Yes, [the formalism] underlines them, so to speak. You can even derive the standard quantum mechanics representation from it.

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.

SQMR

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(?).

I can, and will, go on if provoked.

provoking intensifies