Recent content by Paul Colby

It's beyond my depth but I saw a recent paper Strings from almost nothing that sounds interesting to me. If this has been discussed previously on this forum I apologize.

I agree. In philosophy any statement X may be argued as well as any statement not X with no acceptable means of determining which, if any[1], is to be preferred. [1] don’t leave out any middles.

Clearly, I can’t. Which is also my point. Neither has anyone else. I’m also not the one employing such a term.

So, dressing the same physics up in a different mathematical framework definitely can have value. However, how is this mathematical formalism more realistic than what one started with? QM things still do QM things.

And, such a tractable problem at that.

Yet, both ##\nu## and ##E## are continuous quantities unless I’ve missed a memo.

This is not what you asked for but looks like a good resource. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3824

One is always free to change gauges. One is not free to violate charge conservation. Beyond that, I have no idea what you’re trying to accomplish.

The EOM you quote conserve charge, ##\partial_\mu J^\mu =0##. You then violate charge conservation with your assumption, ##K^\mu = g(t)J^\mu##. Doesn’t seem surprising things break.

All of physics doesn’t reduce to tunneling. In fact, very little of it does.

Allowed and can happen aren’t the same, right? Just because 5 million in gold bullion could disappear from a vault and reappear in your living room while still conserving energy doesn’t imply this could spontaneously happen. There is more physics involved than the two end states.

So, could we all suddenly quantum tunnel into a black hole or into the center of Jupiter? Yes, but it’s very unlikely. Some things are so unlikely that no is a simpler answer to such questions. The point is, tunneling does no work. Work in this context is the action of a force over some...

There are attractive forces acting between bound particles, right? It takes work (a form of energy) to pull them apart. The act of separating them would give them more energy than they had before. In particle physics spontaneous decays can happen but the total energy of the decay products must...

Tunneling doesn’t (can’t) violate energy conservation. A stable molecule (bound group of atoms) has a lower net energy than the same particles separated into two or more free groups. If this were not the case, the molecule would be unstable and could decay or break apart via tunneling.

Indistinguishable particles in two different states, here and there for example, are still indistinguishable.