Timeline for The Role of Active and Passive Diffeomorphism Invariance in GR
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 at 14:40 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 23:09 | answer | added | user186567 | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 3, 2015 at 2:23 | answer | added | ben | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 21, 2013 at 17:53 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 17, 2013 at 10:38 | answer | added | twistor59 | timeline score: 29 | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 12:10 | comment | added | MBN | I don't think that the two quotes contradict each other. Wald is not talking about diffeomorphism invariance, just about how diffeomorphisms look locally in coordinates. For the theory to be invariant under passive diff.s means to be well defined, to be invariant under active diff.'s is something much more. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 8:50 | comment | added | Trimok | A coordinate-free perspective is certainly interesting from a fundamental point of view (a "intrinsic" reality not depending on observers), so it would be interesting to search relations about different intrinsic realities (in this case, active diffeomorphisms), but, practically, which interesting calculus are we able to do in a coordinate-free formalism ? Unfortunately, it seems that the use of a coordinate formalism is mandatory, so, I agree with Wald's point of view. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 4:55 | comment | added | joshphysics | Gosh, you're a 6th year grad student, and you think you've got it all figured out: you understand GR, active transformations, and passive transformations, and then someone's seemingly innocuous physics.SE question shatters your dreams. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 3:15 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/376906756871692288 | ||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 3:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 3:37 | |||||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 2:48 | history | asked | user23686 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |