Recent content by damnedcat

Something like that. He was saying that certain property can only occur for space times of more than 3 spatial dimensions. Since for instance the einstein eqn for vacuum in 1,2 and 3 dimensions have the number of field equations being less than or equal to the number of components of the Riemann...

no. of field equations and components or Riemann tensor?? Someone was trying to explain to me about curvature in space. From what I got from what they were saying doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure I understand what the number of components, N, of R\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta when compared...

can the euclidean distance metric u used above describe minkowski space? wouldn't that imply diag(1,1,1,1) as opposed to diag(-1,1,1,1)?? Not sure if I am thinking about it right. I'm thinking not based on my question above.

Let me see if i get what ur saying. So there are 2 types/classes of metrics involved in my question: a topological metric d(x,y) and a Riemannian/Pseudo-Riemannian metric. The Riemannian metric generates the distance function metric d(x,y). However a pseudo riemannian metric cannot generate such...

I guess my question is is the mikowski metric really a metric since it violates: d(x,y)=0 iff x=y triangle inequality

is minkowski space a metric space. As best as i can remember a metric space is a set with a metric that defines the open sets. With this intuition is Minkowski space a metric space. I mean i think it should be, but according to one of the requirements for a metric: d(x,y)=0 iff x=y triangle...

the only way i can think of is that u have to assume the boundary condition that V=0 at infinity. but then that seems forced because when evaluating the similar case for a sphere u get a 1/r term and when u plug in infinity there it goes to zero (see griffiths 3rd ed example 2.6). can anyone...

when I first learned about homeomorphic sets, I was given the example of a doughnut and a coffee cup as being homeomorphic since they could be continuously deformed into each other. fair enough. Recently I heard another such example being given about diffeomorphisms: "Take a rubber cube...

Just to follow up, Schutz adeuately explained the geometric concept of a 1 form which I think Goldstein was trying to convey. Thanks to Rasalhague & Altabeh for recommending it.

thanks, i got my hand on a copy of the book and I'm checking it out. will let you know if i have any questions

And here I was thinking it was only me.

thanks for the suggestions guys, I'm checking out some of your recommendations, unfortunately I'm snowed in so no library till probably monday. I cheecked out the links you sent and this seems along the lines of what Goldstein was talking about, unfortunately the preview doesn't contain...

I am currently reading the special relativity section in Goldstein's Classical, and there is an optional section on 1-Forms and tensors. However i am having a lot of trouble understanding the geometric interpretation of a 1-form. Here is what I do understand: You take a regular vector...

As simple as that question sounds it is a really good question that I bet many people students can't really answer. I'm def not an expert at QM but i'll venture a try to explain without as little math as possible as best as I understand it. The wavefunction is a statistical state function from...