Talk:Self-energy

Merge with renormalization

Yes, merge this with renormalization since the self-energy terms in a Feynman diagram sequence causes the field to explode thus requiring renormalization. The two are closely linked.

I'm not sure that this is a good idea. By the same token, one could argue that coupling constant ought to be merged with renormalization, since coupling constants invariably need renormalization in local field theories in continuous space-time. Stevvers 03:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self energy need not be introduced in terms of Quantum Field Theory directly. The problem arises in classical context as well. A charged particle (say an electron) produces an electric field. One can ask what the effect of this field on the electron is? The answer to this in classical theory is "infinite."

The question is resolved using quantum field theory by 'summing' all the contributions due to this self-interaction and absorbing the infinite part into a redefinition of the electron wave-function and mass. This redefinition is called Renormalization. It need not be merged with renormalization if it is linked in this way. Nishitad (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think self-energy should be merged with renormalization. In the condensed matter theory context, the ultra-violet cutoff is naturally provided by the underlying lattice and the finite temperature Mastubara frequency, thus self-energy does not necessarily diverge.--Everett (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need to define the pole mass

We should define the pole mass of a particle here. It should be easy.... HEL 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL theoretical physics?

I had removed "Theoretical Physics" from the first sentence. The "Theoretical Physics" article suggests "Theoretical Physics" is a field of endeavor or a way of going about in that endeavor. Its article mostly differentiates it from "experimental" saying nothing about modernity or reliability of varied theory bandied about in the field. In fact, the article clearly references old and unreliable theories as things that are part of the field. The context of our first sentence "Theoretical Physics" suggests it's referring to a set of theories of physics, not the field of endeavor. But it also implies the set of all theories, not just the "latest and greatest". If it's supposed to mean only the latest and greatest, then that should be clarified. In many theories (generally older ones and "less reliable" ones), self-energy isn't even a thing. I left in "Theoretical Physics" this time, but added "most" and "such as" to make the sentence more sensible. 108.20.78.154 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of quibbles calls the kettle black.

Xxanthippe is editing disruptively in that he is presuming to be the sole arbiter of the value of edits. He has edit warred and bullied IP's to this end, with no support from elsewhere. And now he's had the gall to accuse a minor clarification (but an important correction) of being a mere quibble. He is not assuming good faith. It looks too like he has something of a history of similar incivility and other policy-violating gamesmanship.

It's pretty obvious that the first sentence needs a little revision to correct the implication that it's true for all models in theoretical physics. Unfortunately, Xxanthippe has decided that it's an affront to his self-assumed guardianship of the article and he's gone all out to prevent any civil attempt to fix it in good faith. He thinks, apparently, that he's the decider and that he need not give good justification any better than "I declare it so".

So, I've again corrected the mis-implication for "theoretical physics". If there are problems with the edit, the response needs to be a discussion on this talk page, not more haughty declarations in the edit summaries. And that discussion needs to be about the meaning of "theoretical physics" and about improving the article, rather than more attempts to bully editors into changing nothing.

Moblecl (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not one single contribution!

I just reviewed the history of edits on this article and found out that every single edit by Xxanthippe on this page has been a summary reversion! Half of them with snooty "I'm the decider" connotations in their edit summaries. Having never contributed at all to this article, Xxanthippe has no place assuming a whit of authority regarding what's good for it. Not one bit. Moblecl (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, WP:Lame. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I see you didn't revert the latest attempt to edit. I feel good about that. Thanks, man. Moblecl (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

magnetic dipole self-energy?

Can anything interesting be said about the magnetic dipole self-energy? This came up w.r.t the no-hair theorem, and I am looking for insight into why a black hole cannot have a dipole moment. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

self-energy and dark matter

Dark matter as a result of incomplete natural (not technical by humans) renormalization.

Why it affects only specific orders of magnitude? (the [extreme] outlier virtual-interaction-paths don't cancel out [entirely], so that has an impact only at larger orders of magnitude)

add that also (we're supposed to describe all theories, write it's unproven) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:3B00:D1CE:9F51:E942:623C (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style

This article reads like walking through a mine-field :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]