User talk:QFT

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome
Indeed, welcome! Based n your edit history, you might also be interested in the proejcts WikiProject Mathematics and WikiProject Physics and in particular the discussions that take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics linas 00:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

More welcome
Welcome from me too! And since you are new, a good habit to cultivate is putting an edit summary. It is a way of letting others know what you changed, and it helps when one examines your contributions. Thanks a lot, and I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to rate function
The words "See also rate function" that you added to the bottom of cumulant are rather badly positioned within the article. If there is no more appropriate place in the article to put it, you could create a separate section labeled See also, with a proper section heading. If it stands alone the way it is, there should be a period at the end of the sentence. I've added some context-setting introductory words to the rate function article so that non-mathematicians will know that mathematics is what it's about. Michael Hardy 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make edit summaries
There are many folks watching the topics you are editing. As a courtesy to them please write short edit summaries, thank-you --DV8 2XL 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a style sheet and there are policies WP:POL that covers issues like lore and references, I'm sure that your intentions are good, but it is not a free for all here and you will be reverted, and if you persist, blocked if you don't keep your edits in line with what is expected here. --DV8 2XL 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the Standard Model
An article you created, Beyond the Standard Model has been listed on Articles for Deletion. The nomination has attracted few comments, I think because of the specialized nature of the content. The reason the article has been listed for deletion is that it may be original research. If this is not the case, please take a monent to defend the article on its deletion log. I'd hate to see good work go to waste. --djrobgordon 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the AfD nomination, read the article, and have come to the conclusion that the article is straddling the line on original research. You need to make the case that it isn't original; more references, etc, are required.  You also should comment on the AfD page.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am outraged about the way we are treating the new user QFT here. He has taken some of his valuable time to start a new article that was actually needed here. Any doubts about this article could have been addressed first on the talk page of the article and/or on the |WikiProject Physics page. The article is very, very far from original research. It looks a bit professional, but so do many articles here on technical subjects. If you submit an expanded version of the article to a peer reviewed journal, the editor will say: Where is the rest of the article, I only received the introduction! :-) Count Iblis 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have closed the debate as a case of obvious ignorance. QFT, as a Wikipedia administrator I'd like to apologize for the episode.  The article was nominated out of ignorance, and the nominator should have looked around more carefully before nominating.  You've put a lot of work into that article, and although it needs a bit of cleanup I think it can be made quite useful with some good collaborative work.  Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 07:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are spinors projective reps?
Dear QFT,

I'm sorry to mail you when I'm very drunk. But it appears that you haven't responded to my messages on the supergravity talk page. I believe that we disagree as to whether spinors are projective representations of the Lorentz group. It seems to me as though you believe that Spin(N) is a subgroup of the Lorentz group. I would like to convince you that this is not the case (see for example the second chapter of Weinberg, the first subsection) so that I can put back my text that you've erased from the supergravity page (and also the text written by someone else that you've erased from the spinor page).

Anyway, I'm in no state to have an intelligible conversation now other than to claim that the total phase of a field in second quantization is as irrelevant as the total phase of a first quantized wave function. Please respond so that I can have a clear conscience putting back my projective rep text on the SUGRA page.

To make this more specific, you seem to have claimed on the spinor page that Spin(N) is a subgroup of the Lorentz group, so for example Spin(2)=Spin(2) should be a subgroup of the 3+1-dimensional Poincare group. This is a particularly sharp statement on which we disagree, so it'd be good to resolve. Do you stand by this claim? Anyway, feel free to respond on your talk page, on my talk page, on the SUGRA talk page, at jarah@ugcs.caltech.edu, at jarah@df.unipi.it, at jevslin@ulb.ac.be or anywhere that you see fit. Thank you for your attention JarahE 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wave function renormalization
Dear QFT, I am trying to understand the last paragraph of the stub article on wave function renormalization, which I believe was written by you:


 * One possible wave function renormalization, which happens to be scale independent, is to rescale the fields so that the Lehmann weight of their quanta is 1. (It's trickier to define it for unstable particles). For the purposes of studying renormalization group flows, if the coefficient of the kinetic term in the action at the scale Λ is Z, then the field is rescaled by \sqrt{Z}. A scale dependent wavefunction renormalization for a field means that that field has an anomalous scaling dimension.

Is the intention to describe a few renormalization schemes here? I am wondering if maybe it's too technical an approach? I've made a few changes recently to the first part of that stub, trying to make it a bit more pedagogical. I don't want to hack up the rest (if at all) before I understand what the intended message is! Thanks. HEL 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)