Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
-------------------------
-------------------------
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/physics-faq.html.
-------------------------
the FAQ contains 148 topics, grouped into 20 chapters, and filling over
of about 220 pages. Starting in 2004, the topics were edited from my
newsgroup de.sci.physik).
If you like the FAQ and/or found it useful, please link to it from
If you found this FAQ useful you are likely to benefit also from
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#QML
http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019
This doesn't mean that they are poor but probably that they are
not perfect. Many topics are discussed quite in detail, but this is
sense.
always the mainstream view, although I tend to discuss that view, too.
Arnold Neumaier
University of Vienna
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/
-----------------
Table of Contents
-----------------
The 21 topics in the initial version, posted there on April 28, 2004,
will be added and old answers regrouped. So, to quote part of the FAQ,
Abbreviations:
Chapter 3 (6 sections)
Chapter 6 (8 sections)
Chapter 7 (3 sections)
S7a. What is the mass gap?
Chapter 8 (9 sections)
Chapter 9 (6 sections)
Chapter 11 (7 sections)
Chapter 14 (4 sections)
Chapter 15 (5 sections)
Chapter 17 (8 sections)
Chapter 18 (5 sections)
Chapter 19 (1 section)
S20a. Acknowledgments
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physik-faq.txt
----------------------------
----------------------------
In the language of linear algebra, kets |psi> are just column vectors
psi (for systems with finitely many levels only; each component gives
bras <psi| are the complex conjugated transposed row vectors psi^*.
For the basis bra <k|, the unit vector with a single entry 1 at
<k|psi> = psi_k.
and for the basis bra <x|, which is a delta distribution centered at x,
we have
psi(x) = <x|psi>.
functions from some nice function space, and bras are linear
functionals on the dual space. The dual space is larger and also
contains distributions.
gives the conventional Hilbert space, and together with the dual
H_inf^* = H_-inf, these define a Gelfand triple or rigged Hilbert
less smooth functions and even distributions, so that every bra has
a corresponding ket. Thus they use the ket |x> although this is not a
This allows them to write not only psi(x) = <x|psi>, but also
the inner product of a momentum bra <p| and a position ket |x>
the variables!
About the pitfalls when not using the required care, I recommend
reading
F. Gieres,
quant-ph/9907069
and
mechanics,
quant-ph/0103153
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Projective geometry means that one works with rays instead of vectors
the floor a little upwards into the air (the same amount at every
point), one may think of each point as being represented by the ray
(Actually, instead of the ray one should consider the whole line;
number planes.)
Similarly, lines are now 2-spaces through the origin. This gives
But now one also has some additional points, corresponding to rays
parallel to the affine plane. These points form the 'line at infinity'
A slightly closer look reveals that the geometry has become more
complete: Now not only every two points have a unique connecting
line
but also any two lines have a unique intersections - what were before
parallels are now lines intersecting 'at infinity'. Imagine two long,
straight rails of a railway track...
intrinsically projective.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the constant 1 must have expectation 1 leads to the
restriction that
details.) For small systems, all such density matrices can indeed be
we get
Usually one does not look at off-diagonal elements at all, but they
are important in intermediate steps of calculations.
isolated systems), quantum state have the property that all columns
psi^*psi=1.
(In Dirac language, this says <psi|psi>=1; see the FAQ entry for bras
in which all columns of the density matrix are exactly parallel to some
nonzero wave vector psi. (Such matrices are called rank 1 matrices;
Then the k-th column is a multiple c_k psi of psi. The fact that rho
we end up with
p_k = |<k|psi>|^2.
Thus one sees that the traditional wave vector calculus is just a
by density matrices.
Everything that is done with wave vectors can also be done with
--------------------------------------------------------
the special case of this setting where all states are assumed to be
pure.)
A2. A particular system (e.g., 'the ion in the ion trap on this
as _observables_.
and the _spin_vector_ (or Bloch vector) sigma^a of the particle with
defined by
nature of the state), and hence says that Axioms A1-A5 are complete.
accepted.
identical
(particular) systems closed for times t<t_l, all in the same state
what 'measuring' is, nor what 'measurement results' are and what
understands by reality.
the systems are open and the states are mixed states. Pure states
Hamiltonian in which the first excited state has a large energy gap.
Indeed, assume for simplicity that H has discrete spectrum. In an
with 1 only for the k corresponding to the states with least energy
This implies that for low enough temperatures, the equilibrium state
approximation is good.
larger energy than the ground state. Dissipation then brings the
rho(t) = psi(t)psi(t)^*.
above axioms, this property persists with time (only) if the system
_probabilities_.
Moreover, associated with the p_k are eigenspaces K_k such that
and K is the direct sum of the K_k. Therefore, every state vector psi
A short calculation using axiom A5 now reveals that for a pure state
so-called _Born_rule_
Deriving the Born rule (*) from axioms A1-A5 makes it completely
-------------------------
equation
(In the interaction picture, H=0 and psi remains constant between
measurements.)
probability p_s by
and
p_s=|P_s\psi(t-0)|^2 (4)
sums by integrals.)
nature, the P_s at these times are the same (or different).
explained in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POVM
For more on real measurement processes (as opposed to the
Quantum measurement,
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
of it,
H Grabert,
Statistical Mechanics,
in Grabert's book.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
\def\lp{\mbox{\Large$\,_\urcorner\,$}}
f \lp g = - g \lp f
Invariant measure:
integral f \lp g = 0.
State rho:
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Quantum mechanics does not demand that all states are realizable.
For a number of tiny systems with a few levels, all states are
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
intensity.
this analogy and calling A(x) a wave function leads to confusion later
partial^2 A(x)=0, whence the Fourier transform of A(x) has the form
condition
p dot Ahat(p) = 0.
where
Dp = d\p/p_0 = dp_1 dp_2 dp_3/p_0,
operator
the |A,psi> together (and indeed, already the closure of the space
beam only with a grain of salt, since a plane wave is not normalized.
Beams of thermal light (such as that from the sun) and pairs of
In many treatments, the modes are left implicit, so that one works
only in the k-mode Fock space. This simplifies the presentation, but
For a thorough study of the latter, see the bible on quantum optics,
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Thus it moves away from the origin and will sooner or later reach
A. Neumaier,
protein structure,
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#protein
tunneling.
(stochastic) tunneling.
Of course, a golf ball sitting on top of a flat hill will not move
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Textbook quantization rules assume (often silently, without warning)
wrong results.
significant literature.
------------------------
------------------------
[a(x),a(y)]=[a^*(x),a^*(y)]=0,
[a^(x),a^*(y)]=delta(x-y).
psi(x_1:N)psi^*(y_1:N)a^*(x_1:N)|vac><vac|a(y_1:N).
(f psi)(x_1:N)
the formula
quantization is
Also, one can do the same in momentum space rather than position
space,
-----------------------------------
The approximations made are better and better the larger the object.
One can place the barrier anywhere; if one puts it too low, the
user has when choosing the description level and the accuracy level.
limits, one can give the following definition (which reflects the
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Statistical mechanics textbook often invoke the so-called ergodic
arbitrarily close to every phase space point with the same values of
to be thermodynamically described.
This is the case for fluids near the critical point, for finite objects
But this does not invalidate thermodynamics - the latter only requires
of distinguished observables.
by axiomatic decree.
part of their phase space - they are probably not ergodic, as the
is.
description. (At which distance from the critical point should one
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
physics say (see many other entries in this FAQ). Thus statistical
L. Sklar,
but it does not present a solution. Other sources are not better in
this respect.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#QML
arXiv:0810.1019
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#lightsli
des
and
A. Neumaier,
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#optslid
es
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physik-faq.txt
separates them neatly and thus gets rid of most of the confusing
-----------------------------------------
order form
F(q,q')=0
E = (m q'^2 + k q^2)/2
The same holds for various other representations for the damped
it.''
equation.
Classically, dissipative systems are described by stochastic
are directly modeled on the Lindblad level, where the terms have an
useful Lagrangian formulation does not exist - unless one extends the
indeed be substantiated.
but it does not describe the dissipative system alone. When one
framework.
with functions F(t) (the noise caused by the environment) and G(s)
and G(s) are extremely oscillating, even for intervals short compared
expressions for G(s) from which one can deduce that c>0, recovering
the
H Grabert,
There are cases where one needs to model the memory to capture the
terms. In cases where one really needs to model the memory, the
system
Its analysis is very simple, and compared to that any more detailed
description is unwieldy.
conservative description).
a Lagrangian. Indeed, such derivations have been given, but only for
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schroedinger equation is a deterministic wave equation.
do not.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
has a discrete part, catering for its bound states. According to the
the exact values (which they should according to Born's rule) but only
is done (an aspect that does not figure at all in Born's rule).
