| Thread | Last Post | Replies |
|
| This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226) | 28 Feb 2006 18:13 GMT | 7 |
Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week226.html February 23, 2003 This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226) John Baez
|
| wave function in QM and QED | 26 Feb 2006 17:33 GMT | 1 |
Does the wave function move in space? In QM it seems to me that it doesnt. But the EM wave which through the vector-potential can be thought of as a wave function of the photon is moving with c. ????
|
| Attaching conductive cable to orbital object | 24 Feb 2006 19:34 GMT | 6 |
A heavy, lengthy--say 20-30 km long--conductive cable attacjed to an Earth orbiting object (the Shuttle), tests have shown a considerable electric charge being generated as the cable speeds through Earth's electromagnetic field, question is: Would the cable's mass and extension ...
|
| Re: Newton's inverse-square force law from Einsteni's equations | 24 Feb 2006 01:35 GMT | 1 |
John Baez wrote:
> Happy New Year from two former moderators, John and Ted! > > Ted Bunn has just used my simple formulation of Einstein's equation |
| Radiation's equivalence principle | 24 Feb 2006 01:35 GMT | 11 |
Why is that an accelerated charge radiates in a zero-valued gravitational field, whereas a charge in free-fall in a non-zero gravitational field does not? Doesn't this contradict Einstein's Equivalence Principle? Are we in fact already assured, via measurement,
|
| rest mass/relativistic mass question | 24 Feb 2006 01:35 GMT | 11 |
I was thinking about something and got confused so I thought I will post it here and hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can clear the confusion. As a thought experiment, suppose, we are accelerating a proton in a
|
| Radiation reaction for a uniformly accelerated charge | 24 Feb 2006 01:35 GMT | 2 |
Regarding my paper S. Parrott, "Radiation from a uniformly accelerated charge and the equivalence principle", Found. Phys. 32 (2002), 407-440,
|
| 3 time dimensions | 23 Feb 2006 22:37 GMT | 1 |
This may have been discussed earlier. If so, can someone point me to the thread? Else, any comments? http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0510010 "Interpreting quantum mechanics(QM) by classical physics seems like an
|
| Solid State Physics Q about ice melting point | 23 Feb 2006 22:36 GMT | 1 |
In today's New York Times Science Times section -- which you can also read on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html?_r=1&oref=slogin in an article about the unknown reasons for the slipperiness of ice occurs
|
| Curvature by Cartan's method? | 23 Feb 2006 22:36 GMT | 5 |
I have a little problem with Cartan's method for the calculation of the curvature. If I understood right you start by defining your orthonormal frame 1-forms o^a and then use the vanishing of the torsion (the first structure equation)
|
| Nuclear fusion | 22 Feb 2006 23:20 GMT | 9 |
Does anyone, preferably several, theoretical physicists on this forum believe that a Manhattan type project could produce a viable fusion energy producer in the next 10 years?
|
| Looking for a concept | 22 Feb 2006 23:20 GMT | 12 |
Since there are people here interested in the interpretation of measurement in quantum mechanics, I have a question to ask about them. The concept of observer, which is quite absolute/independent in quantum mechanics setting. Carlo Rovelli has tried to introduce a kind of
|
| The Kitchen Sink Mystery | 20 Feb 2006 20:51 GMT | 1 |
Turn on the tap in your kitchen sink and bring the flow of water to a narrow, yet unbroken streamline. Now put your finger into the streamline and look closely at the point where your finger touches the water. You should see standing wave patterns in the water column just
|
| Modular Invariance | 20 Feb 2006 02:46 GMT | 4 |
I am confused about the significance of modular invariance in Conformal Field Theory. What do statements like "a good conformal theory, has to be modular invariant", really mean? I understand that any CFT on the torus has to be modular invariant, to
|
| commutators and translation operators | 19 Feb 2006 15:42 GMT | 5 |
I'm currently working through Julian Schwinger's "Quantum Mechanics" book and there's an exercise I cannot solve. Below q and p are operators with [q,p] = i and q' is a number. -----
|