meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 2 months |
| seen | Mar 17 at 20:46 | |
| stats | profile views | 17 |
|
May 4 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
May 4 |
awarded | Student |
|
May 4 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Oct 14 |
comment |
Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations Thanks a lot! To understand and learn to use cluster expansions, would Glimm-Jaffe's Quantum physics: a functional integral point of view be a reasonable starting point? I am a mathematician with background in PDE and wavelets, and with an undergraduate degree in physics. |
|
Oct 8 |
comment |
Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations Thanks for the answer! I am afraid I cannot get much out of the book. Are you essentially saying that since lattice has so many problems, other possible approaches must have even more problems? |
|
Oct 6 |
comment |
Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations Thanks for the answer. The question was more in the spirit of when there are so many approaches to approximate the exact solution of, say nonlinear wave (and Klein-Gordon, Yang-Mills-Higgs-Dirac etc) equations on the classical level, why do we choose, when we quantize, only a couple of approaches, such as power series, and lattice regularization (the latter essentially a finite difference method)? |
|
Oct 6 |
comment |
Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations @Yuji: Yes, as you said, it is only an asymptotic series, which means that initially it may get close to the "exact value", but after some point it will diverge. A related question is if there is anything known in terms of how many terms we should calculate in order to get the most accurate result. |
|
Oct 6 |
asked | Other processes than formal power series expansions in quantum field theory calculations |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
Why is moonlight less colourful than yellow light? @Vineet the blackbody radiation does not correspond to yellow. It has all wavelengths, but it has slightly more yellowish content than other visible colours. A white surface scatters all incoming lights. Since the Sun has been the dominant light source on Earth, what we see in white colour is Sun's spectrum. So if you want to design a lamp that looks perfectly white, it must be indistinguishable to your eyes from sunlight. |
|
Apr 30 |
comment |
Does a particle annihilate only with its antiparticle? If yes, why? If Wheeler's conjecture was true, wouldn't this imply that the number of electrons must be equal to the number of positrons? |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
Great unsolved physics problems @Vladimir Thanks. There seem to be some rigorous results by Gross and Driver on the limits of lattice approximation of QED in lower dimensions. So is it true that the same old QED behaves better in lower dimensions? |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
Formalizing Quantum Field Theory Can you please give some references, especially to the construction of Yang-Mills on torus and 2d Maxwell-Higgs? |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
General relativity (gravitation) in time and one spatial dimension Even 2+1 is almost trivial. |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
What is physical in the principle of local gauge invariance? At any given time in history the collection of all measurements done by mankind will be finite. So in principle, there can be infinitely many theories that fit those measurements (think of interpolation). But we don't even have one yet. We have many theories each fitting a particular subset of the data. |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
Is a periodic force capable of transporting a particle to large distances? Velocity = integral of force. So if the periodic force gets above and below 0 "evenly" as in the sine example, and if initially the force is positive, then the velocity never gets negative. |
|
Apr 28 |
comment |
Great unsolved physics problems What is your take on Scharf's book titled finite QED? |
|
Apr 27 |
comment |
Did Einstein prove $E=mc^2$ correctly? Quote Hilbert: Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians. |
|
Apr 25 |
comment |
“The Schwarzschild Proton” paper - Is the science valid? I would not be so strict as Mr X, as there are exceptions, but he has some point. This maybe interesting: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html |
|
Apr 20 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Apr 20 |
revised |
Can a non-euclidean space be descripted through an euclidean of higher dimension? so why use non-euclidean? link to the book changed from amazon to google |