Measurements such as that of a particle lifetime or the integral cross
arXiv:0810.1019
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
tiny or if M is large.
the ground state needs density matrices, since pure states are very
approximation.
does not happen, since these are decidedly non-classical, but quantum
http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
short times. For example, for the 2-body problem with a 1/r^2
has coherent states phi_N (labelled by the same classical phase space
phi_N^*psi_N=(phi^*psi) N
and for N --> inf, one gets a good classical limit. For the Heisenberg
A. M. Perelomov,
L. Yaffe,
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019
online sources
http://www.projecteuclid.org/Dienst/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/euc
lid.cmp/1103859040/body/pdf
http://www.univie.ac.at/nuhag-
php/bibtex/open_files/si80_SIMON!!!.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9504016
http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/9807027
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
'Rigid' means that the distances between marked points on the ball
of 1+2=3 meters in the same direction. In this case, the distances add,
iso(3) [same letters but in lower case]. The elements of the Lie algebra
symmetries'.
translations, and hence unter all rigid motions. But not only these:
Much more on Lie groups and Lie algebras from the perspective of
classical and quantum physics can be found in:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#QML
arXiv:0810.1019
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
in which all motions are very slow compared to the speed of light.
Physicists speak of the 'nonrelativisitic limit'.
and therefore has found many applications far beyond that for which
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, not all irreducible unitary reps of the Poincare
group qualify. Associated with the rep must be a consistent and causal
quantum field theory, this restricts the rep further to those with
the 4-vector one can make from them does not transform correctly
massless, they must either have spin <=1/2 or have gauge behavior.
To couple such gauge fields to matter currents, the latter
There are some assumptions in the derivation, which one can find
on 'Feynman rules for any spin' and some related questions, which
D.N. Williams,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~williams/papers/diracalgebra.pdf
spin >2. See the tables of the particle data group, e.g., Delta(2950)
R.L. Ingraham,
http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/51/249/
H Shi-Zhong et al.,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ww61351722118853/
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
and there are no-go theorems that imply that the most plausible
solutions. The no-go theorems thus show that one needs to be careful
formal framework.
question "What are the general form and properties of objects that
features of solutions.
In contrast, dynamics is based on an equation of motion (or an
in closed form, one can discuss their detailed properties and devise
computations.
the point form, and the fromt form. They are distinguished by
dynamical quantities.
who has knowledge about all information at some time t (the present),
are now kinematical and take the role that space translations and
rotations had in the instant form. On the other hand, _all_ space and
time translations are now dynamical, since they affect the position
of the here-and-now.
instant form, and the Lorentz group SO(1,3), leading to the point form,
algebraic operations and hence the commutator. This means that any
forms.
Preferences are therefore given to one form over the other depending
and the theorem had the same fate as von Neumann's proof that
hidden-variable theories are impossible. Both results are now simply
admitted that different observers see the same world but represented
translate the views of any observer into that of any other observer.
However, the present space (or the past hyperboloid) of two different
observer.
but is observer-dependent.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In his QFT book, Weinberg says no, arguing that there is no way to
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~wpolyzou/papers/rev.pdf
that covered everything known at that time. This survey was quoted
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=ANUPB,20,225
looking these up will bring you close to the state of the art
on this.
renormalization.
The models are _not_ field theories, only Poincare-invariant few-body
some field theory. (Actually many-body dynamics also works, but the
http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~wklink/
http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~wpolyzou/
http://physik.uni-graz.at/~ank/dissertation-f.html
theory, with a separate time coordinate for each particle; see, e.g.,
and references there. Related multi-time work was done under the
Thus the whole theory has a single time only, whose dynamics is
----------------------
state vectors, one for each n. If only the 0-photon term contributes,
we have the dark state, usually called the vacuum; if only the
expressing the zero mass and the transversality of photons. Thus for
the same. For a photon in the normalized state |A>, the observable
<\E(x)> = <A|\E(x)|A>
and
Here \x (fat x) and x_0 are the space part and the time part of a
the same \E(x) and \B(x) are equivalent and related by a gauge
A^(+)(x), and by adding its complex conjugate one gets the real
next entry in this FAQ. One could regard the 4-potential A(x) as
Here psi(A) is the most general state vector in Fock space; for a
]
In a frequently used interpretation (valid only approximately),
A(\p) is usually written (in the gauge with vanishing time component)
as
eps^+(p) = u(p)/p_0
u_3(p) = p'
with
p' = p_1+ip_2,
p''= p_3+p_0.
[what is eps^-(p)?]
and the 1-photon part of the beam behaves like a 2-level quantum
the two helicity degrees of freedom. This is the basis for most
mechanics.
where |A> is a one-photon state. Thus coherent states also have the
On the other hand, true single photon states are very hard to produce
see also
http://www.qis.ucalgary.ca/quantech/fock.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-02/msg0022377.html
But this does not tell the whole story. An interesting collection of
http://www.osa-opn.org/Content/ViewFile.aspx?Id=3185
recover the details.] The wording suggests that one should resist the
detects only classical light! This follows from the standard analysis
There are even people like the Nobel prize winner Willis E. Lamb
(the discoverer of the Lamb shift) who maintain that photons don't
http://web.archive.org/web/20040203032630/www.aro.army.mil/phy
s/proceed.htm
Anti-Photon,
in
contribution.
detector).
U. Leonhardt,
Cambridge, 1997.
such as the Lamb shift, which very accurately confirm the quantum
photon states, but only virtual photon states, hence they are unrelated
is never onshell.)
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
rho(x) := psi(x)^*psi(x)
psi_m(x) := <x,m|psi>.
q := i hbar partial_p,
time direction,
p_0 := sqrt(m^2+|p|^2),
J := q x p + S,
the vector space C^d of complex vectors of length d, with the same
commutation relations as J.
are uniquely determined by mass and spin, we see that in the massive
in the formula
T.F. Jordan
the fact that the above construction is not invariant under Lorentz
Note also that in case of the Dirac equation, the position operator is
Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation.
Limit,
The Hilbert space H_0^d (defined as before but now with m=0 and with
M_0 in place of M)
defined by
J := q x p + S,
K := (p_0 q + q p_0)/2 + n x S,
lambda := n dot S
position operator.)
x = q - f'(p_0) n.
In particular,
x x p = q x p.
Now the algebra of linear operators on the dense subspace of C^infty
J - x x p = J - q x p = S.
are uniquely determined by mass and spin, and for s>1/2, the spin s
Theorem.
if and only if either m>0 or m=0 and s<=1/2 (but s=0 if only
A. S. Wightman,
See also
T.F. Jordan
and
For spin 1, the case relevant for photons, we have d=3, and the
It is not difficult to see that one can identify the wave functions
(m=0, s=2) cannot be given natural probabilities for being in any given
bounded region of space. Chiral spin 1/2 particles also do not have
also do.)
M. Toller,
position.
The POVM does not allow one to talk about the position of a photon
but only about the measured position: The photon is somewhere near
the
range of values established by the measurement, without any more
M.H.L. Pryce,
lines)
L.L. Foldy,
I. Bialynicki-Birula,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0508202
See also the entry ''Localization and position operators'' in this FAQ.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101011
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0112v1
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3773v2,
http://groups.google.at/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/th
read/815435df4bf2ea93?hl=en#
starting with
M.H.L. Pryce,
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Position operators are part of the toolkit of relativistic quantum
mechanics.
that together with the space part \p of the 4-momentum has canonical
That the time coordinate has to be fixed means that the position
operator is observer-dependent. Each observer splits space-time
into its personal time (in direction of its total 4-momentum) and
This is related to the fact that massless particles with spin >1/2
which makes them being always spread out, and hence not completely
arXiv:hep-ph/9503416
* This paper discusses the physical relevance of the Newton-Wigner
T. D. Newton, E. P. Wigner,
Limit,
A. S. Wightman,
T. O. Philips,
V. S. Varadarajan,
G.N. Fleming,
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000649/
------------------------------------------------------------
operator vector.
relativistic quantum field theory. Many people think that there is none.
These play exactly the same role as the position and momentum
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
at time t_0 and switched off again at time t_1. The time T:=t_1-t_0
states. If one tests the photon contents at the end of the beam by a
of single-particle systems.
is not a mean photon number, but a mean rate - the mean intensity.
More precisely, each coherent state has a mode A=A(p); the modes are
in
1-1 correspondence with creation operators a^*(A). They create,
state by
a(A)|z,A>> = z|z,A>>.
hence
Nbar = |z|^2,
The events are the clicks, and there is exactly one click per event
in a weak signal (for strong signals, one cannot separate the events).
considered at a fixed time! Also, the fact that the weak coherent
means that N-particle state with N>1 are here completely irrelevant.
proportional to the intensity of the incident beam. But the fact that
observations are bounded in space and time does not change the
results
of this analysis.
(which is usually not done). This can be seen from the diverging
http://www.osa-opn.org/Content/ViewFile.aspx?Id=3185
which presents five mutually incompatible views,
Wolfgang P. Schleich)
be). The relation between the two is quite indirect, and there is no
1. that clicks have nothing at all to do with photons, they are just
3. It is the field of the incident beam that counts; the talk about
photons in the incoming beam is not very meaningful and only blurs
statement 1.
No matter which view one takes with regard to statement 1., the
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/lightslides.pdf
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf
one finds that no clear answer can be given to this question, but
a state
are superposition with the vacuum, and still people speak of photons.
This also holds for other systems than simple laser light. For example,
which differ from coherent states only in that they have instead
of (*) a representation
one finds that they actually produce states of the form (**)
the only way of reliably creating single photons was for a long time
to use a source in a state of the form (**), where the photon pairs
left beam with a detector, and knows from general principles that at
the same time a photon is underway in the other beam. Thus one can
know
This interpretation again explains away the vacuum part of the state
ignoring the times where nothing but the vacuum part is observed, and
focuses on the times when something - and then by the form of (**)
the 2-photon part - is observed. This is the sense in which one
Then one observes the part of the 2-photon system in one beam, to
know
this is the way talked about the situation, in reality one still has
the superposition with the vacuum, except that one chooses to ignore
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
and the currents by form factors. As the name says, the latter define
had in mind when they invented the notions of bare and dressed
particles.
On the other hand, virtual particles don't have this nice attribute
space (though that is not quite true since there is no good Hilbert
or http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk/
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
only the sum of all terms of a given order can be given - after
--------------------------------------
in Section 79. They start at the outset with the remark that things
have disappeared from the formulas by the time the calculations lead
virtual particles can be faster than light (since they may have
imaginary mass)...
models (in which case they don't apply to reality itself but only to
a model of reality).
perturbation theory.
Virtual particles must not be considered real since they arise only in
reality.
initialization was good enough and our theory is good enough, the final
lifetime of the objects involved before and after the event. Therefore,
done since it does not give better information and the added
time) before they scatter and observe them long enough afterwards,
they behave essentially as in and out states, respectively.
The figurative virtual objects in QFT are there only because of the
setting they wouldn't occur at all. This can be seen by comparing with
to the Taylor series shows that it's best not to look at them
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EBBE37C.4D771C4B
%40univie.ac.at
do not satisfy the equation p^2 = p_0^2 - \p^2 = m^2 for physical
There one keeps all particles on-shell, and instead has energy and
'spurion').
had no relevance at all. One can argue with virtual particles to get an
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-06/msg0051674.html
also
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/msg0014762.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-05/msg0051023.html
is also of interest.
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/virtual_particles
.html]
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
'virtual'.
(formal) bare mass and (physical) dressed mass; the above is valid
only for the dressed mass. Moreover, the mass shell loses its meaning
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
virtual photons faster than the speed of light, with imaginary masses.
Strictly speaking,
nonrelativistic correspondence.
But to get the Coulomb interaction as part of the Schroedinger
equation,
have spacelike momenta and hence would proceed faster than light
if there were any reality to them. But there cannot be; one'd need
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, a very broad resonance has a very short lifetime
particle is the fact that the stable particle has a real rest mass,
Note that states with complex masses can be handled well in a rigged
Theory of Resonances,
K. Maurin,
Topological Groups,
and the like for the approximate calculations of bound states and
this equation.
There are also some unstable elementary particles like the weak
gauge bosons are virtual. But at high energy = very short scales,
one can in principle observe the gauge bosons and make them real.
This means that they now appear as external lines in the corresponding
In any case, from a mathematical point of view, one must choose the
framework. Either one works in a Hilbert space, then masses are real
and there are no unstable particles (since these 'are' poles on the
Or one works in a rigged Hilbert space and deform the inner product;
this makes part of the 'unphysical' sheet visible; then the gauge
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Today, images of single atoms and molecules can be routinely
produced.
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PRB/v68/i4/e045301
http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles_presse/preise/leibniz_preis/2008/
among others for the achievement that, for the first time, he made
The Leibniz prize is the highest German academic prize, endowed with
sciences.
The orbitals one can look at in physics and chemistry books
The actual shape of the wave function of each electron is some linear
nucleus)
vector x, where
O_1(f) = integral f(x) a^*(x) a(x)
differs more and more from the atom center, the atom looks like a
that we are in a thermal setting where the spin directions average out.
all nuclei involved, and there is no longer any reason to have more
A. Neumaier,
protein structure,
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers/physpapers.html#protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscope
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/images.html
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34288
encyclopedic article
R.F.W. Bader
Atoms in Molecules
http://59.77.33.35/non-
cgi/usrd8wqiernb/5/20/Atoms20in20Molec_1193580192.pdf
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/faculty/bader/aim/aim_0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6748/pdf/401021a0.p
df
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jspence/NewsViews.pdf
http://web.missouri.edu/~glaserr/412f99/synopsis_nv1.pdf
http://philsci-
archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000228/00/Orbital_Observed.pdf
https://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/HS/Journal/Issues/2001/Jul/abs877_2
.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001077/00/Jenkins.doc
http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/halfacen.html
http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/46/L161/
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PRB/v68/i4/e045301
http://philsci-
archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000228/00/Orbital_Observed.pdf
and then cites two books and a review article. A more recent review
J.M. Zuo
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
In the preceding, the mass and charge density of a n-particle system
(the position and momentum of all its particles, or, in the customary
fluid mechanics approximation, its mass density field and its velocity
field).
What seems strange at first sight is that the above applies already to
assumes that the particle is pointlike - which we know is the case only
for unphysical, bare particles, but not for the physical, renormalized
elsewhere in this FAQ.) Once one realizes that physical particles are
Thus the only quantum paradox that remains is that particles with
a fundamental symmetry.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Dirac equation, which has a degenerate spectrum. But the real electron
The relations between form factors for spin 1/2 particles and
L. L. Foldy
their localization
(See also this FAQ about localization, and Foldy's papers quoted there.)
give finite results in QFT. The form factor measures the deviation
exactly the the Dirac equation. The form factor can be measured
indirectly, through the anomalous magnetic moment and the Lamb
shift.
In his book
S. Weinberg,
charge radii. For proton and neutron form factors, see hep-ph/0204239
and hep-ph/030305. Neutrons have a negative mean squared charge
radius.
This looks strange but is not since the measure for the mean is
S. Kopecky et al
''The charge radius of the neutron <r_n^2> or the mean squared charge
cloud outside.
value of <r_n^2>.''
The paper
L.L. Foldy,
Neutron-electron interaction,
On the numerical side, I only found values for the charge radius
The values are about 4-6 10^-14 cm for the three neutrino species.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1992PhDT.......130L
In Foldy's paper, the form factors are encoded in the infinite sum
and
R. G. Sachs
recent years. [...] The Lamb shift and the hyperfine splitting also
structure. [...] The nucleon charge-current density must have the form
The functions F_1 and F_2 are relativistic generalizations of the form
experiments, [...]''
is coded in the wave function or density matrix, which (at any given
environment.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
since they can hardly remember even 20 decimal digits seen only once.
accuracy.
Thus they simplify things to the point that all they want to know about
of decimal places.
This is only a few bits. But if you want to tell someone else exactly
where the electron is that you are referring to, you have an
infinitely more difficult task. Of course, any human 'else' will not
estimate consistent with the uncertainty relation. But this is not the
its complete wave function. You can do it only if you force the
processing.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
entropy?
Informally, entropy is often equated with information, but this is not
A. Neumaier,
arXiv:0705.3790
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0705.3790
this gives
quantum mechanics.
For a pure state psi, rho has rank 1, and the sum extends only over
the single index k with |k> = psi. Thus in this case, p_k = 1 and
For more along these lines, and in particular for a way to avoid
A. Neumaier,
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0705.3790
But how does the infinite amount of information in a pure state (wave
infinite precision.
infinite precision.
they are known exactly, while knowing well that one knows them only
approximately.
In practice, a number of approximations are made. Frewquently,
tractable.
particular realization.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Suppose that the particle is in the pure state represented by the wave
m(x)=m|psi(x)|^2
e(x)=e|psi(x)|^2
systems:
This reduces for n=1 to the above, and is consistent with the
These formulas are the common starting point for the derivation from
GAUSSIAN (commercial)
http://www.gaussian.com/
MOLPRO (commercial)
http://www.molpro.net/
http://www.msg.ameslab.gov/GAMESS/pcgamess.shtml
In the ground state (but also in definite excited states),
degrees of freedom. Thus one observes only a tiny little bit about
is harmless.
