320 reputation
113
bio website cmi.ac.in/~debangshu
location Chennai, India
age 24
visits member for 3 years, 7 months
seen Jul 28 at 9:06

Final year Bachelors student of Theoretical Physics at Chennai Mathematical Institute. Interested in Cosmology and applications of Field Theory to Condensed Matter Systems.


May
26
comment Conserved currents in higher-spin theories
O.k. I figured it out myself. It seems this formalism was developed by Fronsdal long time back. However, another question has popped up. Spin-$s$ massless fields are given by totally symmetric tensor $\phi_{n_1 n_2..n_s}$. There is a condition though on these fields. They have to be "double traceless" i.e I contract them with $g_{\mu_1 \mu_2}g_{\mu_3 \mu_4}$. Why do I need to impose this condition?
May
17
comment How do we simulate Nuclear explosion?
Please modify your question and ask what aspect of physics would you like to know. What is the model you are working with? What attempts have been made etc.?
May
17
comment How do we simulate Nuclear explosion?
This is PHYSICS stack exchange and your question is not appropriate for such a forum.
May
11
comment Construction of the supergravity side explicitly in gauge/gravity dualities
Also, although I have not mentioned it explicitly, I guess I am also assuming a very big result though I am not sure if it is true: Every CFT will have an AdS dual theory. If this is false, then obviously my question itself becomes irrelevant.
May
11
comment Construction of the supergravity side explicitly in gauge/gravity dualities
Actually I should have mentioned in the post itself. My question was also motivated by the paper (arxiv.org/pdf/1011.2986.pdf) of Gopakumar & Gaberdiel. They have shown the duality of two theories again. This time, the theories are a 2d $\mathcal{W}_{N}$ minimal model with large $N$ ('t Hooft limit) and a higher spin theory in $AdS_3$. What I'm asking is this. If I would have started with the 2d $\mathcal{W}_{N}$ minimal model then, can the fact that it is dual to a higher spin theory in $AdS_3$ automatically emerge out from my calculations?
Mar
26
comment Vector Addition — Direction
$F_3$ will be in a direction opposite to $F_1$ ONLY IF $F_2$ is in SAME DIRECTION as $F_1$ or else in general NO.
Mar
26
comment Vector Addition — Direction
if $F_1 = F_2$, it means $F_3 = 2F_1$. So, equation (2) is $F_1 -F_3 = F_1 - 2F_1 = -F_1$. Now, since $F_1 = F_2$, we can also write $-F_1 = -F_2$ which proves the second statement: $F_1-F_3 = -F_2$ and hence there is no contradiction between (2) and (3).
Mar
26
comment Vector Addition — Direction
Yes, they may be in the same direction but, nothing can be said about the magnitude and there is no way you can write Equation (3) from Equation (1) even if they are in the same direction. As you yourself pointed out, vector equality will hold if both magnitude and direction are the same.
Mar
26
comment Vector Addition — Direction
Your first assumption is wrong. $F_1 + F_2 - F_3=0$ never implies $F_1$ and $F_2$ are in the same direction. You can definitely add forces in different directions and the fact that their sum is zero means you can construct a triangle with these vectors (adjust the direction accordingly). Check this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector#Addition_and_subtraction
Nov
28
comment is it possible to flow current in open circuit?
Simply speaking no. For an open circuit, the end points will be at same potential. You need a potential difference for current to flow. Also, please don't put smileys in question.
Nov
28
comment How do you find the speed of sound in the problem?
I don't see how the second equation $d = \frac{1}{2}gt^2$ is valid for sound. The second equation is for the stone which you have already mentioned before. There should be just 3 equations.
Nov
27
comment A particular case when Lagrange equation is equivalent to equation of motion on a Riemannian manifold
Could you clarify your question? Do you want to know if the coordinates of the generalized coordinate system that you want to set up is a Reimannian manifold? OR,do you want to know if Lagrange's Equations are equations of motion or not? If its the second then yeah! obviously Lagrange's Equations do give you equations of motion.
Oct
25
comment Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?
We represent them as dots. Many particles, like protons have a uud quark composition. In fact, the study of the proton structure is a big field of research.
Oct
10
comment Matrix and exponential term problem
What exactly is $\tau_{3}$
Apr
12
comment How to derive addition of velocities without the Lorentz transformation?
Elegant answer!!! +1 to Ron.
Feb
3
comment Difficulty in visualizing more than three spatial dimension
I still don't understand the question...
Jan
31
comment What if the strong force gave up?
Is this a serious question?
Jan
30
comment How to calculate the force acting on a magnet placed in a magnetic field?
I would say, this is kind of a tedious algebra which has been worked out in details in Julian Schwinger's book, Classical Electrodynamics Chapter 4-Macroscopic Electrodynamics Section 4.2. Here, first Schwinger has discussed the force on an atom due to an external electromagnetic field. Then, to find the force on a finite volume element he has integrated that force over the total volume with $n(\mathbf{r})$ as the number density of the molecules. You also need to define quantities like magnetic/electric dipole moment for the macroscopic body
Jan
29
comment How to calculate the electric field at a point in space
Did you mean that you have to find the field at the origin?
May
3
comment Which Mechanics book is the best for beginner in math major?
I never knew Spivak wrote on Class Mech!!! :-)