Recent content by ddd123

What do you think are the most striking experimental consequences?

Principle of Least Action.

I said "can follow from". But a preferred frame for the whole Universe seems just about the most anthropocentric idea I can think of pertaining to physics. So there's coherence in the deduction. I'm completely missing this, what do you mean?

We started from trying to understand our a priori assumptions better and ended up imposing those a priori assumptions on reality - I missed that gap. In fact, my idea was kind of the opposite: trying to see that our a priori assumptions are biased in an anthropocentric way, and how (if) it's...

Oh, yes, but what I meant to say there was that the categories, for Kant, cannot be derived from something else, since you would need the categories themselves to do it. Their origin thus belongs solely to the noumenon (that is, the inaccessible real outside our head we were talking about...

Are you suggesting that, since our maths is probably that way because of how our brain works, then linearization is easier (or non-linearity harder) also because it's so apt when thinking in terms of APR? That may also be why Kant's categories are themselves inexplicable, because we can't...

No, you have it all wrong, I don't expect anything from you because I'm not a university. Posting a conceptual question is accepted in the quantum section of physics forums, but if you're going to keep on like this you should be posting here instead...

There's not only the degeneracy pressure as an example of PEP manifesting as a force. There's also the exchange interaction. Oh, never mind, it's already been said.

Then work on why you couldn't figure it out even if it was your best. You may need a change in method rather than effort. But anyway, you read less than 25 pages and you already missed the normalization of creation and annihilation operators which was clearly stated. It's not like you lost a...

If I understand what you meant, then it's the same I guess, but you should only ask if you're stuck somewhere. These problems are easy to figure out, we aren't being paid as tutors so you should only ask a question when you've tried everything first. Page 22, bottom.

Here is an attempt in such a direction, using APP as a "guide": https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3492.pdf

I don't agree with all of the above, for example we use tangent planes because it's mathematically easier than to mess with nonlinear behavior. In special relativity we use Lorentz transforms directly. But the APR there fits in as the receiver of the past light cone information and not a whole...

No. Your questions, except for the first that was legitimate, are all solved by trivial plugging in. I don't know why you keep getting stuck at that level. It's going to get a lot harder than this, you know.

Yes.

It's not confusing... You just have to calmly sit down and do the algebra. You seem like in a rush (or, no offense, lazy to do the algebra). The definition it talks about is of course 2.49: ##\tilde{p}^\dagger_k=\frac {1} {\sqrt{N}}\sum_j p^\dagger_j e^{i k j a}=\frac {1} {\sqrt{N}}\sum_j p_j...