High Energy Quantumelectrodynamics II

  • K. Johnson
Conference paper
Part of the Supplementa book series (FEWBODY, volume 2/1965)


Quantumelectrodynamics is at present the only example of a complete relativistic quantum theory which is known to be relevant to physics. The rules for calculation based upon Feynman diagrams give one an unambiguous method to compare the theory with observation. The agreement so far has been without exception. One likes to believe that there is a basis for the calculational rules in quantum field theory. However, so far the attempt to produce such a field theory either has led to a case in which divergences occured if the perturbation rules were applied universally or to rather complicated “renormalized” versions of the theory which try to circumvent the divergences by formulating the calculational rules in terms of renormalized operators at the expense of an explicit expression for the Hamiltonian in terms of these operators. Usually attempts to modify the theory have only led to situations where the modifications produced more new deseases than the few cured.


Mass Operator Landau Gauge Inhomogeneous Term Linear Integral Equation Born Term 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    K. Johnson, M. Baker, and R. Willey, Phys. Rev. 136, B 1111 (1964),MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 1a.
    K. Johnson, M. Baker, and R. Willey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 518 (1963).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    J. D. Björken, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 24, 174 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    M. Gell-Mann and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 124, 953 (1961).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    I. Bialynicky-Birula, Phys. Rev. 130, 465 (1963).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    This is a trivial generalization of the original Fermi Lagrangian (E. Fermi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 4, 87 (1932)).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    J. Schwinger, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 37, 452 and 455 (1951).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    J. Ward, Phys. Rev. 78, 182 (1950).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8a.
    J. Ward, Phys. Rev. 84, 897 (1951).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 9.
    Y. Takahashi, Nuovo Cim. 6, 371 (1957).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 10.
    B. Zumino, Nuovo Cim. 17, 547 (1960).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    M. Gell-Mann, F. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    Landau, Abrikosov, Kalatnikov, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 3, 80 (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    M. Baker, K. Johnson, B. Lee, Phys. Rev. 133, B 209 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    K. Johnson, Phys. Lett. 5, 253 (1963).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 15.
    The material described in this section is based upon the unpublished work of M. Baker, K. Johnson, H. Mitter and R. Willey.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    This difficulty was pointed out to us by K. Wilson (private communication).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations