematics and physics: that mathematics is like a supermarket and physics is a customer. That is to say, it is tacitly assumed that when a physicist needs a mathematical concept, a mathematical structure, or any mathematical tool to formulate the mathematical model of a physical phenomenon, then (s)he just goes to the mathematics-supermarket, looks at the shelves, takes off the product needed, and, possibly after some adjustment and tinkering with it after checkout, (s)he has the mathematical tool suitable to set up the math- ematical model. But this assumption is non-trivial; so non-trivial that it frequently does not hold: math- ematical concepts are (frequently) not available in strict, precise, consistent mathematical sense and form at the time needed for physics. Moreover, creating the needed mathematical concepts might take a considerable amount of time. Since physics cannot stand still and wait until the right mathematical concepts have been worked out, physics will necessarily be mathematically sloppy, imprecise, even inconsistent during this time. One can cite several historical examples to back up this claim. In the next section four (well-known) examples are given. The tension between physics and mathematics arising from the need in physics of some mathematical concepts that are not available at a given time in mathematics I call Tension of type I. 2 Examples of Tension of Type I 2.1 The Missing Derivative in Newton’s Mechanics Newton would have needed the concept of derivative of a function to formulate the second law of motion. But this concept was not available in mathematics in precise form until the work of Cauchy and Weierstrass in the nineteenth century. So Newton did what he could: reasoning in an inconsistent manner involving infinitesimals (quantities that were assumed to have both finite and zero value) to calculate derivatives. To be more precise, Newton used both algebraic and geometric methods in his calculations. The algebraic one relied on the notion of infinitesimals; the geometric reasonings used “ultimate ratios of vanishing quantities” (Guicciardini 2002, 320). The algebraic calculations were not published until after the Principia, in which geometric reasonings dominate. Logical problems with both reasonings had been pointed out already in Newton’s time: Berkeley was to observe in the Analyst (1734) that the “limits of vanishing quan- tities” employed in the Principia are as mysterious as the infinitesimals, since the “ultimate ratio of two vanishing quantities”, when the quantities are “vanished” is 0/0, and before they have vanished the ratio is not the “ultimate”. (Guicciardini 2002, 320) 1 3 On the Tension Between Physics and Mathematics Concerning the reasoning in terms of infinitesimals, Berkeley writes in The Analyst (1734): For when it is said, let the increments vanish, i.e. let the increments be nothing, or let there be no increments, the former supposition that the increments were something, or that there were increments, is destroyed, and yet a consequence of that supposi- tion, i.e. an expression got by virtue thereof, is retained. Which, by the foregoing lemma, is a false way of reasoning. […] [The foregoing Lemma:] ‘If with a view to demonstrate any proposition, a certain point is supposed, by virtue of which certain other points are attained; and such supposed point be it self after- wards destroyed or rejected by a contrary supposition; in that case, all the other points attained thereby, and consequent thereupon, must also be destroyed and rejected, so as from thence forward to be no more supposed or applied in the demonstration.’ This is so plain as to need no proof. (Berkeley 2002, 5–6) It should be noted that, while it is standard view in history of mathematics that Newton did not have a consistent concept of limit and only since Cauchy’s work is this notion available in precise (‘epsilon-delta’) form, the standard view is contested by B. Pourciau (2001), who claims that Newton had a very clear concept of limit. It is incontestable however that the concept of derivative had not been available in the mathematics supermarket when it was needed for mechanics, and Newton was struggling with creating it. 2.2 Missing Spectral Theory of Selfadjoint Operators in Quantum Mechanics Before von Neumann Hilbert space quantum theory was established systematically in a mathematically precise form by von Neumann, and was summarized in his book (von Neumann 1932a). The book was based on three foundational papers, von Neumann (1927a; 1927b; 1927c), all pub- lished in 1927 (they were communicated by M. Born in May and in November of 1927). Of these three papers the first von Neumann (1927a) introduced the notion of abstract Hilbert space and treated the ‘eigenvalue problem’ of (possibly unbounded) selfadjoint operators having possibly a continuous part in their spectrum in a mathematically consistent man- ner, without using the Dirac delta function. The technically complete, full analysis of the spectral theorem was worked out by von Neumann in a substantial paper published in 1930 only (von Neumann 1930) (the paper was received by the journal on December 15, 1928). These mathematically precise papers had been preceded by a paper co-authored by Hilbert et al. (1928) (received by Mathematische Annalen on April 6, 1927). This latter paper is the first attempt to systematize (axiomatize) standard Hilbert space quantum mechanics, and the paper is based on Hilbert’s lecture on foundations of quantum mechanics in 1926. Although the paper was published in a mathematics journal, the authors are aware that the calculations they present there do not meet the criteria of precise mathematics: From a mathematical point of view the method of calculation is rather unsatisfactory because one is never certain whether the operations involved are really admissible. For this reason we do not detail them further. But we hope to return to these issues on another occasion. (Hilbert et al. 1928, 30, my translation1) 1 German original: “Vom mathematischen Standpunkt ist aber die dabei eingeschlagene Rechnungsweise […] ziemlich unbefriedigend, da man nie sicher ist, in welchem Umfange die dabei auftretenden Opera- tionen wirklich zulässig sind. Deshalb sehen wir zunächst von der weiteren Ausführung dieser Gedanken ab. Wir hoffen jedoch, bei anderer Gelegenheit auf diese Fragen zurückkommen zu können.” 1 3 M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Future of Fundamental Physics
    The Future of Fundamental Physics Nima Arkani-Hamed Abstract: Fundamental physics began the twentieth century with the twin revolutions of relativity and quantum mechanics, and much of the second half of the century was devoted to the con- struction of a theoretical structure unifying these radical ideas. But this foundation has also led us to a number of paradoxes in our understanding of nature. Attempts to make sense of quantum mechanics and gravity at the smallest distance scales lead inexorably to the conclusion that space- Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/141/3/53/1830482/daed_a_00161.pdf by guest on 23 September 2021 time is an approximate notion that must emerge from more primitive building blocks. Further- more, violent short-distance quantum fluctuations in the vacuum seem to make the existence of a macroscopic world wildly implausible, and yet we live comfortably in a huge universe. What, if anything, tames these fluctuations? Why is there a macroscopic universe? These are two of the central theoretical challenges of fundamental physics in the twenty-½rst century. In this essay, I describe the circle of ideas surrounding these questions, as well as some of the theoretical and experimental fronts on which they are being attacked. Ever since Newton realized that the same force of gravity pulling down on an apple is also responsible for keeping the moon orbiting the Earth, funda- mental physics has been driven by the program of uni½cation: the realization that seemingly disparate phenomena are in fact different aspects of the same underlying cause. By the mid-1800s, electricity and magnetism were seen as different aspects of elec- tromagnetism, and a seemingly unrelated phenom- enon–light–was understood to be the undulation of electric and magnetic ½elds.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Statement
    D. A. Williams II June 2021 Research Statement I am an algebraist with expertise in the areas of representation theory of Lie superalgebras, associative superalgebras, and algebraic objects related to mathematical physics. As a post- doctoral fellow, I have extended my research to include topics in enumerative and algebraic combinatorics. My research is collaborative, and I welcome collaboration in familiar areas and in newer undertakings. The referenced open problems here, their subproblems, and other ideas in mind are suitable for undergraduate projects and theses, doctoral proposals, or scholarly contributions to academic journals. In what follows, I provide a technical description of the motivation and history of my work in Lie superalgebras and super representation theory. This is then followed by a description of the work I am currently supervising and mentoring, in combinatorics, as I serve as the Postdoctoral Research Advisor for the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute's Undergraduate Program 2021. 1 Super Representation Theory 1.1 History 1.1.1 Superalgebras In 1941, Whitehead dened a product on the graded homotopy groups of a pointed topological space, the rst non-trivial example of a Lie superalgebra. Whitehead's work in algebraic topol- ogy [Whi41] was known to mathematicians who dened new graded geo-algebraic structures, such as -graded algebras, or superalgebras to physicists, and their modules. A Lie superalge- Z2 bra would come to be a -graded vector space, even (respectively, odd) elements g = g0 ⊕ g1 Z2 found in (respectively, ), with a parity-respecting bilinear multiplication termed the Lie g0 g1 superbracket inducing1 a symmetric intertwining map of -modules.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics-Arnold V.I..Djvu
    V.I. Arnold Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition Translated by K. Vogtmann and A. Weinstein With 269 Illustrations Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg London Paris Tokyo Hong Kong Barcelona Budapest V. I. Arnold K. Vogtmann A. Weinstein Department of Department of Department of Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Steklov Mathematical Cornell University University of California Institute Ithaca, NY 14853 at Berkeley Russian Academy of U.S.A. Berkeley, CA 94720 Sciences U.S.A. Moscow 117966 GSP-1 Russia Editorial Board J. H. Ewing F. W. Gehring P.R. Halmos Department of Department of Department of Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Indiana University University of Michigan Santa Clara University Bloomington, IN 47405 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Santa Clara, CA 95053 U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. Mathematics Subject Classifications (1991): 70HXX, 70005, 58-XX Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Amol 'd, V.I. (Vladimir Igorevich), 1937- [Matematicheskie melody klassicheskoi mekhaniki. English] Mathematical methods of classical mechanics I V.I. Amol 'd; translated by K. Vogtmann and A. Weinstein.-2nd ed. p. cm.-(Graduate texts in mathematics ; 60) Translation of: Mathematicheskie metody klassicheskoi mekhaniki. Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-387-96890-3 I. Mechanics, Analytic. I. Title. II. Series. QA805.A6813 1989 531 '.01 '515-dcl9 88-39823 Title of the Russian Original Edition: M atematicheskie metody klassicheskoi mekhaniki. Nauka, Moscow, 1974. Printed on acid-free paper © 1978, 1989 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc. All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, U.S.A.), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Field Theory*