On the other hand, one can probe the state of particles in detail
(to make sure that they have the same state). These are usually
created
In this sense one can say that the state of a single particle is
----------------------------------
All possible paths are about as real as all possible books that can
state is realized, not all conceivable ones; all others are just there
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
with this view, but more sophisticated stuff requires the QFT picture
(Only 'virtual' particles may have unrestricted momenta; but these are
unobservable artifacts of perturbation theory.)
The need for antiparticles is in QFT instead revealed by the fact that
Thus talking about particles traveling backward in time, the Dirac sea,
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
rest mass (negative m^2), and hence can never be brought to rest
(or below the speed of light); unlike ordinary particles, they speed
when fast particles enter a dense medium in which the speed of light
Neutrinos are uncharged and have a squared mass of zero or very close
This does not yet settle the sign of m^2 for any species.
clear that the QFT of tachyons would be very different from standard
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/contents_sports.html#hyppartetc
that the square of the mass (pole of the S-matrix) of some physical
particle would cross zero, the old physical vacuum becomes unstable
and
(Of course, the exact mechanism is not known since it would require a
formally produces a bare tachyon. This does not contradict the above
unless one has a system that actually _is_ close such an unstable state
(as perhaps the very early universe). But in that case there are no
The physical Higgs field is far away from the unstable maximum, and
its
particle excitations have a positive real mass, hence are not tachyons.
* G. Feinberg,
M. Glueck,
D. G. Boulware,
* B. Schroer,
G. Feinberg
C. Schwartz
Some improvements in the theory of faster-than-light particles
* L. W. Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
http://www.weeklyscientist.com/ws/articles/tachyons.htm
-----------------------------
S4j. Do free particles exist?
-----------------------------
only interacting ones. This holds both for photons and for other
approximately free. Again, this holds for both photons and other
particles.
Thus, in this sense, free photons exist just as much (or just as
------------------------------------
psi(t) := exp(-itH)psi
The Feynman path integral is related to the other pictures via the
The latter can be treated with the so-called closed time path (CPT)
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
physical relevance.
the coherent states) infinitely many modes are excited (although the
account for the big difference between quantum field theory and
of freedom.
The reason for this is that the natural representation space for
a*(l)|n1,....,n_l,...> = sqrt(1+n_l)|n1,....,1+n_l,...>.
This allows many choices; the choice usually discussed in QFT treatises
with finitely many particles are allowed, and these basis vectors are
In general, this Hilbert space has only the null vector (_not_ the
vacuum) in common with the Fock space, even for the simplest
limit), if the bare a(k) and b(k) satisfy CCR then do the dressed
annihilation operators
A(k)^2 - B(k)^2 = 1,
|vac> := G|>,
alp and bet act naturally. The dressed states were simply be
representation exists.
limit form.
The canonical anticommutation rules (CAR) also have the form (1),
the most important one being that occupation numbers are now
place of 1+n_l.
--------------------------------------------
Hamiltonian, etc.
field theory.
tight enough bounds for the analytic estimates needed. These are
there are contradictions, and the practice of QFT suggests that there
the book
M Salmhofer,
Renormalization: An Introduction,
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
the classical fields one meets there are not fields occurring
'classical'.
necessary to account for the fact that all our experiments are done
particles (clusters).
ensure the latter. But there are covariant N-particle models with
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~wpolyzou/papers/rev.pdf
phenomenological models.)
point, without asking why. Weinberg's treatise is about the only book
systems made of more than two unconfined particles. For details see
their scattering or breaking up, since that is where one can see the
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
quantum case.
In a k derivative theory with k>1, one can always introduce new fields
for the k-1 first derivatives, and add terms to the action that give
as variation their defining equations. Thus one can reduce any theory
theories.
-------------------------
-------------------------
corresponding Fock space, its adjoint isn't. But both are densely
space) to its dual space H^* (which properly contains H), while
an operator maps H into H. Thus the latter can be iterated
:a(p)a(p)^*: = +-a^(p)*a(p)
:f(p)f(q): = +-a^*(p)a^*(q)a(q)a(p)
form only).
which has all its creation terms to the left of all its annihilation
product of the two vectors A|phi> and B|psi> obtained from phi and
psi
Normal ordering just permutes arbitrary products to put them into the
normally ordered and hence well-defined form (and adds a minus sign
different; there a(p) and a^*(p) are indeed operators on Fock space
(and the index p ranges over finitely many items only). Thus all
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Phi_a(\x,t) here (at \x) and fields Phi_b(\y,t) there (at \y)
pair (x,y) with (x-y)^2<0 can be transformed into an equal time pair.
states fixed once and for all, and all spacetime dependence in
and apart from the Lagrangian of the standard model plus gravitation,
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
basis states
|x_1:N> = |x_1,...,x_N>
is not in the Hilbert Fock space, for the same reason for which
distribution.
a^*(x) maps the vacuum state |vac> (with psi_0=1, other psi_N=0)
More generally, for every nonzero Hilbert Fock space vector psi,
the vector
and H^* its dual space (containing among others very singular states
and states with very poor behavior at infintity). Observables (in the
weak sense) are bilinear forms, or, which is the same, linear mappings
from H to H^*. The adjoint of such a linear mapping is again an
adjoints a^*(x)) are observables in this weak sense, although they are
can be made rigorous in the rigged Hilbert space, so they fare right
rigged Hilbert space; although most of them just don't know and
don't care.
--------------------------
--------------------------
Feynman diagrams resemble processes with particles moving in space
and
time, and are often figurately treated as such. But in fact they
that virtual particles are somehow also real. See the entries about
The form of the lines defines the value of the coefficient function
in such a product, and the sum over Feynman diagrams simply means
that
these tensors.
Indeed, for this reason, they are also used in classical statistical
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Examples are:
equation,
validity.
only, one can get highly accurate approximations for quantities like the
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
is immaterial (apart from a sign for fermions), the same must be the
case for the path integral itself, which explains why the fields
at all arguments).
valid only in the free case, and no one knows how they should
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
W(x_1,...,x_n)=<0|Phi(x_1)...Phi(x_n)|0>.
But the right hand side makes no rigorous sense in traditional QFT
as found in most text books, except for free fields. Axiomatic QFT
directly such that they have the properties needed to get an S-matrix
(Haag-Ruelle theory), whose perturbative expansion
This can be done successfully for many 2D theories and for some 3D
some kind of limit, and later the solution of an initial value problem
theorem. This shows that each (nice enough) initial value problem is
the first person who finds such a proof will become famous - it means
intractable problem.
The 'only' problem is that the latter behaves much more poorly from
this is that a Wick theorem holds both in the commutative and the
noncommutative case.
meaning when the action is not quadratic. Instead, one only keeps
A.S. Wightman,
edited by F. Browder,
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Unsolved+problems+in+QED
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=What+is+well-defined+in+QED
why the mass spectrum for compact Yang Mills QFT begins at a positive
beginning at 0.
{0} union [E_1,inf]. The largest E_1 with this property defines
For a relativistic theory one has to read between the lines and
The state of the art at the time the problem was crowned by
a prize is given in
www.claymath.org/Millennium_Prize_Problems/Yang-
Mills_Theory/_objects/Official_Problem_Description.pdf
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/ym2.pdf
But QED has certain problems (the Landau pole, see below) that are
see, e.g.,
matter is in
Elcio Abdalla, M. Christina Abdalla, Klaus D. Rothe
http://www.wspc.com/books/physics/4678.html
are possible.
The deeper reason for the observation that dimension d=2 is special
Thus, while 2D solvable models pave the way to get some rigorous
------------------------------
------------------------------
is the book by
V. Rivasseau
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0006017
First one needs to understand that the construction breaks the Lorentz
(i.e. it in place of t), and shows that one gets an SO(4) symmetric
field theory in place of the Lorentz symmetry. The advantage gained is
field theory, one can choose a direction as Euclidean time and obtain
but proved much later in the book - the forward references in Glimm
problems that have not been overcome so far. But neither has it been
proved that any of the 4D field theories cannot exist. There are some
or a no-go theorem.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
so only the tree diagrams are left in the expansion, which correspond
Psi terms commute with each other, hence have a direct classical
information.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The full dynamics can be defined only indirectly, via CTP (closed
While the Hilbert space and the Hamiltonian depend on the choice of
the time coordinate, the physics is independent of it since all these
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
and
The first book treats exactly solvable theories, the second book
different in the two cases, and the two books are essentially disjoint.
quantum mechanics, or rather for the Euclidean version of it, with the
since the heat kernel is positive and hence the measures needed to
make the path integral rigorous are positive Wiener measures, with a
in which one can generalize the path integral and perform the
free fields.
