Recent content by Sojourner01

  1. S

    Lifetime of a Photon: Electron-Positron Annihilation & Speed of Light

    Duh, yes, you're absolutely correct. I knew that as well. Post edited.
  2. S

    Lifetime of a Photon: Electron-Positron Annihilation & Speed of Light

    Photons, as far as we know, don't decay to anything. Several fundamental quanta are thought to be the same, in particular, electrons and protons. There's an experiment looking for proton decay which would have expected to find one by now if it ever happens, and they haven't. All the others are...
  3. S

    Dyson-Wick formalism in second-order QED - trouble with derivation

    I'll see what I can do... Given the definition of the S matrix: S=\sum_{x=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-i)^{n}}{n!}\int...\int d^{4}x_{1}...d^{4}x_{n}T\{H_{I}(x_{1})...H_{I}(x_{n})\} and the interaction Hamiltonian being (for QED): H_{I}(x)=-eN\{\overline{\psi}(x)\gamma_{i}A^{i}(x)\psi(x)\} The...
  4. S

    Understanding Hermitian Conjugates of $\psi^{\dag}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}\chi$

    Thanks arkajad, you are clearly a patient teacher. Spelled out explicitly, the dotted index rule makes perfect sense and it seems that as usual, there's a subset of authors who simply can't be bothered to express their derivations rigorously. I'm displaying my ignorance once again, though in my...
  5. S

    Understanding Hermitian Conjugates of $\psi^{\dag}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}\chi$

    I thought I'd stick my oar in here since I also find these problems in general extremely challenging. For one, I've never even seen these 'dotted indices' before. The author of my QFT textbook doesn't use them. In reference to arkajad's second-to-last post: What is the reasoning behind moving...
  6. S

    Exploring the Concept of Quantized Electromagnetic Fields in QFT"

    I am not sure that spatial quantisation is really the right way of looking at it. My understanding is that quantisation of a field implies that propagating disturbances in the field, i.e. particles, come in discrete lumps, i.e. you can't have probability distribution of observed field strength...
  7. S

    Dyson-Wick formalism in second-order QED - trouble with derivation

    Nobody? If it helps, the difficulty I have is that in the first resultant expression, the indices on the second gamma and the first A don't match. As far as I knew, this didn't mean anything as summation is over repeated indices.
  8. S

    Photon & Time: Is Movement Possible?

    Ok, suppose we freeze you cryogenically and put you on a train. When the train moves, do you move? Ridiculous example. But that shows what I'm trying to express here, which is that the question you asked is not a useful one. You've tried to project human assumptions onto a system which does not...
  9. S

    Photon & Time: Is Movement Possible?

    What makes you think it shouldn't?
  10. S

    Dyson-Wick formalism in second-order QED - trouble with derivation

    I have in front of me Quantum Field Theory, Mandl & Shaw. Chapter 7 deals with the theoretical basis of Feynman Diagrams using the Dyson-Wick formalism. The chapter begins with applying Wick's Theorem to produce six S-Matrix components with a variety of no-equal-time contractions. It then...
  11. S

    Sleep Patterns: How to Get Good Rest & Feel Refreshed

    I find it fiendishly difficult to get to sleep if there's any disturbance around me, but once I'm gone, I'm gone. I then wake up at sunrise whether or not I want to.
  12. S

    Higgs field, mass and why particles cling to it?

    I was stating this in the context of what the Higgs does, as opposed to what the Higgs does not - the point being that being responsible for certain mass terms in certain particle interactions does not in any way imply that the Higgs is responsible for transmitting the gravitational force; and...
  13. S

    Is this Differential Algebra Problem Correct? | Simple Identity Confirmation

    The quoted identity is for a general method comprising r fields - the case I'm applying it to is the one where the fields are A (r=1) and At (r=2). For r=1 the field is a three-component vector, and there is no escaping that.
  14. S

    Is this Differential Algebra Problem Correct? | Simple Identity Confirmation

    The bar is 3-vector notation. Are you familiar with this method? The field A and the derivatives of the field are treated as being independent of one another, so the term you quoted from me and the term you equated it to do not infer one another. RE Post #13: The piece you quoted from me is the...
  15. S

    Is this Differential Algebra Problem Correct? | Simple Identity Confirmation

    It's a QFT problem so it's four-dimensional, but the four-vector \tilde{A} is decomposed into \overline{A} + A_{t}\overline{e}_{0}. The Lagrangian formulation of electromagnetism in the method I've been given is to apply the euler-lagrange equation to each of these components seperately. Edit...
Back
Top