3 ms·
> that's why everyone just ignores this approach even though it makes a lot more intuitive sense. - No one ignores the correspondence between QFTs and stochast
by consilient 4y ago
> that's why everyone just ignores this approach even though it makes a lot more intuitive sense.
- No one ignores the correspondence between QFTs and stochastic processes (which is what I assume you're talking about, since the claim that QED is just Monte Carlo is extremely false if taken literally), any halfway decent intro QFT class will cover it.
- It only "makes more intuitive sense" because you've papered over all the gory details. There's very little intuitive or natural about analytic continuation in C^{\infty}, for instance.
- trashtester 4y agoStochastic processes is one thing. But most calculations in QFT is done using various perturbation theories (kind of like Taylor series expansion), instead of by using exact calculation. That could be interpreted kind of like ray tracing with finite resolution and a finite number of reflections. EDIT: Feynman diagrams serve as an attractive way to rationalize the various perturbations, but it may be that a "true" theory needs to be able to solve the (for us) unsolvable integrals directly. Especially since the perturbation theory integrals (that we can solve) diverge, and require renormalization to avoid infinities.