I should have been more clear, sorry. It sounded like I was asking if QFT is a formulation for all the fields (save gravity), but I meant; Can we recover the same relationships between x and p if we give a treatment of, for example, how a quark interacts with a gluon? Obviously, the answer is yes. Doubly obvious, since we've unified the fields (...save gravity). Duh and sorry. It's funny because also in my field, we minimize or maximize observables (a lot of times I minimize "Faraday residue", the residual in Faraday's Law, from E-field & B-field measurements) across a dataset to yield the most suitable transformation matrix; finding the relationship between local geometric orientation of a boundary layer and the global coordinate system. The process is reducible to an eigenvector/eigenvalue formulation. But SQMR (a special case of QMR?) sounds like a generalized version of this(?). provoking intensifiesYes, [the formalism] underlines them, so to speak. You can even derive the standard quantum mechanics representation from it.
SQMR
I can, and will, go on if provoked.
Eh, I'm not entirely sure here? QCD is an odd beast, one where at the same time you have gauge invariant gluon spin distribution, but no 3-direction projection of gluon spin can be gauge invariant by itself. Unfortunately, I only know enough to have semi-educated doubts about general statement. Discipline divided by common maths and insular lingo. SQMR is a shorthand for the "Consider the Hilbert space of quadratically integrable functions of positions phi(q), Integral[phi(q)^2, {q, R^n}] < Infinity..." you see in most textbooks. Still reading up on stuff though.Can we recover the same relationships between x and p if we give a treatment of, for example, how a quark interacts with a gluon? Obviously, the answer is yes. Doubly obvious, since we've unified the fields (...save gravity). Duh and sorry.
But SQMR (a special case of QMR?) sounds like a generalized version of this(?).