Timeline for Connection between the vanishing of the conjugate momentum $\pi^0$ and non-existence of propagator for the free EM field
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2017 at 6:56 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 186 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 16, 2015 at 11:37 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Apr 16, 2015 at 10:51 | answer | added | ACuriousMind♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 9:26 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | My initial comment was misleading, as I realize now (since, indeed, it is not the mere existence of the constraint that causes the issues with naive quantization). I'll try to write a better answer some time today. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 8:05 | comment | added | SRS | @ ACuriousMind- But how does it work for quantization of massive spin-1 fields. There too $\Pi^0=0$ but the propagator is well-defined. | |
| Feb 28, 2015 at 20:21 | answer | added | evilcman | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 27, 2015 at 16:05 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 277 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2015 at 15:38 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Observe that non-invertibility of an operator means that the kernel is non-trivial. $\Pi^0 = F^{00}$ vanishing essentially gives you a non-trivial element of the kernel. | |
| Feb 27, 2015 at 15:31 | history | asked | SRS | CC BY-SA 3.0 |