meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 8 months |
| seen | Oct 26 '12 at 8:12 | |
| stats | profile views | 29 |
|
Dec 19 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Dec 9 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Oct 19 |
comment |
Dilatations in non-relativistic QM and operator tranformation Ok, I didn't think about this passage from active to passive transformations with dilations, seems a bit weird to "shrink" a system but clearly not enough to stop a theoretical description ;) |
|
Oct 19 |
asked | Dilatations in non-relativistic QM and operator tranformation |
|
Oct 18 |
comment |
Non-commuting operators can't share any eigenvector I think you got the point at the end (plus thanks for the numerical example). The context is about Bloch theorem and Bloch wave-functions, to describe for example electrons in a periodic static crystal. |
|
Oct 18 |
comment |
Non-commuting operators can't share any eigenvector Hum.. I'm not sure about your view on the problem, you're postulating from the beginning that $\alpha$ is not annihilated by the commutator, which is what I am questioning. Why should it annihilate every eigenvectors of $H$? |
|
Oct 18 |
comment |
Non-commuting operators can't share any eigenvector French QM textbook by Aslangul: amazon.fr/… The chapter on electrons in a crystal. |
|
Oct 18 |
accepted | Non-commuting operators can't share any eigenvector |
|
Oct 18 |
asked | Non-commuting operators can't share any eigenvector |
|
Oct 10 |
accepted | Path integral on matrix model |
|
Oct 10 |
asked | Path integral on matrix model |
|
Oct 3 |
accepted | Clarification on “central charge equals number of degrees of freedom” |
|
Sep 30 |
asked | Limit on space-time dimension from susy |
|
Sep 28 |
accepted | “low-energy effective action” but in what sense? |
|
Sep 28 |
comment |
“low-energy effective action” but in what sense? Thanks for the time you put in this detailed answer Lubos. I am familiar with the concept of renormalization group and effective field theory. My interrogation was about arguments specific to the derivation of this effective action, or differences between in an "effective field theory"-description in string theory in comparison to quantum field theory. But you answered that. |
|
Sep 28 |
asked | “low-energy effective action” but in what sense? |
|
Sep 26 |
comment |
Clarification on “central charge equals number of degrees of freedom” I already went through the light cone quantization of bosonic string theory, and the path integral formalism but the answer did not appear (clear) to me... |
|
Sep 26 |
comment |
Clarification on “central charge equals number of degrees of freedom” Thanks for both comments, I read the two question page you are referring to Qmechanic but I don't feel like it answers my question, maybe it wasn't clearly formulated. My point was only asking why those fields (b/c system) give a algebraically negative contribution to the "number of degrees of freedom of your theory"-number. Is it because in that case, the intuitive association central charge = number of dof is a bit abusive? Is it because the b/c are fictitious dof (accounting for a gauge symmetry)? Maybe something else? |
|
Sep 26 |
asked | Clarification on “central charge equals number of degrees of freedom” |
|
Sep 25 |
asked | Breaking of conformal symmetry |
