Timeline for What does a QFT particle state have to do with a classical point particle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 8, 2017 at 21:51 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 8, 2017 at 21:01 | answer | added | Arnold Neumaier | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 8:49 | answer | added | tparker | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 8:40 | comment | added | Annera | @ved It is obvious that they have different definitions, but they should also have enough in common to call them with the same name. | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 8:31 | comment | added | ved | You should not compare them as they have different definitions. In qft, these particles are defined as irreducible unitary rep. of Poincare group while particles in classical mechanics are defined by a simple energy-momentum relationship. It is like the example of spin which has different meaning in both context. An example of a particle in qft is photon which does not even have a coordinate representation. | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 7:54 | comment | added | John Rennie | Hmm, maybe I'll rethink that statement. | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 7:52 | comment | added | Annera | @JohnRennie What do you mean by that? AFAIK, the object created by $a^\dagger(k)$ is not an eigenstate of the field operator. | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 7:00 | history | asked | Annera | CC BY-SA 3.0 |