- #1
protonman
- 285
- 0
What is quantum field theory and why was it developed? What is its relation to quantum mechanics?
Originally posted by protonman
What is quantum field theory and why was it developed? What is its relation to quantum mechanics?
Thanks for the reply. Could you elaborate on the above statement a bit.Quantum field theory is a theory in which the variables are fields, and particles come in secondarily as "quanta" of the fields.
Is this saying that basically instead of a function mapping points between sets they are mapping functions to functions? That is, each argument is now a function and not a discrete number of points? Sounds like you are dealing with function space and this reminds me of stuff I studied in real analysis.Whereas a pure particle theory, like Schroedinger's or Dirac's will have a physics defined by momenta and positions of particles, which may each range over continua, but are finite in number, a field theory deals in objects (fields) which have infinitely many degrees of freedom. Things that were ordinary functions in particle theories are now functionals. Variables that used to take on numeric values are now distributions.
Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
Any online resources?
Is quantization some sort of advanced general method of statistical analysis? If so, then when do we use a quantization procedure? In what situations does it apply? For example, does a quantization procedure apply when you know you must have a solution, but it is inherently impossible to narrow the answer to only one solution. So you must then calculate the probability of every possible solution and see how the possibilities interfere with each other - a Feynman type of integration? Otherwise, it seems distrubing to have methods only applicable to one situation - a loss of generality.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Whereas a pure particle theory, like Schroedinger's or Dirac's will have a physics defined by momenta and positions of particles, which may each range over continua, but are finite in number, a field theory deals in objects (fields) which have infinitely many degrees of freedom. Things that were ordinary functions in particle theories are now functionals. Variables that used to take on numeric values are now distributions.
Is quantization some sort of advanced general method of statistical analysis? If so, then when do we use a quantization procedure? In what situations does it apply? It seems distrubing to have methods only applicable to one situation.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Whereas a pure particle theory, like Schroedinger's or Dirac's will have a physics defined by momenta and positions of particles, which may each range over continua, but are finite in number, a field theory deals in objects (fields) which have infinitely many degrees of freedom. Things that were ordinary functions in particle theories are now functionals. Variables that used to take on numeric values are now distributions.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Quantization apparently means different things to different people! See the discussion of Strings, Branes, and LQG about Thiemann's quantization of "The LQG String"...What else may be required of a "true quantization" seems to be controversial.
Can we state the quint essential geometry of a valid quantization process? Where do the various entities live, in the tangent or cotangent space, in the tangent or cotangent bundle, etc?Originally posted by selfAdjoint
But pretty generally quantization is a process applied to a classical theory to produce a quantum theory. It converts coordinates into states in a Hilbert space and variables into operators on the Hilbert space. And those operators are constrained to obey the commutation rules that enforce uncertainty. What else may be required of a "true quantization" seems to be controversial.
Originally posted by Mike2
Can we state the quint essential geometry of a valid quantization process?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Notice .this thread over on S.P.R. where several people are discussing quantization and what it requires.
Originally posted by jeff
For me, there must be relatively many people in comparable numbers on different sides of an issue for it to be "controversial".
Originally posted by jeff
I'm not spiteful. You're a hypocrite.
Originally posted by jeff
I've made the point in the past that the fact that LQG is popular only outside the physics community is telling.
Originally posted by ahrkron
Jeff,
Name calling is not allowed here.
Originally posted by ahrkron
There are many groups working on this.
Originally posted by ahrkron
...calling their effort "outside the physics community" is a gross mischaracterization.
... only that it's unpopular within the physics community, which is a fact. [/B]
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Quantization apparently means different things to different people! See the discussion of Strings, Branes, and LQG about Thiemann's quantization of "The LQG String". But pretty generally quantization is a process applied to a classical theory to produce a quantum theory. It converts coordinates into states in a Hilbert space and variables into operators on the Hilbert space. And those operators are constrained to obey the commutation rules that enforce uncertainty. What else may be required of a "true quantization" seems to be controversial.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I repeat my assertion that quantization, particularly the question of what constitutes a physically meaningful quantization, is constroversial, or at the very least, unresolved. Different physicists give different answers.
