Posted: Sep 16, 2011 7:46 am
by twistor59
zaybu wrote:
twistor59 wrote:
zaybu wrote:
This paper talks about "first quantization" to describe photons. Just elemerntary stuff.

If you think that applying first quantization to photons is "elementary", then you have a different definition of elementary to the one I have !

It's elementary in the sense that there hasn't been any new development in QM since the 1930's. Omitting the advancement in QFT from 1930 to 1970 would be like studying math without studying any math from calculus and on. Your grasp of the subject would be quite limited. How could you discuss renormalization, gauge invariance, higgs mechanism or Wilson loop? Yet these are the backbones of the subject matter.

(I'll split the responses to the previous post into separate posts, otherwise the paragraphs are going to be very hard to keep track of.)

But the issue under discussion, which is essentially something along the lines of "what does a photon look like - how should I think of it?" does not need the advances you describe (with the exception, perhaps, of the gauge idea, which has been around since Hermann Weyl, and which is important in identifying the fundamental degrees of freedom). Although you can get by without asking simplistic questions like the one I'm addressing, you cannot suppress the urge to try to answer such questions, and such questions are surprisingly difficult to answer.