Timeline for Renormalization condition: why must be the residue of the propagator be 1?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2020 at 22:07 | comment | added | MannyC | Is the question "why does it behave as a free field propagator?" or "why is it important that it should behave as a free field propagator?" | |
| May 3, 2020 at 20:40 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 18, 2019 at 8:50 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Oct 18, 2019 at 8:50 | answer | added | Qmechanic♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 8:59 | vote | accept | Jia Yiyang | ||
| May 9, 2013 at 0:52 | answer | added | Siva | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 8, 2013 at 19:03 | answer | added | innisfree | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 8, 2013 at 15:51 | comment | added | Jia Yiyang | @Kostya: I'd agree that it will reduce to free field propagator if the interaction is somehow turned off, but I can't see any connection between "$p^2\to-m^2$" and "interaction being turned off" | |
| May 8, 2013 at 15:11 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 8, 2013 at 13:47 | history | asked | Jia Yiyang | CC BY-SA 3.0 |