She sure is . She said 2 million , now that she got it she said congrat ' s that covers Wisconsin . HAHAHA Clinton can ' t win it . Has anyone found a Soros green party connection ? <| sep |> Are you on Windows 10 ? App Locale is no longer supported on it . You could try Locale EmulatorEmulator , it does the same thing . <| sep |> I had pretty much the same thing happen wing mirror and I don ' t count that as an accident because I didn ' t claim for it . Just call another company and don ' t tell them about it . <| sep |> Work to the point of very nearly having a nervous breakdown . It ' s not worth it . <| sep |> In relativistic quantum theory the wave functions are matrix elements of the field creation and annihilation step operators . No , they absolutely aren ' t . I explained this already . Don ' t edit your post to include bits and pieces of my response in it to make yourself look smart . It didn ' t make sense at first and it still doesn ' t make sense now . You see , the Hamiltonian of Dirac equation is a twocomponent wave function by itself . You understand that to make meaningful sentences you need to understand the meaning of each word , right ? A Hamiltonian is a onecomponent object and can only be a onecomponent object , and it is a onecomponent object function of one variable . The QFT functionals of the fields hermitian operator in configuration space obey a Schrdingertype equation and they ' re analogous to the wavefunction in QM . Again , you have to know the meaning of the words to string them together in a proper sentence . What you just wrote doesn ' t even make any sense . Fields aren ' t Hermitian operators except in very specific cases , and no , they don ' t obey a Schrdinger type equation and they ' re emphatically not analogous to the wavefunction . The wavefunctions and state vectors are routinely used even in relativistic QFT this is how we compute crossection scattering amplitudes for example . No , it ' s irrevocably not . Why do you do this ? Why do you pretend to know anything about this when it ' s obvious to anyone that you don ' t ? I ' m done . If you want to continue talking to me about this , you ' ll respond correctly to this very simple question that anyone with even a passing knowledge of quantum field theory would breeze throughTake a theory with a complex charged scalar minimally coupled to a U 1 gauge boson . Take the lowestorder particleantiparticle annihilation diagrama How many photon legs does this diagram have ? b Is the dominant contribution an schannel process , a tchannel process , or a uchannel process ? I remind you anybody who knows how to calculate even the simplest scattering amplitude would breeze through these two questions . Fail to answer and you ' ll prove to anyone you have no business lecturing anybody on how to calculate scattering amplitudes .