Thanks a lot! That's information I have been looking for. I don't have the knowledge to understand the details. The little drawback of this publication is that it says "new AI analysis method". I work in AI. "AI analysis" usually stands for "obscured BS that was invented to confirm what I want"...
Could you provide a reference which explains how the fine-structure constant of distant galaxies can be measured with this precision through data from telescopes?
I do assume they are the same. But is the resolution good enough to detect say 0.1% change in the fine-structure constant? I'm looking for a scientific answer. Someone could have stated the bound on the fine-structure constant derived from galactic light.
Actually, letting physical constants vary is not a new law of physics. It's using the same laws, but for changing constants. The mass of the electron was measured on Earth and it is not determined by laws. The question is whether the mass of the electron can be measured in other galaxies through...
I've learned that some cosmological observations do not match with theoretical predictions leading to the hypothesis of dark matter or dark energy.
Do you know references which discuss if instead the explanation could be that physical constants slowly vary in space? This seems conceptually...
I'm thinking if only timelike steps are needed, maybe there is a way to write the math differently, but never get infinitesimal distances of "different signs". This also mean that other theory could drop the concept of Minkowski space and its vectors.
Equations of motion use infinitesimal steps and these equation are all that really matters. And since for the evolution only timelike steps (influences) matter, only timelike infinitesimal steps are needed. And if equations of motion are handled with pure timelike steps, maybe there is a way to...
It's not related to a particular calculation. I'm thinking if there are alternative theories which have no concept of spacelike separation, because for equations of motion you don't seem to need them. It's a bit vague, I know.
From what I understand only the past and future timelike separated events ever matter for me as an observer.
Does that mean there could be a theory where a thing like spacelike separated events does not exist? I mean they never matter for any prediction anyway?
Ok, Thanks! I'm only starting with QFT and I assume that the math has been studied a lot. So probably it is not possible to use Lagrangian formalism alone to construct the correct dynamics of whatever objects you need. I just have no idea how to find a source that mathematically discusses where...
You construct the commutations such that you still get the same results for QFT. It may be more complex than just guessing [q,p], but the question is if there is any way at all to use operators in the Lagrangian and define commutations (the algebra) such that you get identical results, but skip...
Hmm, in my question I rather ask if you can "put hats" before doing any conjugate momenta. In fact, never doing conjugate momenta at all and no Hamiltonian either. Just - if mathematically possible - "put hats" on the Lagrangian and do Euler-Lagrange equations only, to get all results for the...
I've learned that in canonical quantization you take a Lagrangian, transform to a Hamiltonian and then "put the hat on" the fields (make them an operator). Then you can derive the equations of motion of the Hamiltonian.
What is the reason that you cannot already put hats in the QFT Lagrangian...
Thanks a lot. I'll see if I can make it. It's rather a hobby and my actual job is different. It's tough to find enough time/motivation - not sure how anyone can know all the terms I read.
How can I imagine that you "try" to derive the identities? I imagine there are a set of algebraic rules and...