Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 125 Rep.
Vote down
Badges
8
Newest
 Commentator
Impact
~3k people reached

Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne But if it reduces to the existent theories and uses less assumptions, isn't it more appealing?
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne It doesn't bring to an experementalist, but how would otherwise theories would develop if it weren't for some assumptions and definitions?
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne Physics also can consider such questions, it brings some additional insights for the underlying existense of things. What a boring subject it would be if it would be just math, that happens to describe some measurements :)
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne I actually put a metaphysics tag on this question for a reason :)
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne Aren't measurements just a subset of trajectory? And what really physically exists, is question beyond this discussion, depends who's view is more appealing, materialistic or idealistic.
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@CuriousOne Maybe what I'm getting at, is that a trajectory is what actually represents a physical object, and a particle is what we measure and observe, some subset of it.
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
An English word... Did I use it wrong? :)
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
What exactly would be a contradiction in unifying these concepts? Instead of talking about particles and their trajectories, we speak of particle as manifestation of its trajectory. We look at it not as some thing at some location in spacetime, but also take its whole path into account, its past, future, everywhere it'd been and will be.
Oct
24
awarded  Commentator
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
There is always both particle and field representation for every theory, it depends on what are you summing over, field configurations or particle trajectories. Could you elaborate on difficulty of particle definition in curved spacetime, please?
Oct
24
revised Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
edited tags
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@FabriceNEYRET That's what I meant by moving trajectory, it's not thin, quantum effects make it blurry.
Oct
24
comment Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
@KyleKanos If photons are "not closed, not turning in time" lines within spacetime, then C transformation wouldn't change topology of such lines, it would still be a line, so they would be indistinguishable
Oct
24
asked Are fundamental particles just a trajectory in spacetime?
Oct
21
accepted Grassmann number representation for fermions
Oct
13
revised Grassmann number representation for fermions
added 454 characters in body
Oct
13
comment Grassmann number representation for fermions
@Qmechanic Hatted c's are operators, and other c's are two Grassmann numbers.
Oct
13
comment Grassmann number representation for fermions
@ACuriousMind Yes, I saw these, these matrices don't satisfy all relations.
Oct
13
asked Grassmann number representation for fermions
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer