tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post55672134070675449..comments2019-09-16T06:47:32.608+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Quantum field theory has no problemsLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-84754993583705983632010-11-16T18:24:09.440+01:002010-11-16T18:24:09.440+01:00Dear Timothy, your concern is almost amusing. Even...Dear Timothy, your concern is almost amusing. Even in classical field theory, F = qE follows from E=-gradient(phi), and the phi.q term in the energy.<br /><br />The very same term appears in the Hamiltonian of Quantum Electrodynamics, so of course the same physics results from it, too. You know, the correct classical limit is completely manifest. <br /><br />If you find the classical limit important, QFT is just the very same field theory with extra "hats" added above all observables, and the proof that the quantum theory reduces to the classical theory without hats in the classical limit - i.e. in macroscopically large electromagnetic fields - is totally straightforward.<br /><br />Best wishes<br />LubosLuboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-65937449801447845722010-11-16T13:55:28.749+01:002010-11-16T13:55:28.749+01:00Hi Lubos.
After all of that text, I wonder, when ...Hi Lubos.<br /><br />After all of that text, I wonder, when has QFT recovered<br /> F = q E ?<br />Should this not be recovered then I do not believe that QFT is valid. Should this be relied upon within QFT then a fundamental conflict within the theory exists. <br /><br />I make these statements firmly, but am open to falsification. If you have some thoughts on this I'd greatly appreciate your feedback.<br /><br /> - Tim http://bandtech.comTimothy Golden BandTechnology.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597019318569083081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-11775267176515938492010-11-14T07:18:19.410+01:002010-11-14T07:18:19.410+01:00Absolutely, thanks!Absolutely, thanks!Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-71702337090755937832010-11-13T15:45:39.003+01:002010-11-13T15:45:39.003+01:00On a more mundane note, you wrote "...over ar...On a more mundane note, you wrote "...over arbitrarily <i>short</i>-wavelength (or low-energy)..." Did you mean <i>long</i>-wavelengthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com