Originally posted by Mike2
There is first quantization, and then second quantization of quantum field theory. Is there a third quantization? Why or why not?
Originally posted by Nereid
To what extent are these three terms synonyms?
In particular, is there a body of experimental data which is (can be) analysed within the framework of "QM" but is not within the domain of "QFT"? (and other combinations). Ditto, re the scope of the respective theories?
Originally posted by lethe
quantization is the process of going from a classical theory to a quantum theory. both canonical quantization and path integral quantization have worked, and yield the same results, and are in excellent agreement with a wide variety of experiments.
some of the best tested theories of all time are quantum theories. to say that the procedure of quantization is "controversial" just because some very speculative theories of gravity that are completely removed from experiment diverge from the agreed upon methods is not very fair. canonical quantization has been undergraduate physics since 1920, and is anything but controversial.
For that matter, what is the essense of a quantization procedure in the most mathematically general terms?Originally posted by selfAdjoint
But Thiemann's LQG string paper, irrespective of its merits, seems to have uncovered a question that was left unanswered: what is the characterstic of a quantization that is physically meaningful?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I still say it is an unresolved issue at this moment. And just to repeat, that has nothing to do with LQG, Thiemann, or my preferences.
yes, i guess i am not understanding what you are trying to sayOriginally posted by selfAdjoint
No, Lethe, you continue to misunderstand me. You seem overly focussed on the LQG issue which is not what I was speaking about.
ok, so who are you talking about?Here is how I see the issue. For years particle physicists have done their quantizations and there is no question about them being corrrect and physically meaningful. Meanwhile mathematical physicists and even some pure mathematicians have been doing various things they call quantization. I am NOT talking about the LQG crowd here
what are you saying here? that we should be looking for physical experiments to verify the results of non canonical quantization? this is kind of backwards.although they have used the work of these mathematical quantizers. The question then arises, when if ever do these mathematical quantizarions take on physical significance?
what is the problem with the central charge of the Virasoro algebra?It's not enough to say these are our traditional ways, they are good, everything else is bad. We have to look carefully into the new-style quantizations, and see what is physical and what is not. And just referring to accidents of particular theories (I am thinking here of the Virasoro central charge) is not likely to keep the lid on either.
how do you quantize a Lie algebra? i thought you quantized classical theories...What we need is a deep theory of quantization, one that can serve as well for nonrelativistic QM as for infinite dimensional Lie Algebras
Originally posted by lethe
what are you saying here? that we should be looking for physical experiments to verify the results of non canonical quantization? this is kind of backwards.
No, not necessarily. It just seems to me that if we really understood the quantization process (I know you think we already do, but bear with me) then there would be a clear demarcation at the theory level of what could possibly become a physical theory and what could not.
The whole issue of the Thiemann paper was precisely that. And although I guess I am persuaded of Urs' conclusions, it still haunts me that Thiemann's answer was, all that central charge business was just an artefact of the way you go about perturbation theory, and this was never directly addressed. Proving that T's method doesn't work on other simple models doesn't exactly do that.
how do you quantize a Lie algebra? i thought you quantized classical theories...
So that leaves the question: how many ways are there to quantized continuous variables? And which ones are physically meaningful? I suppose whatever methods there are, they must all give quantum jumps that become smaller and smaller until they appear as a continuous variable. For otherwise, they would not be quantizing a continuous variable. So does that suggest some sort of definition of quantization in terms of converging sequences?Originally posted by Haelfix
Clearly, its not perfectly clear then how to quantize IN GENERAL. Restricting to simple cases where we don't have to think about this, doesn't amount to knowing that this works for say the case we need to consider for quantum gravity.