Timeline for Does Fabri-Picasso theorem imply non-conservation of charge?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2020 at 22:09 | comment | added | SRS | The question is whether SSB implies charge nonconservation (yes or no) and whether FP theorem is the correct way to address/understand this. I don't see what is the confusion. @ACuriousMind | |
| Apr 4, 2020 at 22:04 | history | edited | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 38 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2020 at 22:01 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 231 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2020 at 21:58 | comment | added | SRS | Yes. It is a constant. physics.stackexchange.com/q/228494 see here the expression in David Bar Moshe's answer. @ACuriousMind | |
| Apr 4, 2020 at 21:51 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | You didn't really fix the typo fqq pointed out - the integrand of your r.h.s. is - as written - a constant, not a function of $x$ you could meaningfully integrate over all of space. It is still not clear to me what exactly you want to know here. Your Q1 seems to be nitpicking other people's language rather than asking a question about physics, and your Q2 seems similarily a play on words: What is the relevant difference between the two options you offer there? | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 17:24 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; edited title
|
| Apr 3, 2020 at 17:24 | comment | added | SRS | Thanks. The comma is a typo. Translational invariance of the vacuum is used to eliminate the x dependence of $j_0$. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 17:22 | comment | added | fqq | It does not. I didn't post an answer, but a comment pointing out that there is something wrong with the expression, I guess it should be $j_0(x)Q$, and is the comma supposed to be there? | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 17:18 | comment | added | SRS | @fqq ?? How does that answer my questions? In particular, question 2? | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 17:15 | comment | added | fqq | As written, the integrand is not a function of $\bf{x}$. | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 16:40 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 353 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2020 at 16:27 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 698 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2020 at 16:22 | history | edited | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 698 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2020 at 16:22 | answer | added | mike stone | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 16:18 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | See physics.stackexchange.com/q/228494/50583 | |
| Apr 3, 2020 at 15:41 | history | asked | SRS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |