Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: q.e.d.  Q.E.D.
Message-ID: <3337@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 8-Apr-84 09:20:45 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.3337
Posted: Sun Apr  8 09:20:45 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Apr-84 05:53:12 EST
References: <1284@pur-phy.UUCP>, <1285@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 14

Then there are REAL infinities caused by conceptual problems, such as the
self-energy of the electron in classical electromagnetism.

The problem with QED renormalization is that it smacks of an ad-hoc method
to avoid a problem.  The basic idea in simple terms is to consider the
terms in the formulas as pertaining to an (unknown) "bare" quantity (mass
or whatever) and reinterpret the theory so the "real" quantity is predicted.
Unfortunately this pushes the difficulty into the unmeasurable "bare"
quantity, much like sweeping dust under the rug.

(To forestall flames:  yes, I know about renormalization groups and the
associated paraphernalia, but I don't want the critical concepts to get
lost in a morass of technical details.  I think this happens far too
frequently these days.)