Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Diff forms, the dangers

  1. May 10, 2003 #1
    When ever we find a new interaction that needs to be described we tend to model it on the most understood interaction, both theoretically and experimentally, namely Electrodynamics. But that has a hidden danger, and one element of that danger is differential forms. They are certainly very nifty in their working, and they make for neat concise equations. So how can they be dangerous?

    First, Electromagnetism, as exemplified by Maxwell's Equations, is scale invariant. This is uaually stated by saying that the Photon has zero rest mass. More correctly, the virtual Photon can have any mass squared from a very high to a very low number, because in any practical apparatus many of the Photon events are virtual. If we build an electrical apparatus that is half or twice the size of another it will probably work just fine.

    It is this very scale invariance that makes it possible to use diff forms to describe electromagnetism, but it is the ONLY interaction that is truly scale invariant. Gravity has a modified scale invariance, so they can be used with caution. But all the other interactions are short range, so we should expect that diff forms can not be applied to them, or if they are they will more likely increase the complexity of our equations because we will have to subtract out all the terms that are scale invariant in our description.

    So my advice is use diff forms with caution and don't be too intranced by their neatness and concisenes. −
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2003 #2
    I don't quite get it. What is scale invariance have to do with differential forms?

    Instanton
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Diff forms, the dangers
  1. Danger of Muons (Replies: 6)

  2. Regulator danger (Replies: 4)

Loading...