One statement I've heard many times is that QFT is "defined" by the lattice, or that the "only" definition of QFT is on the lattice (when such definition exists, e.g in pure Yang-Mills theory). I've heard that from many people I respect, but I have my doubts. Specifically - the lattice is an algorithmic definition of those quantities that can be calculated in Euclidean spacetime. As I said in my answer to this question, this is a proper subset of all physical quantities you may be interested in calculating in general, and many physical situations do not have Euclidean formulation. Is there some response to this objection I am missing, or am I being naive somehow?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?
I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...
-
It is always told as a fact without explaining the reason. Why do two objects get charged by rubbing? Why one object get negative charge and...
-
I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...
-
Consider a gun or rifle fired directly upwards. My original question was what speed would be required to escape the Earth. The escape veloci...
No comments:
Post a Comment