Need more glimpses of QFT in my life.

Is this a type of formalism that extends across multiple field theories? The article details the case of the stationary, bound electron, interacting with EM fields (the stationary particle allowing for just the "E" requirement of "EM", presumably?), but can a Hamiltonian treatment arrive at the same sort of re-formulation of Heisenberg's results for fields like early universe quark gluon plasma, or weak force-dominated nuclear meltdown? Obviously, gravity is out, but I would guess the standard model covers the electroweak-to-strong forces. I'm like 99.5% sure. edit: experimentalist shaming should be every theorist's cathartic, collective pastime, seriously. :)

My understanding is that Lagrangian mechanics better accommodates for Newtonian/classical-scale dynamics because the difference in potential vs. kinetic energy is much more defined than at the quantum scale, where total energy is a more useful framing. Thus, the Hamiltonian. I'm leaning towards thinking that this zero-point field approach (fluctuations in energy above some equilibrium "zero") also reinforces the same idea. But my understanding could be wrong. Always.

If the vacuum field fluctuations are CMB energy density level-ish (3 K or whatever thermal wavelengths for almost any particle resonance not too relevant except for maybe... neutrinos[?] ), I dunno, for most environments hospitable to our lifeform, seems inconsequential. Like everything else, gets weird near black holes, with blueshift. You know.

Was great to see conjugate/Hilbert space treatment of Fourier equivalence from a new approach. Still working on the maths. Can't say I'm done with it until things 100% click. Could be never.