**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:59:14 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 921] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 921] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

Dear Matti,

----- Original Message -----

From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>

To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>

Cc: Time List <time@kitada.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 2:25 PM

Subject: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of

unitarity

*>
*

*>
*

*> On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Dear Matti,
*

*> >
*

*> > I understand that you are talking in p-adic context, and as such the
*

present

*> > proof does not harm your result.
*

*> >
*

*> > I do not want to disturb your satisfaction with your proof. Just I would
*

like

*> > to conclude with a comment that the existence of the limit lim
*

*> > (1+R_0(z)V)^{-1} = lim R(z)(H_0-z) = lm (1-R(z)V): \HH_- -->\HH_- when Im
*

z->0

*> > is the main issue, and if this is solved, the unitarity holds also in real
*

*> > case.
*

*>
*

*> But if one has the condition VP|m_1>=0 S matrix is trivial in real
*

*> context
*

I am speaking of general context without such a condition. If the limit above

exists, then it follows from it the unitarity.

since T^daggerT=0: this you certaily agree. The limits are

*> certainly delicate but as I said I must try to identify the architecture
*

*> of unitarity: the condition replacing the representability of S-matrix as
*

*> time development operator.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> I hope that you understand that our starting points are different. You
*

*> have at your use refined scattering theory whereas I am desperately trying
*

*> to identify basic structural principles leading to "Feynmann rules".
*

*> Only after that functional analyst can come to my great building and
*

*> start decoration(-;). You certainly know that even quantum field theories
*

*> are still unkown territory for mathematicians (say functional integrals).
*

*> TGD generalize quantum field theories by replacing point like
*

*> particle with 3-surface: TGD is more interesting for mathematical dreamers
*

*> than "blind mathematicians" in its recent state.
*

*>
*

*> Best,
*

*> MP
*

*>
*

*>
*

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 921] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 921] Re: [time 919] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST
*