**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:42:35 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 936] What mechanism is responsible for LS interactions?"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 934] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[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> 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.
*

Hamiltonian formalism is also possible in Minkowski metric but one

has to prove Lorentz invariance separately and this makes formalism

awkward. Functional integral formalism is invariant but as far

as I have understood (after five years of attempts to

construct functional integral formalism for TGD)

it is difficult to understand how unitarity would result

in this approach when action is extremely nonlinear as in my case.

Yes: I have understood the basic idea of your approach.

*>
*

*> >
*

*> > 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.
*

And the unitarity...

Funny thing, how very few theoreticians after all pay attention

for these problems. They just calculate.

In perturbative QFT one can express

discontinuities (T^dagger_n-T)_n= (T^daggerT)_n the r.h.s

being expressed in terms formed of lower order amplitudes T_k, k<n

and from these deduce amplitude T_n using dispersion relations.

In this approach QFT would give only the lowest order term from which one

starts iteration and it becomes questionable whether QFT makes

sense anymore.

Strongest counter argument against p-adic approach is that

T^daggerT=0 so that *p-adic* cross sections vanish. Real

scattering rates obtained from p-adic ones by canonical

identification are nonvanishing but are very probably

not deducible from real S-matrix. But can anyone claim that *real*

unitarity of QFT has been experimentally verified? I remember chapter

about dispersion relations for pion in Bjorken Drell but who takes it

seriously now when quarks have been discovered?

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 936] What mechanism is responsible for LS interactions?"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 934] Re: [time 933] Re: [time 931] Re: [time 928] Re: [time 923] Unitarity"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[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
*