    Quantum Field Theory y Frank Wilczek Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Science, Olden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540 I discuss the general principles underlying quantum eld theory, and attempt to identify its most profound consequences. The deep est of these consequences result from the in nite number of degrees of freedom invoked to implement lo cality.Imention a few of its most striking successes, b oth achieved and prosp ective. Possible limitation s of quantum eld theory are viewed in the light of its history. I. SURVEY Quantum eld theory is the framework in which the regnant theories of the electroweak and strong interactions, which together form the Standard Mo del, are formulated. Quantum electro dynamics (QED), b esides providing a com- plete foundation for atomic physics and chemistry, has supp orted calculations of physical quantities with unparalleled precision. The exp erimentally measured value of the magnetic dip ole moment of the muon, 11 (g 2) = 233 184 600 (1680) 10 ; (1) exp: for example, should b e compared with the theoretical prediction 11 (g 2) = 233 183 478 (308) 10 : (2) theor: In quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) we cannot, for the forseeable future, aspire to to comparable accuracy.Yet QCD provides di erent, and at least equally impressive, evidence for the validity of the basic principles of quantum eld theory. Indeed, b ecause in QCD the interactions are stronger, QCD manifests a wider variety of phenomena characteristic of quantum eld theory. These include esp ecially running of the e ective coupling with distance or energy scale and the phenomenon of con nement.
    [Show full text]
  • Pure Mathematics Professors Teaching and Leading Research CO-OP OR REGULAR 28
    PURE MATHEMATICS Pure Mathematics professors teaching and leading research CO-OP OR REGULAR 28 Mathematician ranked among top 10 TOP 10 jobs from 2011-2017 – Comcast.com of grads are employed Search for a deeper 96.6% within 2 years understanding of mathematics Pure mathematics is at the foundation of all mathematical reasoning. If first-year calculus ALEX teaches you how to drive the car, Pure Mathematics teaches you how to build one. 3B, PURE MATHEMATICS AND Mathematicians know that there could be no general relativity without differential COMBINATORICS AND geometry, and no computer security without advanced number theory. OPTIMIZATION Pure Mathematics at Waterloo is a small, cohesive, and challenging program that will open countless doors for you. Our graduates have used the program as a springboard into careers WHAT DO YOU LOVE ABOUT in information technology, finance, business, science, education, and insurance, often by way PURE MATHEMATICS? The satisfaction from understanding of some of the most prestigious graduate programs in the world. an idea at a deeper level and tying together unrelated branches of ALEX’S FAVOURITE COURSES mathematics or physics for the › PMATH 320 Euclidean Geometry: This course is everything you love about Geometry: first time is the most rewarding Euclid’s axioms, isometries of the Euclidean plane and of Euclidean space, polygons, part of learning and understanding polyhedral, polytopes, and the kissing problem. mathematics. What I really enjoy is › PMATH 351 Real Analysis: It’s a very intuitive and natural approach to real analysis, and the developing a deep understanding of complexity of the course builds very naturally to the end of the semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to General Relativity
    INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL RELATIVITY Gerard 't Hooft Institute for Theoretical Physics Utrecht University and Spinoza Institute Postbox 80.195 3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ Version November 2010 1 Prologue General relativity is a beautiful scheme for describing the gravitational ¯eld and the equations it obeys. Nowadays this theory is often used as a prototype for other, more intricate constructions to describe forces between elementary particles or other branches of fundamental physics. This is why in an introduction to general relativity it is of importance to separate as clearly as possible the various ingredients that together give shape to this paradigm. After explaining the physical motivations we ¯rst introduce curved coordinates, then add to this the notion of an a±ne connection ¯eld and only as a later step add to that the metric ¯eld. One then sees clearly how space and time get more and more structure, until ¯nally all we have to do is deduce Einstein's ¯eld equations. These notes materialized when I was asked to present some lectures on General Rela- tivity. Small changes were made over the years. I decided to make them freely available on the web, via my home page. Some readers expressed their irritation over the fact that after 12 pages I switch notation: the i in the time components of vectors disappears, and the metric becomes the ¡ + + + metric. Why this \inconsistency" in the notation? There were two reasons for this. The transition is made where we proceed from special relativity to general relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • "Eternal" Questions in the XX-Century Theoretical Physics V
