What do you guys think does the most explanatory work in QFT? @InertialObservr @MattersDarkly
Correlation functions, S-matrix, scattering elements, cross sections, etc.? Lots of people have talked about realism wrt. fields and particles, but not much wrt. these objects
-
-
Replying to @litgenstein @MattersDarkly
Of that list correlation functions are the most fundamental
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
More fundamentally would be the invariant matrix element for a given process, it essentially decouples all of the quantum stuff from the SR and all of the things on your list are functions of these
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Let’s try to keep a single thread going this time lmao
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The ontology of QFT in my mind is one of the most difficult possible tasks.. a “hard problem” if you will, to abuse Daniel Chalmers phrase
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It requires at its heart understanding wtf the QFT formalism is describing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There’s a great PSE post on this.. take the field operator φ³.. as a field operator it’s not even clear what this even means
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @MattersDarkly
Lmao yeah it’s pretty hilarious to see the PSE answer questions about physical significance of X, where we have the most abstract mathematical formalisms as far divorced from human experience as possible
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @litgenstein @MattersDarkly
Though if I’m not mistaken the S matrix and correlation functions and the invariant matrix element are essentially the same thing with different names
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The smatrix is just a correlation function with some extra creation and annihilation operators
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @MattersDarkly
Hmm I guess the path from correlation function —> Smatrix seems to involve changes in information to me. Like if it was only a Fourier transform I’d be able to conceptualize how they’re the same, but I have a hard time of doing so now
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @litgenstein @MattersDarkly
You’re right about that ontologically
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 17 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.