Chapters 7-12 and 19 then define the machinery needed to show how
everything works.
--------------------------
--------------------------
p^2=m^2, p_0>0.
values of m, which defines the mass spectrum of the theory. The mass
The only state with zero momentum is the ground state, usually called
gap. The largest value of m>0 for which m^2 is such a lower bound
defines the precise value of the mass gap. Usually there is a state
scattering. which means that the energy is large enough that two
asymptotically independent systems can exist. Given a state of mass
spatial momentum.
There may be bound states with mass m_b<2m, forming the discrete
possible only if there are selection rules that forbid the decay into
particles with smaller mass.
above discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
of the Hamiltonian.
Now a bound state at rest defines the rest energy, and by giving
of kinetic energy. The rest energy (and hence the rest mass), on the
For forces that decay with distance, a bound state necessarily has
a mass that is less than the sum of the masses of the constituents.
For particles involving quarks, this does not apply since the strong
force increases with distance. Hence the rest mass of a bound state of
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
summation.)
Weinberg states in his QFT book (Vol. I) repeatedly that bound state
problems (and this includes the Lamb shift) are still very poorly
On p.560, he writes,
or hep-ph/0308280.
-------------------------
charges) that sound like real properties, while they are in fact
in
R. Jackiw,
well-understood.
a cutoff goes to infinity does not exist. At any finite value of the
for which they got the Nobel prize, was that they discovered how to
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
complex and often less symmetric situations. This limit is the only
by summing the even and odd contributions u_N and v_N separately.
The limit N to inf is well-defined for s>0, but can be obtained only
= lim ((n^2+n)-(n^2+1))/(sqrt(n^2+n)+sqrt(n^2+1))
Rather than doing that (which would be numerically best in case the
When the limit (*) does not exist, the situation is more complicated.
v=v_N(mu), but since the limit (*) does not exist, there will also be no
limit
constants. But this limit will never be used, hence there are no
exist anymore.
But this does not mean that the theory becomes meaningless but only
parameterization
Once this limit replaces the naive bare recipe (*)-(**) which is
hence
But since the scale E can be chosen arbitrarily, the final renormalized
independent of E. Thus,
d/dE P(q_ren(mu,E),E) = 0,
to infinity.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Lambda-dependent.
The only problem with that is that the cutoff destroys Lorentz
But in order that the results have a finite limit we must at the
whole process.
nonrelativistic level.
H(g) directly (the 1930 way of doing things, which was a dead end),
limit G(mu). (At least in 1D and 2D field theory, where this can
scattering process.
principle.
Thus one has V(g,Lambda) in place of V(g), where g are the coupling
Introducing the cutoff makes the interaction nonlocal, as one can see
by going from the momentum representation of the regularized
See also
(But actually one does not need to care about locality or not,
representation.)
This S-matrix is unitary and has all properties one would like to have,
invariant.
At the very end one can pass to the limit, but not earlier.
infinity.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
In QFT, there are two different scales, one on the bare level and one
one cannot (or does not want to) observe anything. This effective
graining.
the QFT book by Peskin and Schroeder, Section 12.2, for a massless
Phi^4 theory, and in Section 12.5 for the general case. (For an online
Lambda go to infinity. This has the effect that the bare parameters
does not exist. At this stage it becomes obvious that all bare objects
are unphysical.
Although nonphysical, the renormalization group equations in
M. Salmhofer,
Renormalization: An Introduction,
q=q_ren(mu,E).
d/dE P(q_ren(mu,E),E) = 0,
interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------
complicated.
on it. It turns out that the approximation errors are small only
Thus one needs to evaluate the theory near the scale of interest.
scale of interest.
Thus there are two different scales involved, the energy scale
E_exp where the experiments are done, and the renormalization scale
in the low energy limit E_exp to 0). This effective theory behaves
E_ren = E_exp (or close). But the analogy is not complete since
and nothing at all could be extracted from it. But in practice one
can work only at few loops, and then different values of M may give
M near the fixed point (where one can do perturbation theory and has
-------------------------------
S8f. Dimensional regularization
-------------------------------
The neatest way to perform regularization, and the only one which
space rather than Minkowski space. To get the latter, one needs an
f(s)=r^2j/(r^2+m^2)^n, n>j+d/2,
For other values the above computations are meaningless, and any
good limits for eps to 0 (which cannot happen for (4) but for
suitable linear combinations) they define the value also for d=4.
way.
P. Etingof,
See also
http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~scheck/Meyer.ps
more involved.
f(d):=(sqrt(2-d))^{-2},
g(d):=1/(2-d)
in the real domain. They are equal for d<2 but f does not make
f(d):=g(d)
-----------------------------------------
is still elusive.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
finite perturbative expansion at all orders. This means that with a few
parameters one can only get an effective low order theory, which may,
more parameters...
much information as input. We know that this is the case already for
See also
hep-th/9507067.
J Gegelia, G Japaridze
hep-th/9804189,
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
very low energies. They are not cured by renormalization and need
so a bound on the sum of the rest masses does not limit the number of
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
by renormalization.
Most perturbation series in QFT are believed to be asymptotic only,
century their persuasive power) supporting the view that one should
F.J. Dyson,
with radius of convergence zero. For small enough x, the first few
any fixed nonzero x - enough terms, the series diverges. Thus, as Dirac
quantum field theory. Who finds one will be awarded one of the
resumming techniques. One can study these things quite well with
which obviously converges much faster (if not yet, one could probably
by means of
the integral over t may have to be done along a contour in the complex
other natural assumptions (but stronger than simply asserting that (1)
The book
Of course, since there are many functions with the same asymptotic
one has to show that the Borel summed Sf actually has the
properties that the original f was supposed to have (and from which
starting with
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-03/msg0049669.html
With experimental results one just has numbers, and not infinite
(e.g., the epsilon or eta algorithm) to get a meaningful guess for the
limit, and estimates the error by doing the same several times,
-----------------------
-----------------------
to 12 significant digits:
M. Passera,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606174
B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D'Urso, and G. Gabrielse,
http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabrielse/papers/2006/NewElec
tronMagneticMoment.pdf
S.G. Karshenboim,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau_pole
physical validity of QED, even far beyond the Planck energy) something
might go wrong with QED. (QED loses its validity already at energies
of about 10^11 eV, where the weak interaction becomes essential.
The Planck energy at about 10^28 eV is the limit where some current
Since the existence of the Landau pole is confirmed only in low order
the question whether the alleged landau pole implies limits to the
V Rivasseau
Princeton 1991
of the theory.
The quality of the computed approximations to QED are a strong
(for not too high energies), although it hasn't been found yet.
which can be seen that Scharf's results on the external field case
G. Scharf,
than those for QED proper (where he only shows the existence of
actual computations since a few terms in the power series give very
high accuracy.
for alpha around 1/137 and not too high energy. This is still open.
the fine structure constant alpha and the electron mass m_e; these
running coupling constants, and is defined for alpha <= 1/137 and
Emax.
object S(alpha) exists that has this asymptotic series. The quest for
that makes rigorous sense and has the known asymptotic expansion.
QED is renormalizable at all loops, which means that the power series
The Landau pole (if it exists) just gives an upper bound to the allowed
Vol. 2, pp.136-138 - all options are left open. On the other hand,
QED is renormalizable at all loops, which means that the power series
QED that makes sense also at finite times and not only as a transition
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
in time.
theory for free (i.e., asymptotic in- and out-) states; therefore it
(But see below for the CTP techniques, which are not of the standard
From the S-matrix, one can the derive further information, e.g.,
The problem with relativistic path integrals is that they are formal
objects without a clear numerical meaning: whatever one tries to
but this make things more difficult to grasp). The Legendre transform
eps (or Lambda), one can take the limit eps to 0 (or Lambda to infty)
From there, one can get the S-matrix, again as a formal power series.
FOR QED, the first few terms give highly accurate approximations;
believed that (as most series coming from a saddle point expansion
4D relativistic QFT. It only means that no one has been able to find
a working, logically consistent framework for it.
After all, this is how one justifies that the functional integral works.
http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/publ/green.pdf
For example,
which are used to compute bound state properties and spectral shifts.
