〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

I tried to interpret this intuitively but am struggling because it relies on the spooky action at a distance enjoyed by analytic functions and is false for general infinite-dimensional functions. Pretty cool though.

that's true .. I think my Physicist is showing .. we damn near always assume analyticity and function/finite number or arguments

There's something I find very weird about assuming analyticity in physics. It basically means you are assuming perfect knowledge of what's going on outside of your lightcone, right? Which seems to me... odd.

Sure but that's why we impose locality of operators

This is already over my head... How does that stop you knowing what's outside of your light cone? At least classically, analyticity means you would know, right?

If the operators are local operators they by definition within the light cone .. if you have local operators + Lorentz invariant lagragian you’re good to go

But like, say they measure quantity A, which is analytic. So you measure it in a small neighbourhood of where you stand, and then you've got all its derivatives so you know the value of quantity A *everywhere* (or am I missing something because I know next to undergrad in QM)