Potential Energy of Quantum Field?

So, you don't know why a property of a quantum field behaves the way it does? It simply behaves that way because that's the way it behaves? Please say yes and mean it. That would indicate that I've found my answer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On a serious note, if anyone wants to look at axiomatic (or constructive) quantum field theory, then Baez, Segal and Zhou have a good book. I'm a long way from getting through the whole thing myself, but it's interesting thus far. Health warning: it's mathematically demanding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, of course it is.
See, I haven't actually studied this at a tertiary level, I only got as far as undergrad Electronics, I know a lot of stuff about computers (I don't mean PCs btw), CS is the only post-grad (as they call it these days) stuff I have, it isn't germane here, but computers use electric and magnetic phenomena, which I do understand. It all works because of the same thing, which is the thing you're asking about - so yes, that's how this EM stuff is. We can't see the EM field, only the stuff it does.

I've only made a smallish step towards field theories, by studying classical EM, but I understand Schrodinger, Einstein, one or two other nominal theories.
Expert I'm not. I do know how hard it gets to stay in the layman's world when you study, too.
You tend to think in abstract ways, you find it harder to connect with "ordinary" usage, or you sort of leave it behind to some extent.

But ever since the ancient Greeks found bits of stone that moved (lodestone), and wondered about amber being able to pick up small bits of stuff, we've only ever seen the classical side of EM, and that's how it's been explained. QM is kind of the most recent revision of this explanation, and we know it's a good model (extremely good).

It pays to learn something, I think, about the history of electric and magnetic science. It isn't all that long ago that someone worked out they were part of the same science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but abstractions about the real world should always lead to actual real world structures. Therefore, you should still be able to discuss the real world structures you are referring to, which should be within the imaginative grasp of a layperson.

 

No, you've found your own limits in understanding. Your inability to ask a coherent question doesn't mean you've found the limits of quantum field theory.

I'll ask you again, why are you ignoring my questions?

Really? So you should have no trouble discussing 7 dimensional compact spaces with the properties I mentioned earlier. Feel free to answer my questions about it then.

 

So what is the name of the theory in physics that describes why quantum fields have properties? And, are you saying that the geometry of a quantum field is responsible for its properties?

 

Tell you what John. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. How's that?

 

Usually, the refusal to answer a question is a "no, I don't know." I can't answer most of your questions because I don't know. So, I will also assume you can't answer my question, because you don't know.

 

I handed you a source of information which contains the answer if you bothered to read it. Here's a hint, \(\bar{\psi}\) is equivalent to a row vector and \(\psi\) a column vector. Any ideas? Any idea where to look for the answer?

Come on, I want to see if you're capable to doing some of your own learning rather than being a parasite on other people.

I do know. But I want you to show you're capable of learning on your own, that you're able to read, think and understand.

Because if you wont, even if I answered every one of your questions from now till the end of time, you'd not stop asking because you're unable to understand the replies.

As Guest commented, you seem like a little child going "But why?! But why?! BUT WHY?!" Anyone can do that. Heck, I can write C programs which can do that. It doesn't show thought or understanding or learning. If anything it shows the distinct lack of those things because you never tailor your questions to anything other than "What's the cause of that then? But what's the cause of that? So that's caused by what?!".

Show that it's worth my time and effort answering your questions and I'll do so. Otherwise, I'm trying to finish putting in a bunch of vacua diagrams to a paper.

 

Actually, I would rather perfer you just to answer the question.:bawl:

 

I'm sure you would. But unless you can show it's worth answering the question by showing you're able to actually think, why should I?

What is the point in me replying to all your questions if you learn nothing from the answers?

 

I've certainly learned something, so far. I've been able to narrow my question down considerably. As far as thinking goes, I've been a litigating attorney for 15 years and have demonstrated my ability to think deeply to others on many occassions. Part of my job is to ask experts, such as yourself, a myriad of questions in order to narrow their focus. I do not need to be an expert to do this. Oftentimes, I will have to ask the expert to explain his statements so that I can understand them, so that I can ask further questions. You are not an attorney and are unfamiliar with my questioning techniques. I often get similar responses from those I depose, because they simply do not understand why I am asking what seems to require obvious answers. I do understand your frustration with my questioning, but you should feel some comfort in the fact that I am trained to do this.

 

This is not one of those occasions. Several of us have commented you come across as stupid and little more than a program on loop asking "But wwwwhhhhyyyyy???".

My research is focused enough. If I explained you wouldn't understand. Just like you didn't understand my explanations about Calabi Yaus. And I do just a small small thing related to such things.

No, I'm a mathematical physicist who is educated in maths and physics and who has several years experience explaining/teaching such concepts to students and people online and know the style of questioning of people who want to learn and people who are idiots who don't want to learn. You're not the former.

I'm not on the stand though. And when you're deposing someone you aren't required to spend time understanding their ideas, just to ask a barrage of questions till you either cut away the irrelevant material to get to the point or you trap someone. This is a discussion forum, not a court house.

Come across like an ignorant, arrogant **** wit?

At the risk of insulting other people, you're American aren't you?

 

I do want to learn. I want to learn what you don't know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think we've stopped discussing phyiscs here long ago.