
#19
Nov412, 02:19 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942

Tomonaga and Schwinger developed this approach to QED at the same time as Feynman developed the path integral approach. All three were shown to be equivalent by Dyson in 1948. But Feynamn's approach turned out to be easier to teach and was aslo computationally less demanding. This is why textbooks usually concentrate on the latter. In classical general relativity, multifingered time is just an expression of the fact that one can prescribe initial conditions on any maximal spacelike hypersurface, solve the field equations, and look at the result at any ''later'' spacelike hypersurface. See, e.g., Section 21.3 (p.497) in the wellknown book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. But the same is possible in any Lorentz invariant classical theory, though much less useful in the flat case. For multifingered time in quantum gravity, see, e.g., http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0065, Section 2B 



#21
Nov512, 10:28 AM

P: 87

Can the density operator be understood as another possible answer? It basically tells where the particles are in the space. When I use the scattering theory it seems I get similar answer: where the particles go (spatially) after they interact (if I understand that correctly). Is the density operator used in the scattering theory? 



#22
Nov512, 04:54 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

Can you please provide a defintion or a reference for this density operator? it seems that I have something in mind which does not allow for such an interpretation




#23
Nov612, 06:53 AM

P: 123

The wave functuional is very clearly explained in the book by Hatfield "Quantum Field Theory of particles and strings"  was quite a revelation to me this summer, when I got hold of it.
If you can read german, you can find a rather simple explanation of what the concpet behind it are on my blog, where I have a series on QFT. The wave functional is explained here: http://scienceblogs.de/hierwohnend...stehennichts/ 



#24
Nov612, 07:06 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491





#25
Nov612, 08:03 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

One general comment.
Many people seem to mix three logically different concepts: 1. QFT per se 2. Interacting QFT 3. Relativistic QFT For example, they often say that "the number of particles is not constant in QFT", but this is true only for interacting QFT. Or they say that "the particle position operator is not well defined in QFT", but such a claim makes certain sense only in relativistic QFT, because the particle spaceposition operator turns out to be not Lorentz invariant. Or sometimes they say that "the number of particles is not well defined in QFT", but it may have at least three different meanings.  One possible meaning is that the number of particles changes with time, which, as I already said, is true only in interacting QFT.  Another possible meaning is that the number of particles may be uncertain, i.e., the quantum state does not need to be a particlenumber eigenstate. This is a genuine property of QFT per se, valid even for free and/or nonrelativistic QFT. But it should be stressed that it does NOT imply that the OPERATOR of the number of particles is not well defined.  Yet another meaning is that the OPERATOR of the number of particles may not be well defined, but this occurs only in attempts to combine QFT with GENERAL relativity. Namely, the operator of the number of particles may not be invariant under general coordinate transformations, even though it is invariant under Lorentz transformations. I hope these notes will reduce confusion stemming from fails to distinguish the different concepts above. 



#27
Nov612, 09:17 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942

For a commentary on Hatfield's book, see Forrester's Winter 08 Lecture Notes http://aforrester.bol.ucla.edu/educate.php , starting with week 4. 



#28
Nov612, 03:40 PM

P: 87

It seems to describe how particles are distributed in the space. 



#29
Nov612, 06:25 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

OK, I see. You are right, interpreting this expression in QM it corresponds to a density (like a charge density) in space.
I would never call this density a "density operator" b/c a density operator is already defined in nonrel. QM and its meaning is something totally different 



#30
Nov712, 07:40 AM

P: 977





#31
Nov812, 06:20 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942





#32
Nov812, 06:23 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
How to interpret wave function as a matrix  Quantum Physics  4  
Dfield > Efield when the dielectric constant is a function of space  Classical Physics  0  
How do you interpret quadratic terms in the gauge field in a Lagrangian?  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  2  
How to interpret physically the divergence of vector field?  General Physics  8  
How to interpret 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3 ?  General Math  3 