Timeline for How to describe time evolution in relativistic QFT?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2023 at 12:06 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 10, 2023 at 8:03 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 19:06 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 30, 2022 at 14:16 | answer | added | warlock | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 7:56 | comment | added | Andrea Becker | @ValterMoretti There is no dynamical principle in AQFT, i.e. no Heisenberg equation of motion is being postulated! How do you know which are the constants of motion, then? Thank you! | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 7:23 | comment | added | Andrea Becker | @ValterMoretti Thank you for your opinion! I'm a very hard to convince person and I don't believe anything, unless I see a rigorous proof. Sorry about that. SE is also a site for learning, and I would be extremely grateful if you or somebody else could rigorously disprove, by providing a rigorous math demonstration, the statements I've made in EDIT 2 and EDIT 3. Thank you very much! | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 7:05 | comment | added | Valter Moretti | Regarding Edit 2. Performing rigorous computations avoiding formal objects like $a_k$ or performing these formal computations with the due care, you see that the problem does not exist (you have to use the so-called normal order of operators). Regarding Edit 3. The problem does not exist actually: H is a constant of motion exactly as in classical mechanics and classical field theory even if it is function of the classical fields which depend on time. However inside constants of motion all time dependences cancel each other as is well known. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 7:04 | comment | added | Andrea Becker | @ValterMoretti I'm not trying to offend you in any way. I just want to know your opinion. Am I right or wrong in my statements? An yes or no would be sufficient. Thank you! | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 6:40 | history | edited | Andrea Becker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2016 at 5:41 | history | edited | Andrea Becker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 603 characters in body
|
| Aug 18, 2016 at 6:34 | history | edited | Andrea Becker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 749 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 6:10 | history | edited | Andrea Becker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1488 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2015 at 16:37 | vote | accept | Andrea Becker | ||
| Mar 25, 2016 at 6:10 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2015 at 16:36 | vote | accept | Andrea Becker | ||
| Oct 3, 2015 at 16:36 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2015 at 8:17 | answer | added | user7154 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 2, 2015 at 22:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/650068452963651584 | ||
| Oct 2, 2015 at 17:45 | comment | added | Thomas | Schroedinger functionals $\Psi[\phi,t]$ (here for a scalar field $\phi$) are somewhat impractical, but they even have a wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_functional , and yes, the time evolution operator is the ``same as it ever was'' (to paraphrase David Byrne). | |
| Oct 2, 2015 at 17:33 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited tags
|
| Oct 2, 2015 at 17:02 | history | asked | Andrea Becker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |