Recent content by TriTertButoxy

I have Mueller-Kirsten's book. It is awesome; but they only go as far as setting up the machinery. Now I need to study MSSM and other non-perturbative physics. This is where Martin's primer comes in.

NEVER MIND; Martin has provided the readers with a way to easily convert it: Grab the source from the ArXiV, and change the following line in his tex file: \def\signofmetric{1}

Hi all, S. Martin's Supersymmetry primer (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356) is a wonderful source from which to learn SUSY. But, what really causes me (and others around me) huge consternation is Martin's use of mostly plus metric, when particle physicists use the mostly minus metric...

After getting a PhD in high energy theoretical physics at one institution, could you apply and go to another institution (perhaps with higher prestige) for a second PhD in theoretical physics? Or is this technically disallowed? I suppose this will infuriate your first PhD advisor, and would...

Since the angular momentum vector \mathbf{J} is just a 3-vector, it transforms non-covariantly under Lorentz transformations -- more specifically, boosts generated by \mathbf{K}. Indeed, the commutator reads [J_i,\,K_j]=i\epsilon_{ijk}J_k. Under a finite boost, I find the angular momentum...

Perhaps you want to try FORM?

Ok, I think I found the answer; The answer has something to do with Bell's polynomials, and exponential formula. Thanks anyway :-)

Hi, I'm doing a physics calculation, and along the way, I've run up against a curious math problem. I'm sure this is a rather classic problem in mathematics, but I'm just not acquainted with the subject enough to answer it, or even look it up, so hopefully someone can point me in the right...

I don't buy that argument even in the slightest. If I had used the standard parameterization of the fields, using \phi and \phi^\dagger, the Lagrangian would read...

This can't be true without qualifiers. In quantum electrodynamics, the (covariant) Lorentz gauge fixing condition is used by particle physicists. By fixing the gauge using that gauge condition doesn't leave the vector field with 3 physical degrees of freedom. There are still only two...

Something is totally not making sense. In a complex scalar field theory, I have two field degrees of freedom, which I parametrize in polar field coordinates: \phi = \rho e^{i\theta}/\sqrt{2}, where \rho and \theta are real-valued; and its Lagrangian takes the form: \mathcal{L} =...

If you solve the angular part of the Schrödinger equation in the Coulomb potential (or for any spherically symmetric potential), you'll find that in order to satisfy boundary conditions at \theta=0 and \theta=\pi and \phi=0 and \phi=2\pi, you need to have "integer orbitals" (in your language).

This is awesome! Just what I have been looking for. But in their papers they make references to "anti-commuting c-numbers" which don't make conceptual sense. What do they mean by that? Usually "c-number" means "commuting number"; so is "c" taken to mean "complex" instead of "commuting" in...

Also, I don't know how to interpret your sketch; can you tell me what's on that graph? I'd love to know :)

Oh dear... I would love to know the answer to this one. The best answer I have been given to date is: think of all the operators that transforms in the same way as the product of two currents, and those will be the ones appearing in the expansion. It would be so awesome if someone could give a...