Recent content by sumeetkd

Hey thanks a lot. The crucial point is that the system reaches a standstill due to the points 0 and 10000. The arguments that were used to reach the books expression don't hold I have been trying to convince people of this and you have gone ahead and written a code. you are awesome sir.

This is exactly what i thought! I looked up this problem in the book by Yung Kuo Lim on the thermodynamics and statistics book. 2nd problem in the stats section. http://depts.washington.edu/chemcrs/bulkdisk/chem552A_win10/homework_Homework2_Solution_Part_1.pdf The solution there uses of...

I'm sorry ∅ is the field operator. The problem is that the Schrödinger equation goes as i\hbar \frac{∂}{∂ t} \Psi = H\Psi With which we can just write \Psi(x,t) = e-iHt\Psi and hence the Heinsenberg picture. but this doesn't directly hold for QFT

This is a doubt straight from Peskin, eq 2.43 ∅(x,t) = eiHt∅(x)e-iHt. This had been derived in Quantum Mechanics. How does this hold in the QFT framework? We don't have the simple Eψ=Hψ structure so this shouldn't directly hold. I'm sorry if this is too trivial

Thanks to the pro's for regularly replying. Much appreciated.

Shankar's QM speaks the exact thing, the wild paths are possible just the possibility of this happening is very low classically ( which is what we should get with the highest probability in this method ). I haven't used this much but I guess the wild paths cancel out in summation and hence don't...

I just read the chapter in Shankar regarding path integrals (the 8th) I didnt quite get how he deduced that destructive interference in the summation sets in after S/h>pi.(This is the first section itself) I couldn't find reference to such a thing elsewhere.

I am a total beginner so there are some leaps in my logic. In real basis the propagator turns out to be sigma over n of (h^2/2m) d^2n/dx^2n for the diagonal terms rest terms being zero. hence the doubt. The thing about the string was ok for the classical case, but in the quantum case the...

This might turn out to be a stupid question but ...i couldn't understand The propagater is defined as exp[-iHt/(h/2pi)]...this would be the matrix so U(t)|\psi(x,0)> (matrix . vector) would give |\psi(x,t)> What i couldn't understand is that the propagator is a diagonal matrix..but it is...