See, e.g., hep-ph/9209266, hep-ph/9805424, hep-ph/9707481, and
hep-ph/9907240.
by Barut, which might well turn out to become the germ of an exact
A.O. Barut and J.F. Van Huele, Phys. Rev. A 32 (1985), 3187-3195,
see, e.g.,
hep-th/9706149
E.V. Stefanovich,
http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk/
being justifed.)
quantum electrodynamics.
where this can be proved in certain cases. In 3D and 4D, one probably
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
conclusions.
dx(t)/dt = f(x(t-tau)),
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Relativistic quantum chemistry is needed to predict properties
Fink+Johnson
Dirac-Fock approach
Bieron et al.
Indelicato+Desclaux
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
The traditional field equations of quantum electrodynamics (QED),
The reason is that, unlike free electrons and positrons, free protons
do not obey the Dirac equation since they have form factors which are
understood.
with light, protons and other nuclei are typically treated as classical
modified by the form factors, for the bare protons. To describe atoms
correctly, one needs also fields for neutrons and mesons, and
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Mathematicians and physicist differ in the notation used for
a dictionary.
T_0^q = T^q
Given a basis on T and a dual cobasis on T^*, one can use coordinates.
indices.
accordingly.)
In particular.
(0,0)-tensor = scalar,
= row vector,
Clearly, the columns of the matrix A_i^k are column vectors = vectors,
the rows are row vectors = covectors, and the indexing is consistent.
The requirement that basis and cobasis are dual is equivalent to the
statement that for every vector u and covector w (i.e., linear mapping
and the other an upper index must be interpreted as a sum over these
indices.
They also write all sums explicitly, consider all vectors given
use a prime ' instead, which is also the form used in Matlab).
or simply s=y^Tx.
or simply y=Ax.
or simply s = tr A (trace).
Phys. notation: y_i = A_i^j B_j^k x_k x,y vectors, A,B matrices,
or simply y=ABx.
or simply y=ABCDx.
dual metric.
such that
Conversely, one can reconstruct from the covector w^T the canonically
associated vector
u = G^{-1}w.
The relation between the physicists form and the linear algebra form
--------------------------------------------------------------
S10b. Is quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity?
--------------------------------------------------------------
theory.)
much information as input. We know that this is the case already for
Thus I think this dream (which also fuels string theory) is misguided,
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
(i) (mathematical) No consistent interaction relativistic quantum
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2002-5/
with a conceptual basis in which these limit make sense and are
future, and the data from astromomy that may cast light on quantum
data but only by the quest for consistency with particle physics.)
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
as for QED or QCD, and try to compute S-matrix elements using the
nonperturbative results.
1 loop (and together with matter not even then); at higher loops
S. Deser,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9510087.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/index.html
hep-th/9709062: Introduction to superstring theory
Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2105-2108 (1988) discusses the lack of Borel
higher).
C.P. Burgess,
Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life:
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-5
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9602121
Only a few new parameters arise at each loop order, in particular only
solar system, and would remain so right down to the event horizon
even
if the sun were a black hole. At face value it is only for separations
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
that have locally the same kind of singular behavior as the flat
though this is not quite appropriate, unless one allows the vacuum
in a's and a^*'s and applying Wick's theorem. Their leading singular
behavior is probably the same as for the Gaussian state itself,
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
spin 2 particles.
-----------------------------------
g(e_j,e_k)=eta_jk (*)
directly. E.g.,
sqrt(-det g) = det(e).
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
time coordinate).
accordingly.
(small may mean, e.g., a laboratory, the earth, the solar system,
one needs to make precise what energy means for such pieces of the
whole universe.
interest, and the length of time of interest, including the way time
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
When in vogue, the aether was the substance filling empty space
of the aether. However nobody uses the term since it it fraught with
invariant state, should something like that exist. The Unruh effect
state must also be zero, which implies that the vacuum is empty
Feldern.''
dass sie dem Aether seine letzte mechanische Qualitaet, naemlich die
Unbeweglichkeit, wegnahm.''
''Man kann die Existenz eines Aethers annehmen; nur muss man
darauf
d.h. man muss ihm durch Abstraktion das letzte mechanische Merkmal
mitbestimmt.''
''Man kann also wohl auch sagen, dass der Aether der allgemeinen
hervorgegangen ist.''
''... Den Aether leugnen bedeutet letzten Endes annehmen, dass dem
http://www.alberteinstein.info/db/ViewCpae.do?
DocumentID=34003
(the part with the above quotes is not freely available online).
-------------------
-------------------
we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago and the Andromeda nebula
Now suppose that you look at the sun. If one is really pedantic,
one would have to say that you see the sun in your eye, as a
interpret our sensations in 3D and hence put the sun far away
One thinks in terms of the 4D spacetime manifold and places the sun
is zero. This looks like a paradox. What happened with the claimed
8 minutes?
The answer is that the metric time is not the right way to measure
generally has one, defined by the rest frame of the galactic fluid
-------------------------------
is always sharp.
of a system satisfies
ubar(t) := <u(t)> = u_0 + v (t - t_0) (v nonzero) (*)
with sufficient accuracy, one has a clock and can find out by means of
T = Delta t
Here
sigma(u(t)) = sqrt(<(u(t)-ubar(t))^2>)
observable. Space and time are now on the same level (allowing a
For position and time measurement, one now needs a 4-vector field
u(x) with
Sigma_T := sigma(V^{-1}u(x))
with
sigma(a(x)) = sqrt(<(a(x)-abar(x))^*(a(x)-abar(x))>),
abar(x)=<a(x)>.
quantum field theory, the same holds for both position and time.
However, this analysis works only when one assigns to single clocks
a well-defined state, hence assumes a version of the Copenhagen
interpretation.
a time operator.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
S = integral L(q,qdot,t) dt
xdot=H_p(p,x) , pdot=-H_x(p,x),
putting
q^T = (x^T,p^T,s),
U(q) = (p^T,0^T,-H(p,x)).
PJ Olver,
Those who can read German, can find more in the Section on
''Diffeomorphismeninvariante klassische Mechanik'' in my
German Theoretische-Physik-FAQ at
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physik-faq.txt
theories, see
C.G. Torre,
hep-th/9204055
----------------------------
----------------------------
One declares some time to be ''now'' - but which time one declares to
be ''now'' is completely subjective (i.e., in different situations it
either, but things change a little: Here one declares some event
Once one has chosen ''here'' and ''now'', respectively ''here and now'',
it serves as origin of the tangent hyperplane, in which localized, flat
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum mechanics asserts in the Born rule (also called Lueder's rule)
orthogonal projectors P_k (with P_k = P_k^*, P_k P_l = delta_kl P_l
and sum_k P_k = 1), it transforms the pure state psi into the pure
state psi_k = P_k psi/p_k with probability p_k= psi^* P_k psi.
particle.
The measurement problem arises when (as is commonly informally
assumed)
anyone has seen it. Thus the terabytes of collision data collected
of such high tech data, but the collapse (which gives rise to
we look at them.
--------------------------------
S11b. The double slit experiment
--------------------------------
experiments.
predict (at best) that the effect of the screen is to turn a particle
one each for being in one of the two beams (for sufficiently wide
passing the slit and a third (or more) for the particle being stuck
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/collapse.html
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
magnetic moment. The magnetic field is said to split the input beam
each randomly at one of the two spots. Each such event is generally
packets: One remains stuck where the blocked beam meets the block
and the other continues its motion along the unblocked beam.
A little later, this second wave packet meets the screen, and we end up
|left>=1/sqrt(2)(|up>+|down>),
1/sqrt(2)(|x^+(t),p^+(t)>|up> +|x^-(t),p^-(t)>|down>),
motion due to the magnetic field, the blocker and the screen -
and hitting or passing it. This is the so-called collapse of the wave
function.
human-centered touch.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
are possible.
are considered a possible way out, but this introduces other problems.)
in this FAQ.) Probability (and hence the quantum state that predicts it)
---------------------------------
Given the present state of the universe (which fixes the experimental
be deduced from the assumptions about the initial state and the
dynamics.
until one fits. This is how things are indeed done in practice.
one knows reasonably well what to expect of the next, similar one.
Then only fine-tuning is needed, which saves time. And this knowledge
certain way; but one still has to check to which extent they actually
with two slits in it, actually has a preferred position basis and
projects the incoming system to the part determined by the slits.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Many physicist nowadays think that decoherence provides a fully
interference terms.
M. Schlosshauer,
Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of
quantum
mechanics,
quant-ph/0312059
can do and what it leaves open. For example, Erich Joos, coauthor
in Quantum Theory',
http://www.iworld.de/~ej/book.html
If the big crowd has a cruder point of view, it means nothing but
But the riddle is present if one insists that the quantum mechanical
state describes a single quantum system (as seems to be required for
collapse a necessity.
(psi_1 + psi_2)/sqrt(2)
of such states and _not_ (as would be needed to account for the
Von Neumann and with him most textbook authors opted for giving up
fashion. But then there is no longer a clear place for when the
My paper
A. Neumaier,
measurement problem.
Boltzmann equation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Peres,
Sakurai's book. The latter is much more readable but has sloppy
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/77630f64b987274f?
dmode=source
http://www.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk/~plenio/lecture.pdf
quant-ph/9804075
quant-ph/9702007
of the matter.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physik-faq.txt
For the history of the interpretation of QM, see the excellent book
Max Jammer
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Quantum logic is a variant of logic often thought to be
K. Svozil,
Quantum Logic,
related arguments.
classical logic. Even in Svozil's book, one can see that quantum
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/stochastic.html
in that it cannot handle the situation when the wave function vanishes
Even if one argues that such states are idealized and cannot occur,
says correctly,
of nature.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Real measurements take time, and are not instantaneous.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
of making any statement about dice that have been thrown already.
Although we can observe with perfect accuracy the value of the throw,
actual events, since it never ever predicts what must happen or what
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
of x in this experiment.
as a (classical) 'ensemble',
although they are usually too vague to express this in formal terms.
and specific recipes defining x(omega), one has a model world in which
A difficulty is, of course, that we do not have such a model for the
The only thing not specified in probability theory (unless one specifies
numbers (in the sense that they usually pass with high confidence level
remains analogous.
of subsets of Omega.
this has not even two independent bits. Its sigma algebra is based
Because of the assumed independence of the trials, one can reduce all
But once one looks at binary processes which are even slightly
over Omega_inf.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
To say that
"The probability that someone in risk group A will die of cancer is 1/3"
cancer. But this tacit assumption may well turn out to be wrong.
risk group A will die of cancer is 1/3" means nothing more or less
than that exactly 1/3 of _all_ people in risk group A will die of
cancer.
how _all_ people in risk group A died, but once we have this
and exactly half of them come out heads. For an infinite sigma algebra,
the ensemble is infinite; but with the natural weighting, again exactly
The two approaches are not contradictory; indeed, they are combined
in
objective meaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
instead of
ensemble.
-------------------------------------------------------
But the weak law of large numbers only guarantees that most trial
to the probability. It might just fail for the one actually tried...
That we often estimate the limit using a small part of the sequence
informative books by
T.L. Fine,
Theory of probability; an examination of foundations.
and
L. Sklar,
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
in quant-ph/0303047.)
In the case just cited, the ensemble is the set of all tomorrow's,
Person A claims 'the probability of the coin coming out head is 50%'.
Person B claims 'the probability of the coin coming out head is 20%'.
Person C claims 'the probability of the coin coming out head is 80%'.
Now we throw the coin and find 'head'. Who was right? It is
undecidable.
'the probability of the coin coming out head is p', when applied to
cancer? This is a single event that either will happen, or will not
On the other hand one may assign a probability based on some facts
to belong to, what probability one will assign. Mrs. X belongs to many
realization.
equally likely, the sequence 111111111 has exactly the same status
ordinary numbers are _never_ random, but they can 'look random',
in a subjective sense.)
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
If the die is not thrown, all events are equivalent, and the
does not happen. If the event happens (does not happen), the
random experiment.''
physical theories.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
happens.
zero.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
If one has a sound probabilistic model of a multitude of independent
A. Neumaier,
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers.html#fuzzy
reality.
-----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
It is offen erroneously assumed that incomplete knowledge can
apply statistics since one knows nothing at all about the distribution
the knowledge that in fact always x=0.75, except that one does not
flawed.
may have a deviation of 0.1% and the remaining quarter one of 3.7%.
In general, all one can deduce from information that takes the form of
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/glopt/intro.html
of interest; in this case, however, the best statistics can offer are
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
defined by
defines the entropy with respect to this prior. Note that the
alternatives and take as the (proper) prior the uniform measure, giving
The density rho(x) agrees with the probability p_x, and the
the absolute entropy given above. But one could also take as prior
a noninvariant measure
dmu(x) = dx p_0(x);
relative entropy.
prior, and one has to make other useful choices. In particular, this
probability of getting n.
probability of getting n.
mechanics.
-------------------------------------------------------
in my opinion.
unsolved problem.
Phys Rev. A 65 (2002), 032516 and Phys. Rev Lett. 84 (2000), 3274 -,
but they don't give a clue what a helium atom 'is' in QFT.
QFT of what bound states should be, but nothing convincing on the
quantitative level.
A theory of everything should also be able to answer questions
that so far remained unmet; it has been done long ago for
the final result (to much better accuracy than the parameters
of the two.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
all we know about matter and radiation on earth, within the range of
But this does not mean that it has a high predictivity, except
The reason is that we can compute from it almost nothing at the scales
poorer.
is almost nil.
(except for paying religious lip service to it), but work with
model was born, and built into the latter to match reality; so they
One can show that the effective dynamics of protons and neutrons is
from the standard model (but also follows from assumed symmetry
information.
From this, one can calculate the energy of the nuclei, using a combined
from it, this would give _very_ poor predictions of nuclear properties.
The details of the nuclei become irrelevant for atomic physics and
from it, this would give _very_ poor predictions of most chemical
atoms (such as the color of gold) reasonably well using the Dirac-Fock
equations.
---------------------------------------------------
S14c. Is the result of a measurement a real number?
---------------------------------------------------
(If the scale gives an angle in degrees which is then converted into
That's why the error bars are intrinsic to measurement results, even to
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/
Of course, the error bar is also somewhat uncertain, but one generally
The NIST definition has the advantage that it also applies to indirect
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Complex numbers are _the_ natural number system for all but
instead.
On the other hand, at first sight it seems that only real quantities
are measurable. However this only holds for the most direct
measurements
hence one generally uses more equations than unknowns and solves
to get an estimate of x.
-------------------------------------------
S15a. How precise can physical language be?
-------------------------------------------
use in reality. This ensures that one knows precisely what one talks
one must use the formulations people use who are using this interface,
They know how 'large' something must be to be taken as 'infinite'.
limit in reality.
This is necessary since all our observations are finite, and most of
someone enters?)
If one follows his argument closely, one finds that even classically,
thermodynamics.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
is important.
If you (the reader) are satisfied with the latter, never try to
and powerful theory, then you should not be satisfied with the way
current quantum field theory (say) is done, and keep looking for
quant-ph/9907069
and
mechanics,
quant-ph/0103153
See also:
K Davey,
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000787/
On the other hand, on the way towards finding out what is true,
nonrigorous first steps are the rule, even for hard die
J. Hadamard,
An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field,
Princeton 1945.
and
G. Polya,
2 Vols., 1954.
or
G. Polya,
Mathematical discovery,
math.HO/9307227
M. Atiyah et al.,
math/9404229
math/9404231
See also
D. Zeilberger,
math.CO/9301202,
(1996?)
http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/~sok/papers/age/expmath.pdf
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Quantum mechanics is a somewhat unintuitive theory, and generated
circular. If it were not, the postulates were not basic but derivable.
But the basic postulates themselves can only be motivated, but not
derived.
If you want to probe that trust you can go into studying the sea of
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Foundations of physics is the quest for getting the mathematical
These statements apply both to good and bad theories. Even a bad
theory
One can observe from history that progress in concepts lead to better
------------------------------------------------------
and only needs enough context to identify the usage of the concepts --
there is essentially only one fit that works, and once the
But there is another way that is fruitful and neither circular nor
level what logic is; then it builds a formal model, a 'formal reality',
in which one can talk about everything one talks in 'real' logic,
You don't need to know what truth, propositions, etc. are in reality,
This is done in exactly the same way as the Greeks declared rules for
statements:
points there is exactly one line, and any two distinct lines
the real logic in the formal model of logic, and reach clarity.
You start with a phase space and a Hamiltonian which fall from
In fact, you can discuss any question about the classical world
more and more into such a formal model, until everything about
in which one can talk about all the things physicists talk about
in Hamiltonian mechanics.
----------------------------
----------------------------
forward.
Those who had the questions and found real answers published it and
andvanced the state of the art. The others can only share their
experience and their chart of the uncharted territory. As one can see
see with your own eyes, take your own risks, and find out for yourself
the idea.
But who knows beforehand what will turn out to be the right track?
Everyone starts their journey from where they are, in the direction
they
find most promising. The others observe what they do and have to
make
up their own mind. If people knew what is the right start and the right
direction, all important unsolved problems were solved by now.
detailed code analysis. And most of the wild ideas are useless.
