Timeline for Yang-Mills instanton
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 9, 2013 at 1:23 | history | suggested | Raj | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
refined answer
|
| May 9, 2013 at 0:41 | answer | added | Siva | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 8, 2013 at 21:43 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Hi @Raj. If you would like to merge your two accounts, see physics.stackexchange.com/help/user-merge | |
| May 8, 2013 at 21:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 9, 2013 at 1:23 | |||||
| May 8, 2013 at 21:04 | comment | added | Raj | Sorry if posting like answer. I forgot to register. My question is: how does the potential $A^\mu$ look like if SU(3) or SU(N) is considered? Wikipedia only shows for SU(2). | |
| May 8, 2013 at 20:47 | history | edited | Dilaton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I tried to slightly reword the question to more focus on the physics you are interested in. I think if you get an answer it will most probably contain references for further information too. If it is not helpul and you dont like it, you can just roll it back to the previous version.
|
| May 8, 2013 at 20:41 | comment | added | Dilaton | @Qmechanic I'll try a rewording which can despense with the book tag I think. If I am not mistaken (?) this seems not too difficult to me (?). | |
| May 8, 2013 at 20:28 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | I think the upvotes are because people would genuinely like to hear about instantons themselves (as opposed to just be handed a list of references and links). On that note, @Raj, it would be good if you (or somebody else?) could reformulate your question to ask an actual physics question (as opposed to just asking for references). | |
| May 8, 2013 at 19:51 | comment | added | Dilaton | @Qmechanic every question having the book tag gets killed these days here. Putting this on a question is like dishing out the sentence of dead for the question. Even if you just retag such that the right people can find the question and leave it otherwise alone, others will kill it anyway even though a potential wise answerer could maybe outline the explanation of the physics question I can see in this post in a direct answer and hint to a reference (or book or what ever) just for further information and details... :-( | |
| May 8, 2013 at 19:12 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | @Dilaton: Please take a moment to read the tag description for 'book' tags and 'ref.-req.' tags. It is irrelevant that OP casually uses the word 'ref'. Also please don't use tags themselves as arguments for or against in any closure/re-open discussion. They are in principle innocent bystanders. If a question is good enough to stay open/be re-opened, it should be so, independently of what tags are currently used. Wrong tagging just makes it more difficult to find questions for everyone. | |
| May 8, 2013 at 18:50 | comment | added | Dilaton | @Qmechanic why did you put a book tag on this? I rather thought he is looking for a reference and that the answer will rather be found in a paper than in a textbook ...? Certainly the question will be killed now with this tag even though it has 5 upvotes and 2 stars which means that many people would be interested in seing an answer here :-/ | |
| May 8, 2013 at 17:06 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/332179823176867840 | ||
| May 8, 2013 at 15:14 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 8, 2013 at 14:08 | comment | added | twistor59 | Wikipedia tells you how to do it. | |
| May 8, 2013 at 13:20 | review | First posts | |||
| May 8, 2013 at 14:16 | |||||
| May 8, 2013 at 13:02 | history | asked | Raj | CC BY-SA 3.0 |