home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!lll-winken!overload.lbl.gov!dog.ee.lbl.gov!csa2.lbl.gov!sichase
- From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Superbashing (was Re: SARFATTI LECTURES ON SUPER PHYSICS #1)
- Message-ID: <25465@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
- Date: 13 Aug 92 18:56:43 GMT
- References: <92218.094826DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <phfrom.238@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> <25428@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <phfrom.240@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
- Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
- Distribution: na
- Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
- Lines: 22
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
-
- In article <phfrom.240@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>, phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes...
- >
- >Don't fix me, and don't beat me, but if I remember right, unitarity as well
- >as renormalizability have been proven for the SM in the 70's by Weinberg,
- >t'Hooft, and others. Problems arise from the nonlinearity of the Higgs
- >theory (i.e. field equation) -- no superposition, etc. I'm rather sure that
- >self-consistency of the SM is granted.
- >
-
- I don't mean to beg off on your question - but the discussion has gotten
- to the point where I have to go back to do a little brushing up, so
- I can't give you a good answer right now. Maybe Matt or someone will jump
- in here. In any event, I'm out of town for a couple of days. I'll try
- to respond intelligently by the beginning of next week.
-
- -Scott
- --------------------
- Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
- SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
- and some mathematician were to tell me that it
- had been definitely settled, I think I would
- immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
-