Quantum Field Theory. Field quanta

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What the QFT defines as the electron in terms of the Operators involved under spinor and vector quantities will transfer. The values of the field will change locality

Sorry for the stupid question. Can this be called a real transfer?

Share on other sites

If by real you mean measurable then yes. Physics doesn't have a definement for real we leave that to metaphysics.

Share on other sites

Just now, Mordred said:

If by real you mean measurable then yes. Physics doesn't have a definement for real we leave that to metaphysics.

that is, it is an experimental fact ?

Share on other sites

A fact is arbitrary to the level of understanding. Facts can change as understandings improve but yes it agrees with current experimental evidence.

Share on other sites

So the particle is a probability based field (existing between two points on its worldline,perhaps).

The field that describes to the environment that the particle  operates in  is simply an aggregation of all the particles' fields,is it? Or is there a distinction to be drawn?

Is the overall field subject to probability in the same way?

Afterthought:the particles' probability field takes into account the zero probability of causality being  broken.does it? (not all outcomes are possible)

Edited by geordief
Share on other sites

The model takes the likelihood of finding the particle as well as the likelihood of a scattering event occurring and upon the path taken. QM in general usually involves probability which makes sense to increasing the possible ranges and enhancing predictability. Once you measure something it is no longer probabilistic nor in superposition. So the properties we have determined for a property such as its mass or spin is determined and not probabilistic however the state can be in superposition until measured.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

The model takes the likelihood of finding the particle as well as the likelihood of a scattering event occurring and upon the path taken. QM in general usually involves probability which makes sense to increasing the possible ranges and enhancing predictability. Once you measure something it is no longer probabilistic nor in superposition. So the properties we have determined for a property such as its mass or spin is determined and not probabilistic however the state can be in superposition until measured.

The model is a field?The likelihoods of the particle  being found or experiencing a scattering event  are mapped as a field? (in 4D?)

Share on other sites

In QFT yes it follows the rules of GR and the Feymann Diagrams under the four momentum of GR and provides a weighted probability of the path of least resistance of the begin and end points of each leg and vertex of the Feymann path integrals. This is mapped as a 4D field in QFT, this is the main reason why QFT uses the Langrene and Hamilton of effective action.

This doesn't get too intense into the math as its more a very simplified brief of the Feymann scattering rules (the math is far too intense to understand without significant study.) However it will give a rough (very overview).

Just an FYI for interest: I am oft seen enforcing definitions and terminology under physics, in particular being careful to pay attention to some property names. The MEAN lifetime of particles A and B in the scattering diagrams are probability functions the mean is the average lifetime which through the Dirac Delta function enforces the conservation laws of energy momentum for the vertex's and legs. The S-matrix handles the probabilities.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

In QFT yes it follows the rules of GR and the Feymann Diagrams under the four momentum of GR

I think this should be SR, not GR. Standard QFT is formulated on a Minkowski background, basically to ensure CPT invariance.
Transposing this to a situation with a non-Minkowski background is a formidable task, which I don’t think this thread is about.

Share on other sites

In terms of time reversal symmetries of CPT I can't argue that, thanks for reminding me of that. Good catch my thanks

Edited by Mordred

Create an account

Register a new account