- #36
BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
- 1,622
- 131
I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.arivero said:And for a student, restoration of hbars is also a helpful practice.
I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.arivero said:And for a student, restoration of hbars is also a helpful practice.
There comes a moment in a professor’s life where he is so used to c=1 that he starts using c to represent other things in his relativity lectures …BiGyElLoWhAt said:I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.
Pure evil!Orodruin said:There comes a moment in a professor’s life where he is so used to c=1 that he starts using c to represent other things in his relativity lectures …
That’s probably because second quantization is rarely mentioned in introductory quantum physics classes.BiGyElLoWhAt said:Also, @malawi_glenn , I looked into the "replacing with operators" thing I was rambling about to try to be more precise. Apparently what I'm talking about is called first quantization. That term never got mentioned in my Quantum class, and I only found out what it meant yesterday. Unfortunately.
This is huge, actually. I'm trying to follow through the development pseudo-historically, so Pauli and Dirac original papers are perfect for this. Also the generally relativistic and spinor paper, but especially the Dirac and Pauli papers.robphy said:possibly useful:
For some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.vanhees71 said:Very important is this one:
Perhaps Breit-Wigner distribution, and/or Wigner-Eckart theoremBiGyElLoWhAt said:For some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.
DIrac: https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/island...rge_ms:Dirac,\ Paul,\ 1902\-1984\ \(Creator\)BiGyElLoWhAt said:This is huge, actually. I'm trying to follow through the development pseudo-historically, so Pauli and Dirac original papers are perfect for this. Also the generally relativistic and spinor paper, but especially the Dirac and Pauli papers.
Wigner and Dirac are also brothers-in-law.BiGyElLoWhAt said:For some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.
In the very first term (and in the whole expression), don't indices mu and nu should be on different levels like -1/2 d_\nu g_\mu^a d^\nu g^{\mu a}?Orodruin said:
Yes. There are however some authors that consider it so basic that they state that is obvious and subtextual. I know that Schwartz does this in his QFT book for example (it is explicitly stated in the introduction).kparchevsky said:In the very first term (and in the whole expression), don't indices mu and nu should be on different levels like -1/2 d_\nu g_\mu^a d^\nu g^{\mu a}?