gentzen said:
I have now carefully processed what you wrote. To understand what you wrote about QFT, I did reread some passages in "QFT books" I had first read in 2018. I now see that they use "regularization by periodic boundary condition" to avoid the need to discuss the stuff in martinbb's answer, which still confuses me today. Even so it is true that in simple cases, this regularization converges against distributions, in all practically relevant cases I had to deal with so far, I quickly ended up with products of distributions, which are no longer well defined mathematically. And indeed on all those cases, I fell back to "regularization by (not necessarily periodic) boundary conditions," simply because I had no better idea. (Even so I did spend quite some time searching.) It worked, but had some practical drawbacks.
I don't know, what you are referring to. Which specific problem is puzzling you? Here are just some hints:
The introduction of a "quantization volume" is a regularization that indeed deals with some problems with distributions. E.g., if you have the S-matrix elements, using in the usual naive way plane-wave initial and final states, and you want to square them you have the problem what to do with the energ-momentum conserving ##\delta## function. This can be cured by introducing a quantization volume to get a discrete set of momenta and Kronecker-##\delta##'s instead of ##\delta##-distributions. The infinite-volume limit is then taken at the end to get transition-probability-density-rates to evaluate cross sections. Of course, this is just one pretty convenient mathematical way. A more physically intuitive way is to use true asymptotic free states, i.e., square-integrable functions instead of plane waves, which are no true states, because they are not square integrable. They are indeed distributions. That's also so in first-quantized non-relativistic QM.
All this has, of course, nothing to do with the foundations of QT but are mathematical issues, which are pretty well understood.
gentzen said:
Let me say some words on what you wrote about the normal QT formalism. You basically combined the "textbook" way of how to become independent from whether you compute in momentum space or position space, with A. Neumaier's way of how to become independent of your "quantum picture" (i.e. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, or Dirac picture). You nicely executed that idea, I have not yet seen it before. However, let me try to put it in perspective: While A. Neumaier used "his way" to translate into the Ehrenfest picture, your translation is into the Schrödinger picture. This raises the question whether "this way" also allows a similar translation into the Heisenberg picture. (I believe a translation into the Dirac picture would make less sense, but perhaps I am wrong.)
I don't know, what you are referring to. The transformation between different pictures of time evolution is well understood since the very beginning of QT. I also don't know, what you mean by "Ehrenfest picture".
gentzen said:
Let me finally come back to the "indulging into philosophical messing" part. You seem to suggest that one can translate into ones preferred picture only at the end, when all the messy computations have already been done in the picture most convenient for them. So just because Sean Carroll needs the Schrödinger picture for his MWI interpretation, this should not limit him in any way on how he uses and explains QFT. And in your opinion, Demystifier "mixes up different things," when he equates my "operators depending on space-time like parameters" picture with the Heisenberg picture, because what I describe is basically just some math used in some practical computations, and not any specific quantum picture.
If an interpretation is dependent on the choice of the picture of time evolution, forget about it. All physics, and thus anything that needs "interpretation", is completely picture independent.
What I referred to
@Demystifier as "mixing up" was about his statement:
There is operators depending on time picture, and there is quantum probability amplitudes for particle positions picture. These are more or less the same as the Heisenberg picture and Schrodinger picture, respectively.
Indeed, the choice of the picture of time evolution refers to the time evolution of the operators, which represent observables, using a Hamiltonian ##\hat{H}_0## and the time evolution of the state kets (or equivalently the statistical operator of the system), using a Hamiltonian ##\hat{H}_1##, where ##\hat{H}=\hat{H}_0+\hat{H}_1## is the Hamiltonian of the system. The split of ##\hat{H}## into ##\hat{H}_0## and ##\hat{H}_1## is completely arbitrary, and nothing of the physics changes. Particularly "the wave function", i.e., the "quantum-probability amplitudes", in the first-quantization formalism of non-relativistic QM is independent of the choice of the picture of time evolution. There's a lot of confusion in the literature, because it's not clearly stated, what "picture of time evolution" means.