Rather, learn as much as you can about how and why the good
theories
able to spot what went wrong. But not by searching in the mist; your
walking attentively and openminded along many blind alleys, until one
sees one which smells like being the real thing. Then one starts
should have been the guiding principle that would have avoided all
the dead ends, bringing one directly to the goal. Then, and only then,
pattern: See
G. Polya,
Mathematical Discovery,
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the subject matter treated, a lot. From the modeling side far less.
There is no difference in principle. All science is based on observation
that in the former one generally studies systems which are strongly
predictable results.
Sometimes to the extent that one can ignore the noise and treat a
negligible.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
The philosopher Karl Popper claimed that falsifiability is the
against him.
that, according to the theory, are excluded. But for a correct theory,
What happens with good theories is, at worst, that their region of
of the theory proper, they are part of the theory as actually taught
But one can be reasonably sure within the domain where enough data
All science students who ever did experiments in the lab know
It is now too late to ask Newton whether he believed his theory was
valid without restrictions. (Or are there any hints in the Principia
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
but useless (and probably harmful). These are the ones that Popper
calls
unfalsifiable.
What makes a theory good is not its potential falsifiability, but that
happen.
If you have no theory and put two marbles into your empty pocket,
and then another two, you don't know how many marbles you can
take out.
If you know arithmetic and the law of conservation of marbles you can
predict that exactly four can be taken out. This is testable, and will
always come out correct. So you have a correct theory. Of course, its
validity is not unlimited, since it assumes that your pocket does not
since you can only take out three, you suspect that the domain of
validity was violated; you check for the hole - and surely you'll
find it.
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Frequently, Ockham's razor
with the fewest parameters is the best. But this is true only
This gives them all the information they need, while they can deduce
properties.
about our world, and only very inaccurately. Not even the masses of
the nuclei can be predicted at present with any confidence, let alone
And given only string theory (a theory without any free parameter),
(See http://rz70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~ed01/Hyle/Hyle3/hoffman.htm
--------------------
--------------------
person claiming it. And this set of beliefs is more or less close
famous physicists like von Neumann and many others, and this is good
enough to make this statement honestly, since the community has not
others any more than feeding others what one thinks is nourishing.
his or her personal opinion, and not a fact. Who takes it for a
of this ensemble.
In this way, anyone who wants to get a clear picture soon notices
which claims are trustworthy, which ones are tenable but somewhat
----------------------------
----------------------------
etc.
----------------------
----------------------
--------------------------------------------
S16i. What is a system (e.g., an ideal gas)?
--------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
bars for the parameters modeling the deviation. As long as the error
precision.
but even when one of these experiments succeeds (as in the case of
-------------------
-------------------
We say that people exist, because they are a handy way to describe
We say that photons exist because they are a handy way to describe
Photons are objectively real because they are needed in the only
know of.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/Anton.Zeilinger/philosop.html
irrelevant physics.
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/headsofpins.html
It seems that, as here, the question has always been used in a derisive
E.D. Sylla,
Elsevier 2005,
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/70430
2/description#description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_
head_of_a_pin%3F
G.M. Ross,
Angels,
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3750436
http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN413/katrei.html
It is surprisingly interesting.
Part I (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm)
a logical point of view. His 'angels' are not the winged creatures
properties.
in between:
published an article
A. Sandberg,
http://headofapin.net/
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
the discussions get too specific for you but make you curious to
learn more about the background. But it may be difficult to find out
The writers usually know how they got the knowledge, and are happy
to
more likely you'll get an answer, and the more useful it will
service to all.
"Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock,
and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives,
and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks,
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
You did some work that you think is great (or at least reasonable),
can learn from them. And then _do_ learn from them! Usually the
reasons
for rejection are sound and mean at least that you didn't pose your
case well. It also takes some time to learn the standards that
If your idea is far from mainstream, you need also convince people
that your approach is sound and merits spending the time to read
through the new proposal. This is difficult since you need to build
tolerance.
The less mainstream an idea the stronger must be its contents and the
get to find out the standards expected and then go and meet them.
the letter learns from criticisms and grows through each feedback,
while the former 'knows' (and acts on this assumption) that he is right
and that established physics is just rejecting him or her for no good
reasons.
what you hoped for. Once the tone of your mail gets defensive or
aggressive, you probably lost your case - your partner sees that
say, is too much for most people to read, unless they already have high
confidence that the contents is sound. If you really need 120 pages
to make your case you need to make short versions of your long paper
a 7 page outline version, a 20 page version with the key steps, and a
full paper with all the details, and each of these versions should be
self-contained and allow the reader to get a feeling of what you do,
and why you succeed - in terms of background that shows that you are
familiar with the state of the art, and in a language that is both
Note that the most important task is not to present your claim and
praise or defend your work, but to convince others that your claim
deserves trust enough to spend time on checking it.
easy.
Of course one can find many published papers that do not meet these
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
report with an open mind. What may at first seem like a devastating
explanation. At other times the referee may indeed have found a fatal
Explain which changes have been made and state your position on
points
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Unless you don't care about making a fool of yourself, don't tell
revolutionary ideas around which don't stand the test); so you need
too many such offers come from cranks. The devil is always
any advantage.
If you really can do it better than others, and you don't find
prior relevant work in the literature, work it out yourself and
to what you learn, and accomodate the criticism in your future work.
The referees are usually competent and have a point in what they say.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/nobel.txt
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/
to the question:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
Hyperphysics
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~rt19/hydro/hydro.html
http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~scheck/Hessbg02.html
http://cips02.physik.uni-bonn.de/~baehren/scripts/quantum.html
and on other physics topics
http://www.astron.nl/~bahren/wiki/doku.php?
id=studium:lecture_scripts
http://timms.uni-tuebingen.de/
http://www.lqp.uni-goettingen.de/bibliography/reviews.html
Norbert Dragon,
http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon/qm_eng.ps.gz
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/regainedcauses.html
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/papers.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr
Historical Physics Lecture Notes
http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/renormalization/public/documents.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/web-link.htm
Sidney Coleman
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/dt281/qft/col1.pdf
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/dt281/qft/col2.pdf
------------------------------
------------------------------
Memories about Theoretical Physicists (by R.F. Streater)
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/links.html
Short Stories
http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yskim/home/storie.html
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/parables.html
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200006/0147.html
------------------------
------------------------
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/
Physics FAQ
(a list of links)
http://www.kar.net/~plasma/faq/
Plasma FAQ
http://www.iworld.de/~ej/faq.html
http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/faq/index.html
-----------------------
-----------------------
their discoverers?
And if the self chosen vanity name does not stick, it serves them
On the other hand, naming is at times unfair. Not rarely in the past,
a concept (or theorem, etc.) got the name of one of its main
proponents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy
If the time wasn't ripe for it the first time, it is likely that the
name of the rediscoverer sticks, and the voices of those who had
known
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misnamed_theorems
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
that one has two sets of equations relating two sets of unknown
quantities, and wants to solve the equations jointly for the unknowns.
x^2 = y = x+2,
which leads to the two solutions
say, has more variables and is harder to solve, but the principle
is the same.
-----------------------
-----------------------
simply called x.
/ \
| x_1 |
| x_3 |
\ /
The same for a list of n numbers. This gives a vector x with n
each entry with the number. Then there is the inner product of two
vectors
------------------------------------------
used for self study. If you are motivated it can be very exciting!
If you like math it is much less work than you might think,
and it is fun! Just start with next years textbook and read it
You don't need to do all the exercises but just enough that you
the book - just go where your curiosity leads you, and if you
And at any time in life there will be parts you understand well,
where you know little more than a few buzz words. So you need
but learn whatever you can in whatever order you pick it up.
The stuff to be practiced and learnt well is only the part that
comes up over and over again. When you realize that then you know
------------------------
------------------------
With 16, you should spend your time with learning rather than
Once you know enough about what others did and where they
got stuck, you'll have more than enough ideas to work on.
I'd like to suggest that you read the Nobel lectures of the
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/
The material spans a whole century, and will occupy you for long!
It will put your mind to themes that have been important enough
the future.
In parallel, use the web to sort out all concepts used in the Nobel
and you have to search a bit to find out where the basics you need are
Doing both will put you on a learning track which will end in a
------------------------------------------
S18e. Are there indefinite Hilbert spaces?
------------------------------------------
these are called Krein spaces. Their structure is much weaker than
justified.
properties.
---------------------
---------------------
The following links are to some relevant pages from my web site.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/godacts.html
''I found the assumption that `God acts in the world' a superior
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/chance.html
(On the difficulty to know, and the role of the second law of
How to study
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/study.html
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/other/turing.txt
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf.html
and in German:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/ger/unbek.html
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/ger/neumann.pdf
---------------------
S20a. Acknowledgments
---------------------