meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | 24 | |
| visits | member for | 11 months |
| seen | Oct 17 '12 at 22:11 | |
| stats | profile views | 41 |
Undergraduate Physics Major
|
Aug 28 |
answered | Is it safe to ignore derivatives of velocity w.r.t. position and vice versa? |
|
Aug 28 |
comment |
What tree-level Feynman diagrams are added to QED if magnetic monopoles exist? Correct but you're focusing not he particular electron too much. If you decided to make a copy of the (observable) universe with 1/g (large coupling constant instead of small) then your universe would look just like this one. The only difference is if I took one of the objects you recognized as an electron back to my universe i'd be amazed to find out it's actually an electric monopole. (Ignoring the complications of traveling between hypothetical universes). You are correct about the specifics but what we're really saying is that in the big picture we're blind to the change g->1/g. |
|
Aug 28 |
comment |
Why did Einstein get credit for formulating the theory of special relativity? I just wanted to add some detail about Lorentz in particular. I've read that he actually misinterpreted his own transformations as applying to the Ether (in fact I think he derived them purposely to describe how the ether "reacts" in such a way as to be in accord with experiments (Michelson-Morley?). So Einstein at the very least gets credit for being the first to correctly interpret the equations and do away with the Ether concept. |
|
Aug 28 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Aug 11 |
asked | Charge Analog of the Higgs Boson? |
|
Aug 9 |
comment |
Superspace Uncertainty Principle Thanks for the detailed answer! I only have time to skip it over at the moment so i'll comment if I have further questions about your answer. |
|
Aug 9 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Aug 9 |
accepted | Superspace Uncertainty Principle |
|
Jul 19 |
awarded | Student |
|
Jul 19 |
asked | Superspace Uncertainty Principle |
|
Jun 23 |
comment |
Gauge symmetry description for $\phi^4$? When you say "not actually a symmetry" can you elaborate? Isn't U(1) symmetry of QED "due to" conservation of electric charge? I mean obviously since we're talking about a bundle over space-time the "translations" (phase changes) aren't actual translations but otherwise i'm not sure what you meant by this. |
|
Jun 21 |
comment |
If gravity is a bend in Space-time then what is magnetism? There is a big difference though between the nature of the connections! A connection on real space should probably be pointed out to not be the same as one on a fibre bundle of space + "internal dimensions". Although what you're saying isn't wrong. |
|
Jun 21 |
answered | If gravity is a bend in Space-time then what is magnetism? |
|
Jun 21 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Jun 21 |
comment |
What are electromagnetic fields made of? Yeah photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field. It's also correct that photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field. |
|
Jun 21 |
comment |
What are electromagnetic fields made of? @WIMP Actually I should have said that the Electromagnetic Field is not fundamental either way (it's sort of semantical) because regardless of the dimensionality of the particles the field would have quanta (photons) which may be 0 dimensional objects or 1 dimensional objects a priori. My original comment was making the point that the electromagnetic field would new a manifestation of the string field but I wouldn't say the string field is "more fundamental" since it's not like the electromagnetic field is "made of string fields" it's a particular aspect of the string field. |
|
Jun 21 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Jun 21 |
revised |
Does a interstellar spacecraft traveling at relativistic velocity require continous thrust to maintain velocity? added 525 characters in body |
|
Jun 21 |
comment |
What are electromagnetic fields made of? in that sense it's still in spirit fundamental. It would mean that quantum fields in general are fundamental but the specific particles in the field, although they look distinct, are really just different vibrational modes of the same particle. I mean let me restate it this way. The fact that particles we thought were 0 dimensional are now 1 dimensional doesn't change the "fundementalness" of the fields that the particles were the quanta of. |
|
Jun 21 |
answered | Does a interstellar spacecraft traveling at relativistic velocity require continous thrust to maintain velocity? |
