I work with a Polish emigre. He showed me his notes [in Polish] from when he taught classical mechanics. He used a diagram to illustrate the following things.
If you start with classical mechanics. It becomes quantum mechanics when you assert H has a non-zero lower bound. It becomes a field theory when you assert \bar{h} has a non-zero lower bound. It becomes a relativistic theory when you assert that c has a finite upper bound. [So, a relativistic quantum field theory sets all three parameters].
So, the whole classical-quantum distinction has been lost on me, since I actually thought it was important. Sometimes I wonder if this parametric view skews my understanding of the state of affairs.
I thought you were "crazy busy." This is your third (maybe fourth?) post today.
"Impure thoughts" is a real groaner.
You think I write these posts at the time they are posted? ;)
Heck, it was none other than Saunders Mac Lane who said "It has taken me fifty years to understand classical mechanics."
One option is to read Arnol'd's [i]Classical Mechanics[/i], and then embrace a new mathematical life as a classical-quantum hermaphrodite! :)
I work with a Polish emigre. He showed me his notes [in Polish] from when he taught classical mechanics. He used a diagram to illustrate the following things.
If you start with classical mechanics. It becomes quantum mechanics when you assert H has a non-zero lower bound. It becomes a field theory when you assert \bar{h} has a non-zero lower bound. It becomes a relativistic theory when you assert that c has a finite upper bound. [So, a relativistic quantum field theory sets all three parameters].
So, the whole classical-quantum distinction has been lost on me, since I actually thought it was important. Sometimes I wonder if this parametric view skews my understanding of the state of affairs.