    Philosophical roots of the "eternal" questions in the XX-century theoretical physics V. Ihnatovych Department of Philosophy, National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected] Abstract The evolution of theoretical physics in the XX century differs significantly from that in XVII-XIX centuries. While continuous progress is observed for theoretical physics in XVII-XIX centuries, modern physics contains many questions that have not been resolved despite many decades of discussion. Based upon the analysis of works by the founders of the XX-century physics, the conclusion is made that the roots of the "eternal" questions by the XX-century theoretical physics lie in the philosophy used by its founders. The conclusion is made about the need to use the ideas of philosophy that guided C. Huygens, I. Newton, W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin), J. K. Maxwell, and the other great physicists of the XVII-XIX centuries, in all areas of theoretical physics. 1. Classical Physics The history of theoretical physics begins in 1687 with the work “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” by Isaac Newton. Even today, this work is an example of what a full and consistent outline of the physical theory should be. It contains everything necessary for such an outline – definition of basic concepts, the complete list of underlying laws, presentation of methods of theoretical research, rigorous proofs. In the eighteenth century, such great physicists and mathematicians as Euler, D'Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace and others developed mechanics, hydrodynamics, acoustics and nebular mechanics on the basis of the ideas of Newton's “Principles”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Universe Unveiled Given by Prof Carlo Contaldi
    Friends of Imperial Theoretical Physics We are delighted to announce that the first FITP event of 2015 will be a talk entitled The Universe Unveiled given by Prof Carlo Contaldi. The event is free and open to all but please register by visiting the Eventbrite website via http://tinyurl.com/fitptalk2015. Date: 29th April 2015 Venue: Lecture Theatre 1, Blackett Laboratory, Physics Department, ICL Time: 7-8pm followed by a reception in the level 8 Common room Speaker: Professor Carlo Contaldi The Universe Unveiled The past 25 years have seen our understanding of the Universe we live in being revolutionised by a series of stunning observational campaigns and theoretical advances. We now know the composition, age, geometry and evolutionary history of the Universe to an astonishing degree of precision. A surprising aspect of this journey of discovery is that it has revealed some profound conundrums that challenge the most basic tenets of fundamental physics. We still do not understand the nature of 95% of the matter and energy that seems to fill the Universe, we still do not know why or how the Universe came into being, and we have yet to build a consistent "theory of everything" that can describe the evolution of the Universe during the first few instances after the Big Bang. In this lecture I will review what we know about the Universe today and discuss the exciting experimental and theoretical advances happening in cosmology, including the controversy surrounding last year's BICEP2 "discovery". Biography of the speaker: Professor Contaldi gained his PhD in theoretical physics in 2000 at Imperial College working on theories describing the formation of structures in the universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Foundations of Supersymmetry
    MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SUPERSYMMETRY Lauren Caston and Rita Fioresi 1 Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit`adi Bologna Piazza di Porta S. Donato, 5 40126 Bologna, Italia e-mail: [email protected], fi[email protected] 1Investigation supported by the University of Bologna 1 Introduction Supersymmetry (SUSY) is the machinery mathematicians and physicists have developed to treat two types of elementary particles, bosons and fermions, on the same footing. Supergeometry is the geometric basis for supersymmetry; it was first discovered and studied by physicists Wess, Zumino [25], Salam and Strathde [20] (among others) in the early 1970’s. Today supergeometry plays an important role in high energy physics. The objects in super geometry generalize the concept of smooth manifolds and algebraic schemes to include anticommuting coordinates. As a result, we employ the techniques from algebraic geometry to study such objects, namely A. Grothendiek’s theory of schemes. Fermions include all of the material world; they are the building blocks of atoms. Fermions do not like each other. This is in essence the Pauli exclusion principle which states that two electrons cannot occupy the same quantum me- chanical state at the same time. Bosons, on the other hand, can occupy the same state at the same time. Instead of looking at equations which just describe either bosons or fermions separately, supersymmetry seeks out a description of both simultaneously. Tran- sitions between fermions and bosons require that we allow transformations be- tween the commuting and anticommuting coordinates. Such transitions are called supersymmetries. In classical Minkowski space, physicists classify elementary particles by their mass and spin.
