Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 9 of 9
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.
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 and the perturbation. It is NOT the case that 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.
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.
As these pictures make just as much sense in classical as quantum physics, I’ve edited the introduction appropriately (and for grammar and links).
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.
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.
What about others such as Nelson and Bohm?
That’s something different.
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.
1 to 9 of 9