Well the junction conditions do seem to require continuity and differentiability of the g_tt component, but only continuity of g_rr, which is what i expect.
Also, I think I found the problem: in that L2.pdf the normal vector has g_rr in the denominator, but based on the definition in the other...
Okay so I've a better idea now: the requirement is that the induced metric and extrinsic curvature match at the boundary. The induced metric is easy enough to get my head around, but the extrinsic curvature is harder.
I thought i'd lucked out with these notes here...
Hello,
I am curious as to how one appropriately matches an interior and exterior solution in GR, i.e. where the interior corresponds to the field of some finite spherical mass (perfect fluid sphere, for the Schwarzschild interior solution). Specifically, looking at both the Schwarzschild...
Ah yes, good catch on the typo (not really a flying start when trying to advertise manuscript writing skills!)
Just to clarify - despite the fact that my postdocs have been in computational biology, you still think it's possible to get a physics faculty position? I understand your point about...
Ahoy,
I was hoping to illicit advice on returning to physics after a stint in computational biology. I have a PhD in theoretical physics with a good number of physics publications in good journals, but unfortunately lacking in significant citations. At the end of the PhD, for various reasons...
Well you summary seems a simple restatement of the result, which I already grok =P
Additionally, my understanding is it is not systemic to QFT specifically. For instance, one can use the field operator to 'create' a particle 'at position x', why does this not make sense for a photon? Sure...
I don't suppose you can summarize for me? The typesetting on that page makes my eyes bleed and baby jeebus cry =P
Also, to clarify, when most people say photon, do they mean a wave packet or a plane wave? Clearly for the latter, as for any particle even in the Schrodinger case, it is non...
Right, but in principle the Dirac equation can be used to calculate properties of electrons in various fields, despite that it is a full relativistic treatment and formally particle number may not be conserved (Dirac sea etc). My question is more why specifically the fact that a particle is...
Sorry for thread necro, but one quick question regarding the comment:
I'm curious as to the distinction between equations for fields and for wavefunctions (or equivalently, solving for a field or a wavefunction). For instance, the Weyl equation is for massless spin 1/2 particles, so if you...
I am dealing with a particular problem. I have a single set which I cannot assume is normally distributed, even when playing the transformation game. I would like to test whether or not the mean of this set is greater than zero in a way that is not dependent on some underlying distribution which...
Hey gang,
I was wondering if there is a non-parametric version of the single set TTest? I know that often people refer to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, but my understanding is that only tells you about the median, correct? Is there an equivalent that deals strictly with the mean?
Cheers!
What do you mean by 'see' the symmetries, in this case the symmetry is imposed is it not? Do you mean see how to modify the lagrangian to make it invariant under the symmetry?
Yes, I guess what I am asking is does an invariant Lagrangian imply an invariant EoM? If so why not apply the gauge symmetry to the EoM and search for a wavefunction that makes the EoM invariant under the symmetry?
Hey gang,
I'm re-working my way through gauge theory, and I've what may be a silly question.
Promotion of global to local symmetries in order to 'reveal' gauge fields (i.e. local phase invariance + Dirac equation -> EM gauge field) is, as far as i can tell, always done on the Lagrangian...