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

*Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:36:41 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 935] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 932] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 935] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"

Dear Matti,

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

Subject: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity

*>
*

*>
*

*> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Dear Matti,
*

*> >
*

*> > Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>
*

*> >
*

*> > Subject: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > >
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Dear Hitoshi,
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Still one question, can you tell in five words(;-) what is the
*

difference

*> > > between QFT and wave mechanics approches? One might think that
*

*> > > basically there can be no difference if Hamiltonian quantization really
*

*> > > works. Didn't Schwinger follow the Hamiltonian quantization?
*

*> > >
*

*> > > MP
*

*> >
*

*> > My understanding is that QFT uses the operator-valued distribution which
*

is

*> > the basic quantity. Standard approach uses state function. The
*

formulations

*> > would be different in their interpretaion and applicability of standard
*

*> > scattering theory to QFT seems small.
*

*>
*

*> The introduction of field operators is new element and Fock space replaces
*

*> the Hilbert space of wave functions. One can generalize
*

*> Lippmann-Scwinger to abstract Hilbert space and presumably does so.
*

Yes. If one can formulate in Hamiltonian formalism in QFT, it would give a

similar structure to standard one, and one can argue in a similar way. There

is a possibility here, but Hamiltonian formalism would be possible only in

Euclidean metrics and usually it is not taken seriously. Of course there is a

method of introducing Euclidean metric by replacing i*t by a new real variable

x^0. My assertion is not in this Euclidetization, but in using genuine

Euclidean metric as the basic metric.

*>
*

*> You are right that the applicability at practical level is small.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> In any case, in TGD configuration space spinor field is formally in
*

*> same position as classical Dirac spinor. No second quantization is
*

*> performed for it although spinor components correspond to
*

*> Fock states generated by second quantized induced spinor fields
*

*> on spacetime surfaces.
*

In this respect, there is a possibility of applying standard method, but the

metric might be a problem.

*>
*

*> Best,
*

*> MP
*

*>
*

*>
*

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 935] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 932] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 935] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"

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