1,469 reputation
619
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen 7 hours ago

Jul
22
comment Why is particle number conserved, and what are the bounds on non-conservation?
@JohnRennie: Actually I'm fine with the inclusion of QFT. (On the one hand it might make the problem more complicated, on the other hand the solution might be only clear in full QFT.) ... What I meant to say is I'm not interested in particles decaying or splitting or reacting. Of course then the number of particles is not conserved. $e^- \rightarrow e^- e^+ e^-$ in a medium, where the final state electrons have less energy. I'm interested in a failure of wave function collapse (event-by-event, not statistically). This probably implies some non-conservation of charge, energy, etc..
Jul
22
comment Why is particle number conserved, and what are the bounds on non-conservation?
@JohnRennie: Really? I know you can split photons, yielding more with lower energy each, but I'm not talking about that. Rather, place a 500 nm photon in a box, let its wavefunction spread, and see if you sometimes detect two 500 nm photons, or sometimes none.
Jul
22
comment Why is particle number conserved, and what are the bounds on non-conservation?
I'd appreciate suggestions for tags. unitarity is probably not very useful, because people will not search for it. I guess I need one that means "experimental (tests of) QM", and another for "foundations of QM", but I couldn't thinks of a nice tag name.
Jul
22
asked Why is particle number conserved, and what are the bounds on non-conservation?
Jul
22
comment Understanding the argument that local U(1) leads to coupling of EM and matter
@Olaf: Thanks, I forgot that you can put in charge conservation. That also explains where the factors of $e$ come from! ... There are several statements, and we can use some as assumptions, and one as a conclusion. I guess I'm trying to figure out what the most pedagogical or intuitive set of inputs to the argument is.
Jul
22
asked Understanding the argument that local U(1) leads to coupling of EM and matter
Jul
16
revised Lev Landau's “Theoretical Minimum”
Removed [theoretical-physics] again. I still belive it's fitting, but as long as it's only on one question, it's not very useful. Added [education]. Sorry for bumping :-)
Jul
15
reviewed Reject suggested edit on Lev Landau's “Theoretical Minimum”
Jul
15
revised Lev Landau's “Theoretical Minimum”
edited tags
Jul
4
awarded  Custodian
Jul
4
reviewed Reject suggested edit on Lev Landau's “Theoretical Minimum”
Jul
2
accepted Mechanisms of mass generation for Dirac neutrinos
May
18
asked Why distinguish between row and column vectors?
May
13
answered How to determine the direction of medium's displacement vectors of a standing wave?
May
13
comment Caveats when using event-by-event reweightings?
Hmm, I'll write up something or look for a reference when I have time.
May
13
comment Caveats when using event-by-event reweightings?
(Seems you need 50 reputition to comment...) I was asking about the most general case, since this has many uses: Fixing MC, estimating BGs from data, estimating trigger effects without simulating the trigger, .... You give every event a different weight, and make a certain distribution $y$ match perfectly - but have no predictive power there anymode, since data=BG per construction. You hope that in a somewhat correlated distribution $x$ (maybe with a different selection) you now have a better modelling of the BG, but you'll be able to discern the signal, in the simplest case a bump.
May
12
comment Gravity in other dimensions than 3 and stable orbits
I wonder what happens if one just uses a different potental, so that one still has $F \propto 1/r^2$ even in higher dimensions?
May
12
comment Caveats when using event-by-event reweightings?
Say your interested in the dilepton invariant mass, so $y=M_{\ell\ell}$. You believe the angle between leptons is not well modeled, so you correct the $\varphi_{\ell\ell}$ MC distribution ($x$). You would do that in bins of $\varphi$, and you have one factor for each bin. One may determine the factor in a sideband, but applies it to all events. You seem to be thinking about normalizing to the Upsilon peak (~10 GeV), however in the case I mean the total normalization often doesn't change. (By the way, you're answer would better be a comment. We should move this discussion there.)
May
12
asked List of cross sections?
May
12
asked Caveats when using event-by-event reweightings?