    [Show full text]
  • Pure Mathematics
    Why Study Mathematics? Mathematics reveals hidden patterns that help us understand the world around us. Now much more than arithmetic and geometry, mathematics today is a diverse discipline that deals with data, measurements, and observations from science; with inference, deduction, and proof; and with mathematical models of natural phenomena, of human behavior, and social systems. The process of "doing" mathematics is far more than just calculation or deduction; it involves observation of patterns, testing of conjectures, and estimation of results. As a practical matter, mathematics is a science of pattern and order. Its domain is not molecules or cells, but numbers, chance, form, algorithms, and change. As a science of abstract objects, mathematics relies on logic rather than on observation as its standard of truth, yet employs observation, simulation, and even experimentation as means of discovering truth. The special role of mathematics in education is a consequence of its universal applicability. The results of mathematics--theorems and theories--are both significant and useful; the best results are also elegant and deep. Through its theorems, mathematics offers science both a foundation of truth and a standard of certainty. In addition to theorems and theories, mathematics offers distinctive modes of thought which are both versatile and powerful, including modeling, abstraction, optimization, logical analysis, inference from data, and use of symbols. Mathematics, as a major intellectual tradition, is a subject appreciated as much for its beauty as for its power. The enduring qualities of such abstract concepts as symmetry, proof, and change have been developed through 3,000 years of intellectual effort. Like language, religion, and music, mathematics is a universal part of human culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Renormalization and Effective Field Theory
    Mathematical Surveys and Monographs Volume 170 Renormalization and Effective Field Theory Kevin Costello American Mathematical Society surv-170-costello-cov.indd 1 1/28/11 8:15 AM http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/surv/170 Renormalization and Effective Field Theory Mathematical Surveys and Monographs Volume 170 Renormalization and Effective Field Theory Kevin Costello American Mathematical Society Providence, Rhode Island EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Ralph L. Cohen, Chair MichaelA.Singer Eric M. Friedlander Benjamin Sudakov MichaelI.Weinstein 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 81T13, 81T15, 81T17, 81T18, 81T20, 81T70. The author was partially supported by NSF grant 0706954 and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship. For additional information and updates on this book, visit www.ams.org/bookpages/surv-170 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Costello, Kevin. Renormalization and effective fieldtheory/KevinCostello. p. cm. — (Mathematical surveys and monographs ; v. 170) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8218-5288-0 (alk. paper) 1. Renormalization (Physics) 2. Quantum field theory. I. Title. QC174.17.R46C67 2011 530.143—dc22 2010047463 Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy a chapter for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Requests for such permission should be addressed to the Acquisitions Department, American Mathematical Society, 201 Charles Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02904-2294 USA.
    [Show full text]
  • A Shorter Course of Theoretical Physics Vol. 1. Mechanics and Electrodynamics Vol. 2. Quantum Mechanics Vol. 3. Macroscopic Phys
    A Shorter Course of Theoretical Physics IN THREE VOLUMES Vol. 1. Mechanics and Electrodynamics Vol. 2. Quantum Mechanics Vol. 3. Macroscopic Physics A SHORTER COURSE OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS VOLUME 2 QUANTUM MECHANICS BY L. D. LANDAU AND Ε. M. LIFSHITZ Institute of Physical Problems, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY J. B. SYKES AND J. S. BELL PERGAMON PRESS OXFORD · NEW YORK · TORONTO · SYDNEY Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York 10523 Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 207 Queen's Quay West, Toronto 1 Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary Street, Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia Copyright © 1974 Pergamon Press Ltd. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Pergamon Press Ltd. First edition 1974 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Landau, Lev Davidovich, 1908-1968. A shorter course of theoretical physics. Translation of Kratkii kurs teoreticheskoi riziki. CONTENTS: v. 1. Mechanics and electrodynamics. —v. 2. Quantum mechanics. 1. Physics. 2. Mechanics. 3. Quantum theory. I. Lifshits, Evgenii Mikhaflovich, joint author. II. Title. QC21.2.L3513 530 74-167927 ISBN 0-08-016739-X (v. 1) ISBN 0-08-017801-4 (v. 2) Translated from Kratkii kurs teoreticheskoi fiziki, Kniga 2: Kvantovaya Mekhanika IzdateFstvo "Nauka", Moscow, 1972 Printed in Hungary PREFACE THIS book continues with the plan originated by Lev Davidovich Landau and described in the Preface to Volume 1: to present the minimum of material in theoretical physics that should be familiar to every present-day physicist, working in no matter what branch of physics.
    [Show full text]