Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2011

    started the trinity of entries

    But not done yet. So far: the basic idea in words and a pointer in each entry to the corresponding section in Zeidler’s textbook.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2011
    • (edited Jul 19th 2011)

    For perturbative QFT and Feynman diagram expansion, the most important is the interaction picture. I did not know about “Dirac” prefix. In any case, I disagree with

    dynamics is split into a free part and an interaction

    Dynamics is split into the part refering to H 0H_0 and the perturbation. It is NOT the case that H 0H_0 must be free. On the contrary, in many cases in practice the unperturbed picture corresponds to some solvable model, or any understood enough model, not necessarily free (besides it is not clear what is free in general as this depends on the definition of vacuum, kinds of particles involved etc.). So I would prefer a more general phrasing.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2011
    • (edited Jul 20th 2011)

    okay I have changed “free” to “free or otherwise solvable”.

    Concerning “Dirac”: yes, it’s mostly just called “interaction picture” but I thought for the title of the entry, it makes sense to name Dirac, given that then the three entries sound alike. But “interaction picture” is a redirect.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2011
    • (edited Jul 20th 2011)

    As these pictures make just as much sense in classical as quantum physics, I’ve edited the introduction appropriately (and for grammar and links).

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    In writing more about these pictures, I’ve found that (like the related new page kinematics and dynamics) it works better to combine Schrödinger picture and Heisenberg picture into a single page, tentatively entitled mechanical picture. However, as I know little about it, I’ve left interaction picture mostly alone.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    Yes, thanks. I was wondering, too. Sometimes I find it hard to decide. But I agree, here it is maybe better to merge. It is hard to tell until there is some substantial content in the entries. I tend to create very small entries internally imagining what they might look like when fully grown up.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    What about others such as Nelson and Bohm?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    That’s something different.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011
    • (edited Jul 24th 2011)

    I think that Eric is asking about interpretations of quantum physics, rather than pictures of mechanics.

    Historically, the terms ‘Schrödinger picture’ and ‘Heisenberg picture’ (at least) referred to more than what we discuss on our page; they referred to the entirety of the differences between Schrödinger’s and Heisenberg’s approaches to quantum mechanics. (I added a bit on this history to the page.) Even so, I’ve never seen them used to refer to any difference of interpretation.

    Possibly Eric is confusing the interaction picture with the transaction interpretation.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)