Re: How real are the "Virtual" partticles?

Igor Khavkine wrote:

> On 2005-03-29, Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Igor Khavkine wrote:
>>
>>>Bare particles/vacuum need not be stable, hence it is not a
>>>problem.
>>
>>They *are* stable wrt to the S-operator.
>>They *are not* stable wrt to the time evolution operator.
>>Don't you see a contradiction here?

You are misrepresenting tradition.
Bare particles do not occur in the S-matrix, which is about
the scattering behavior of physical particles only.

So the contradiction comes only from your wrong claim.


Arnold Neumaier

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How real are the "Virtual" partticles?
    ... On 2005-03-29, Eugene Stefanovich wrote: ... > Igor Khavkine wrote: ... there is no contradiction here. ... Quantum Theory of Many Particle Systems ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: When do we need renormalization
    ... Igor Khavkine wrote: ... >>Hamiltonian, just as in ordinary quantum mechanics, in full agreement ... and parameters m and e refer to bare particles). ... Eugene Stefanovich. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: How real are the "Virtual" partticles?
    ... They *are not* stable wrt to the time evolution operator. ... Bare particles do not occur in the S-matrix, which is about the scattering behavior of physical particles only. ... So the contradiction comes only from your wrong claim. ...
    (sci.physics.research)