Recent content by cosmic dust

Intuitively, I aggree with dipole's opinion. Since you want to describe an elastic collision, adjust the parameters of the sharp function that you chosed, so that the Hamiltonian and the momentum have vanishing Poisson brackets.

I took the wikipedia's definition of Minkowski space: a 4-D real vector space with a symmetric, bilinear, non-degenerate quadratic form with signature (1,3). From this point of view, can a consistent metric induced by that quadratic form? If not, then according to your comment, I will have to...

How "continuity" of a map Τ:M→M, where M is a Minkowski space, can be defined? Obviously I cannot use the "metric" induced by the minkowskian product: x\cdoty = -x^{0}y^{0}+x^{i}y^{i} for the definition of coninuity; it is a misinformer about the proximity of points. Should I use the Euclidean...

So, that would be true if the function: 1\cdot : V→V , 1\cdot:X→1\cdotX is surjective? But this is an extra axiom, more complicated than it's substitute (that is (2)). Better keep (2) as it is... :smile: Thank's for your replies!

Hello, I'd like to make a, probably stupid, question regarding the axioms that define a vetor space. Among them, there are the axioms: λ\cdot(μ\cdotX) = (λμ)\cdotΧ (1) and 1\cdotΧ=Χ (2) for all λ,μ in the field and for all X in the vector space, where 1 is the identity of the...

Would you mind if I decribe you my attempt to find some potentials? As it looks so far, I have managed to find some potentials that represent the fields (where the connection between fields and the potentials is more compicated then the usual one) and also I managed to find the gauge...

Thank's!

What means that a function is an eigen-function of some operator? Doesn't this mean that when you act with that operator on that function, the result will be the original function multiplied by a constant (where this constant is the eigenvalue)? So, try to operate with HQHO on u(q) and see what...

@Vanhess71 I understand that in order to explain the charge quantization, one has to assume the existence of magnetic monopoles. But my concern is not why should there be some magnetic charge. What I want to do is to axiomaticaly accept the existence of magnetic sources (i.e. the existence of a...

Homework Statement This is not actually a homework but a personal work. Here it is: Using the differential forms: F=\tfrac{1}{2!}{{F}_{\mu \nu }}d{{x}^{\mu }}\wedge d{{x}^{\nu }} and J=\tfrac{1}{3!}{{J}^{\mu }}{{\varepsilon }_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }}d{{x}^{\alpha }}\wedge d{{x}^{\beta...

In Newtonian theory it affects EVERYTHING which has the property of "mass". In GR theory it affects EVERYTHING, since it apperars in the equations of motion (geodesic equations). So, yes, according to us so far understanding of gravity, gravity affects everything, reagrdless its space scale.

Why don't you try to express en and et in terms of ex and ey ? Doing that, you can find the total acceleration, a = an + an , in terms of its projections on x and y axis.* e i is the unit vector in the direction of the subscript "i".

Sorry, but I can't acces to the papers at the links. Can I find them somewhere else, for free? And something else: as I deduced from the titles, these papers seemed to refer to the subject at quantum level. If correct, is there somehting in classical level?

I think that if there was such a force, then the definition of "force", i.e. F = \dot{p} woulld be inconsistent, since the magnitude that defines the force (\dot{p}) would be in what we want to define (F) . To me, it looks non-sence to define "something" using terms that invlolve that "something".

Hello! I am trying to construct (if it is possible) a potential formulation of an electromagnetic theory which permits the presence of magnetic sources, using as a starting point the equations referred here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole Although I think that I have make some...