Timeline for What is the proper time of a particle in a superposition?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2021 at 6:27 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | @Prof. Legolasov: Thanks. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 6:27 | comment | added | Prof. Legolasov | @The_Sympathizer I perhaps misspoke. What I meant is that there isn’t an observable in QFT that measures some property of a specific particle that you singled out, because QFT describes all particles at once. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 6:26 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | (That said, you are likely right something funny is going on with the interactive case - interactive RQFT is not a well-understood beast; something that often gets swept up under the rug.) | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 6:25 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | How is it that RQFT does not have particles? The way I've always heard it is that at least for the free field setup you do have them, but they can never be completely localized to a point position in space. Momentum, though, is okay, and you can build creation and destruction operators $\hat{a}^\dagger(\mathbf{k})$ and $\hat{a}(\mathbf{k})$ which allow you to straightforwardly generate the particle interpretation. Finally, multiparticle NRQM can be formulated as a QFT, so the "particle" and "field" descriptions are not as contradictory as one might at first think. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 5:00 | history | edited | Prof. Legolasov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Jul 3, 2021 at 11:24 | comment | added | Prof. Legolasov | @Shashaank yeah exactly. I don’t have a good reference right now sorry, but if you’re curious about Weyl quantization (or more generic Kontsevich quantization) there are a lot of good literature out there. What I’ve described is just a very special case | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 11:05 | comment | added | Shashaank | Also after you have constructed such an operator “which corresponds to the………..”, is the particle really in superposition of proper times (whatever that means) | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 11:02 | comment | added | Shashaank | Ok I see what you mean. The particle is only allowed to follow the straight line path. Any paper or book that deals with the stuff you have written above in a bit more detail. Was just curious . | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 10:56 | comment | added | Prof. Legolasov | @Shashaank for a free particle, proper time only depends on the momentum due to translation invariance. If you had a particle in a potential, it would also depend on position. In this case you’d have a function on phase space that needed a more sophisticated method to be made into an operator, for example, the Weyl quantization map. | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 10:43 | comment | added | Shashaank | How do you get your eqn 3. Proper time depends on the trajectory followed by the particle between the end points. To know the exact trajectory you need to know both position and momentum which is not possible in QM. Further time is intrinsically invariant in standard non relativistic QM. QM cannot handle all this stuff because it is intrinsically non relativistic. | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 8:45 | history | edited | Prof. Legolasov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Jul 3, 2021 at 6:52 | vote | accept | Mauricio | ||
| Jul 3, 2021 at 5:56 | history | edited | Prof. Legolasov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Jul 3, 2021 at 5:50 | history | answered | Prof. Legolasov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |