Timeline for Why is the trivial analogous expression for Feynman's checkerboard approach to Dirac's equation in 3+1 dimensions (as described below) not correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 11, 2017 at 15:33 | history | bounty ended | Prem | ||
| S Jan 11, 2017 at 15:33 | history | notice removed | Prem | ||
| Jan 5, 2017 at 2:31 | answer | added | reductionista | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 4, 2017 at 10:42 | history | edited | Prem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2017 at 7:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/816540320464834560 | ||
| Jan 4, 2017 at 5:49 | comment | added | Andrew | Yes, I agree, it does sound similar to what you have in your answer. I don't have access to the papers right now as I am traveling, but I will try to take a look when I do. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that your basic intuition is right and leads to something along the lines of one of the two approaches on wikipedia (probably the second one, as you point out). | |
| Jan 4, 2017 at 5:46 | comment | added | Prem | Also, you said, " another way is to embed the 1+1 lattice into two continous spatial dimension." This sounds like the solution I have suggested in the question. Could you please explain this method as an answer. The problem actually is that I tried, but could not, understand the extention of feynman's model in 3+1 dimension as suggested in wikipedia. | |
| Jan 4, 2017 at 5:36 | comment | added | Prem | @andrew Actually I followed the papers cited by wikipedia and tried to read the solutions, but could not understand them because they introduced many physical quantities like spinor which i currently do not understand. So meanwhile as I understand these physical quantities, I was wondering why a simple mathematical extention of the model cannot be made in which we allow the electron to move as it may, and use analogous equation for kernel. I am not asking how the two approaches given in wikipedia are equivalent. I am asking why the approach I have described in the question does not works | |
| Jan 4, 2017 at 5:25 | comment | added | Andrew | The wikipedia article you link to cites two different ways to extend Feynman's 1+1 dimension approach to work in 3+1 dimensions. One is to take a 3+1 dimensional lattice of points, and to sum over different paths traversing the lattice. Another way is to embed the 1+1 lattice into two continuous spatial dimensions. It's not clear to me from your question what you are asking. Are you asking how one or both of those approaches works? Or is your question about why there isn't a third option? | |
| S Jan 4, 2017 at 4:46 | history | bounty started | Prem | ||
| S Jan 4, 2017 at 4:46 | history | notice added | Prem | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 15:55 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 31, 2016 at 15:13 | history | asked | Prem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |