934 reputation
11340
bio website axiomsofchoice.org
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen 11 hours ago

A duck walks into a bar. Animal control is promptly called and the duck is released into a near by park.

My email is to be found on my website.


May
25
comment $\hbar$, the angular momentum and the action
@Isaac: I don't understand. The first question "so that...have the same units" is already implied in your formulation and only a matter of checking any source online and in the second question I don't know what "necessary" is supposted to mean. If you already consider QM, then it's obviously necessary and if you don't, then nothing is really necessary.
May
25
revised $\hbar$, the angular momentum and the action
deleted 4 characters in body
May
25
answered $\hbar$, the angular momentum and the action
May
24
comment Physical interpratation of propagator
Why do you want to give the same thing two interpretations? I'd argue that one can motivate $\vec p$ via $m\vec v$ and doesn't have to introduce another interpretation after introducing new variables. Also, I wouldn't view it as only one averaged plane wave but a summation of many, but whatever. Also the formulation with a relativistically invariant measure is nice and visually to look at, I'd use that for another orientation, especially regarding the $1$ over $E$.
May
22
comment How to get Planck length
It's clear to me that if there are only a finite number of (length) scales in the theory, that one can expect something to happen in field theoretic considerations w.r.t. to that unit (say Planck scale here $\ell_P$). However, what makes $\ell_P$ more fundamental than $2\ell_P$, how can one conclude that a particular numeric value has any significance without a good theory one that level?
May
20
comment Higgs mass and the hierarchy problem
"One common misconception is the belief of some people that if the space is discretized, converted to a lattice, a spin network, or whatever, one cures the problem of non-renormalizability of theories such as gravity." But once you have a natural lattice/spin network/etc. and this is actually the fundamental theory (and not a field thoery with infinitely many parameters to specify), then you can compute your observable values and the problem is really gone, isn't it?
May
15
comment Questions concerning some parts of the section on one-particle states in Weinberg's first volume on QFT
@lurscher: I.e. it's not legal?
May
13
revised CY moduli fields
I don't know no Schrodinger.
May
13
comment Gabriele Veneziano, strong nuclear force and beta-function
I didn't want to say it at first, but now I find it funny that it's still there after the edits of the very same expression: There is an unmotivated $x$ in the Gamma function.
May
13
suggested suggested edit on CY moduli fields
May
13
revised quantization of this hamiltonian?
added 86 characters in body
May
13
revised quantization of this hamiltonian?
added 90 characters in body
May
13
revised quantization of this hamiltonian?
added 90 characters in body
May
13
answered quantization of this hamiltonian?
May
11
comment Connection between Poisson Brackets and Symplectic Form
@RonMaimon: bedroom, haha.
May
11
comment 10 Big Problems - Condensed Matter
Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1453/great-unsolved-physics-problems‌​
May
9
comment Reference request for the terminology and usage of different types of plasmas
Thanks for the paper, I'll check it out. I have the Fridman book, although it doesn't necessarily make things clear to me yet.
May
8
comment What are the frameworks of physics?
@AlexBobrick: But by this definition, the phenomenological laws, which are experimentally accessible are more fundamental. On the other side, statistical mechanics is a way to thermodynamics.
May
8
comment What are the frameworks of physics?
I like the "more is different" paper, but I never really understood it. To me it seems as if these "entirely new laws" should be obtainable be the right renormalization from the deeper theory to the other. Phenomena are emerging, but you can see them coming from the more detailed theory. Of course, nobody can learn everything and so it's certainly a field of its own - its "not just application" only in the practical sense, because of that.
May
8
comment Some questions on observables in QM
@RonMaimon: Why do you ask? Did I make statements about what's more non-classical or more counterintuitive? I wasn't even talking about QM here in particular. I was using the spin observable as an example for something which is described by group theory and was asking why he says they would necessarily follow to exist in nature. His statement seems to imply all possible realizations would have to be present in nature.