Timeline for Does the current form of non-perturbative QFT make all the same predictions as perturbative QFT, or is it incomplete?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2023 at 3:13 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| May 23, 2023 at 22:04 | vote | accept | Mikayla Eckel Cifrese | ||
| May 23, 2023 at 21:47 | answer | added | ACuriousMind♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 23, 2023 at 21:42 | comment | added | Connor Behan | In the first papers on perturbative QED, the differences between physical and virtual particles were already obvious. This was many years before Wilson proposed lattice gauge theory. | |
| May 23, 2023 at 21:15 | history | edited | Mikayla Eckel Cifrese | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarified that my question is really about the distinction between perturbative and non-perturbative QFT rather and virtual particles
|
| May 23, 2023 at 19:51 | comment | added | Thomas Tappeiner | As for the statement about nonperturbative Yang-Mills: The idea is that we can indeed do these calculations in e.g a lattice QCD setting and we do have algorithms to do so, however placing the theory on a lattice leads to restrictions and problems on its own (and is perturbative in some other sense as well) . As pointed out above, these virtual particles play an important role in perturbative calculations. I guess the better idea to understand this would be that the idea of a particle often does not make sense at all in non-perturbative calculations, not only virtual particles | |
| May 23, 2023 at 13:07 | comment | added | Ján Lalinský | > "PBS Spacetime is typically a reliable source" Why do you think so? | |
| May 23, 2023 at 11:13 | comment | added | Prof. Legolasov | You can do perturbative QFT in interaction picture purely in terms of operator matrix elements, without ever referring to a virtual particle. The terms are just conveniently labeled by virtual particles | |
| May 23, 2023 at 11:12 | comment | added | Prof. Legolasov | Are integrals necessary to make calculations in celestial mechanics or do they just make the calculations easier? In both cases you don’t really need any specific definition / construct, you can always get away with not defining it at the cost of making the explanation more involved. It’s only a useful construct | |
| May 23, 2023 at 9:06 | history | edited | Mikayla Eckel Cifrese |
edited tags
|
|
| May 23, 2023 at 0:01 | history | asked | Mikayla Eckel Cifrese | CC BY-SA 4.0 |