Timeline for Why Peskin and Schroeder speak about Causality for Not-Observable Fields?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6 at 19:51 | history | edited | Valter Moretti |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 5 at 17:33 | vote | accept | Ghilele | ||
| Oct 4 at 16:12 | comment | added | Ghilele | But why do we associate the word 'measurement' with the field? And especially, how can Peskin's interpretation that a correlation function between two fields is the probability of a particle propagating from x to y be correct if this is non-zero outside the light cone? I would be more inclined to interpret it as a correlation between the two values, since it is well-known that correlation can be simultaneous in the quantum realm. | |
| Oct 4 at 16:12 | comment | added | Ghilele | Yes, I agree. However, the main focus of the discussion in the P.S. is on fields. I accept the fact that these fields should commute for spacelike intervals, as this ensures that observables are not causally connected in the case of spacelike separation. | |
| Oct 4 at 15:57 | answer | added | Valter Moretti | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 4 at 15:25 | comment | added | Jbag1212 | The fields are not observables themselves, but any other observable will depend on the values of the field, no? | |
| Oct 4 at 15:19 | history | edited | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 50 characters in body
|
| Oct 4 at 13:38 | history | edited | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 2 at 13:07 | history | reopened |
Valter Moretti gandalf61 John Rennie |
||
| S Oct 2 at 10:49 | history | suggested | Bml | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed LaTeX and minor corrections; substituting image with quoting and MathJax syntax in order to improve readability.
|
| Oct 2 at 10:15 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 2 at 13:07 | |||||
| Oct 2 at 9:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 2 at 10:49 | |||||
| Oct 2 at 9:17 | comment | added | Ghilele | I don't understand why you have closed my question two days after my edit and one answer. My question is not a duplicate. | |
| Oct 2 at 9:15 | history | edited | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| Oct 2 at 7:18 | history | closed |
Tobias Fünke Matt Hanson Roger V. |
Duplicate of In QFT, why does a vanishing commutator ensure causality? | |
| Sep 30 at 16:39 | answer | added | Ken Wharton | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 30 at 15:31 | history | edited | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Sep 30 at 14:42 | comment | added | Ghilele | I have just edited my question, trying to highlight the differences between the answers provided in the suggested question and the one I am seeking. | |
| Sep 30 at 14:40 | history | edited | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1384 characters in body
|
| Sep 30 at 13:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 2 at 7:18 | |||||
| Sep 30 at 13:10 | comment | added | Tobias Fünke | This question is similar to: In QFT, why does a vanishing commutator ensure causality?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. | |
| Sep 30 at 11:08 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | More on p.28 in P&S. | |
| Sep 30 at 11:06 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body; edited tags
|
| S Sep 30 at 10:56 | review | First questions | |||
| Sep 30 at 11:17 | |||||
| S Sep 30 at 10:56 | history | asked | Ghilele | CC BY-SA 4.0 |