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 \...
-
I was solving the sample problems for my school's IQ society and there are some I don't get. Since all I get is a final score, I wan...
-
Are C1, C2 and C3 connected in parallel, or C2, C3 in parallel and C1 in series with C23? Btw it appeared as a question in the basic physics...
-
500 are at my end, 500 are at my start, but at my heart there are only 5. The first letter and the first number make me complete: Some consi...
No comments:
Post a Comment