But is it not a fallacy to equate operators on one side ,to real valued functions(classical observables) on the other?
Plz Give me the link to the derivation in case i have got the entire concept wrong
By the way I am absolutely sure that both PB and commutators define a Lie algebra...
The Algebra of The Poisson brackets studied in classical physics is the same as that of the commutator.
ie[a,b]=ab-ba generates the same algebra as the poisson bracket of two classical observables a(p,q),b(p,q)
why do particles annhillate with their particles?
Why is an electron-positron bound state so short lived?
In other words why does an electron readily anhillate its corresponding antiparticle(positron)?
i wasnt speaking of stellar collapse on chandrashekar limit.
what i meant to say that any point like mass should have a swarzchild radius
in the case of electrons it should be infinitely infinitely small
Correctly speaking all particles having mass should be a black and should have a small but finite swarchild radius,for example the electron,quarks etc are all black holes.
But what would happen if two particles come within their swarzchild radius?
the wavefunction in momentum space is the Fourier transform of the wavefunction in position space.
therefore if the wavefunction is spread out in momenta space it is more concentrated in position space and Vice versa
this is just the the property of a function and its Fourier transform.
Imagine that you never heard about particle before.
For you the all the forces in nature are described by scalar,vector etc fields.
now you calculate the hamilton of the field and the momentum of the field
and you ill replace the the field say phi and its momentum by operators which...
Quantization and fluid mechanics??
Cant quantum field theory be applied to releativistic imcompressible fluids?
cant the velocity vector field be quantized?
will the pressure of the fluid play the role of the 4th component of the four vector?
what would be the corresponding quanta?
How to understand vacuum fluctuations mathematically without getting into the virtual particles that is so stereotypical of POP sci articles?
Am i right in saying that the vacuum expectation value of the square of electric field is inversely proportional to the fourth...
wait a minute this is getting a bit confusing in nuclear physics the pions are described by complex scalar fields and over there the neutral pion is decribed by the field 1/2*(phi+phi*),i think i read this in JJ Sakurai advanced QM
\PsiHow to intepret the four components of the dirac spinor?
the volume integral of the \Psi^T*\Psi give the probability of finding the releativistic electron in a given volume of space but what exactly do the four
components really mean.
I have read in many Pop physics books that the 4...
i don't think its a good idea to imagine electron spin just as you would imagine a spinning ball.
An electron has spin even though its not spinning in the literal sense.
That the electron possesses spin has been proved experimnetantally in stern -gerlachs experiment.
One more thing is that...
Fine the hamilton operator and number operator are constants of motion.
Including the charge operator and momentum operator in the phi square non interacting field theories
For example consider a cubic cavity of volume V.
A Real scalar field ,so there are no charges
Assume there are N quanta...
"I remember that when someone had started to teach me about creation and annihilation operators, that this operator creates an electron, I said, "how do you create an electron? It disagrees with the conservation of charge"
I have a similar doubt someone please help
i think this is a little confusing
I guess pell mann is asking why the eigenvalues of the number operator acting on Fock space is restricted to integral values.
And why not a real quantity say like 12.5637
Well now does it it make any sense to say that so and so fock space is an...
What does it really mean to integrate over all possible fields in the Path integral formulation of quantum field theory,and how does such a formalism goes out to decribe
Another question is
im new to Quantum field theory
i was wondering whether i should stick to the old...
four fermion interaction??
The four fermion interaction proposed by enrico fermi to learn weak interaction
postulates that four dirac fields interact via the interaction hamilton
but by question is this
is the bilinear form taken...
but how to show it using quantum field theory?
that is in terms of an operator which acts on a fock space having eigenvalue=sqrt(s(s+1))
times the number of quanta in the fock space
im totally confused
but I am confused
how do you proof that the dirac field describes spin half quanta when quantized?
please refer me to a link on the net where this derivation is shown if possible
i can't find it in any of the books on quantized field theory
Read the first few pages of QFT in Nutshell by ZEE
The motivation for introducing path integral formulation of QM is startted as
a doubt that feynmann had regarding the inteference of photon as it goes through a doble slit...
please read further
I cannot describe the hapiness that i...