[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.8136707 [View]
File: 191 KB, 550x391, 1381875202635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8136707

>> No.7348137 [View]
File: 191 KB, 550x391, 1382947155035.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7348137

I need some help with gauge fields. I understand that if you have some global symmetry in your field (obvious example being U(1)), you try to see what happens if you make it into a local symmetry only, right? The extra terms that pop out form your gauge field/will form a fundamental force, then. If this is true, what is the reason why you would you go from a global to a local symmetry?

>> No.7058108 [View]
File: 191 KB, 550x391, 1381875202635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7058108

>> No.6973733 [View]
File: 191 KB, 550x391, Gödel_Einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6973733

>>6973721
>Phase space models are less complicated than Hamiltonian mechanics
Hamiltonian mechanics is exactly the phase space formulation.
There are geometric and algebraic ways to pass from classical phase space to quantum mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_quantization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%E2%80%93Weyl_transform
but not even with string theory are there mathematical discrepancies, from an engineers point of view. It's a pretty geometric theory, may it be a valid description or not. General relativity is much less problematic still - mathematically that's just pseudo-Riemannian geometry which soon is established for 150 years as a proper mathematical discipline.

Also
>Shrodingers

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]