What Makes Mass Essential in Understanding Physics?

[cmc]

Look for instance in sheres intro do ChPT lecture notes, there are much longer derivations there then you will find in any book on ChPT on the market.

Take alook at ay book ny Walter Grenier and you'll see good math in a physics book.
In hig schol and college, math and physics texts have good derivations of subject matter. Articles are more word than derivation - probably because journalists and CEOs are running them.

 

[cmc]

why not try to derive it four yourself or mail the authors?

One could not find the calcluations for QED processes in the 40-50's in ordinary textbooks.. that was too complicated to be publised.

The calculations in lattice qcd takes place on huge computers which have to be running for a loooong time, the lattice qcd is basically just to discretize space time and solve the QCD equations, so each iteration is "simple" but the total calculation is very intricated.


From your precious pdf:

"And, why is the wave function for the Dirac equation expressed in iso-spin space, rather than real
space, like Maxwell's equations are?"

is wrong, dirac equation is in space-time, the spin 1/2 arises naturally since the Lorentz Group is isomorpic to SU(2)xSU(2)...

To me, it just seems that you are not willing to study and find things on your own, even though I showed you a code for calculating the mass of the proton, you would not understand it if you didn't know about Lattice QCD, so why beeing a troublemaker?


Also you are confused on "mathematics" and "calculations"...

The wavefunction is in isospin space.

 

[cmc]

The wavefunction is in isospin space.

Didn't I start out with request for citations of calculations examples so I could calculate some others for myself?

 

[cmc]

1) QCD IS simple from a symmetry perspective, it is just the 3 dimensional (in field space) analogy to QED, the equations maybe quite complicated, but the REAL physics - the symmetry is simple.

2) QCD makes perfect match with experiemts

Your concern is that "theory is too difficult", but that is subjective, for me QCD is as simple as Newtonian gravity.

QCD is SU(3) not SU(2)... you want to have your theory local in space-times to preserve causality, then you postulate the existence of 3 quantum numbers called "colour" and derive the properties of such quantum field theory just as you do for QED (where you only have one number - the electric charge, i.e a local U(1)) and compare with experiment

I think more money should be spend on getting people - like you - to understand theory...

I thought it was against the rules to attack or insult other posters.
Anyway. To the casual observer the qcd lagrangian is not simple compare to classical gravity or electromagnetism - taught in hig hool and te ist years of colege - not subjective. Even the wave equations of general relativity are elementary compared to the qcd lagrangian.
And look publication up in any legal dictionary.

 

[cmc]

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/9807028" - or try the search function with introduction, review etc. in arxiv / hep-lat

Thanks. This looks useful.

 

[tom.stoer]

It would be helpful to see this wave function here ...

 

[humanino]

Take alook at ay book ny Walter Grenier and you'll see good math in a physics book.

Greiner's book on QCD has an entire chapter number 7 on lattice QCD. It includes a discussion of the differences between the string tension and the Polyakov loop. This is detailed enough to provide a sufficient (not proven necessary) mechanism for proton mass and confinement. When you claim

none with binding energy calculations.

it seems you have not understood Greiner's book.

 

[ansgar]

I thought it was against the rules to attack or insult other posters.
Anyway. To the casual observer the qcd lagrangian is not simple compare to classical gravity or electromagnetism - taught in hig hool and te ist years of colege - not subjective. Even the wave equations of general relativity are elementary compared to the qcd lagrangian.
And look publication up in any legal dictionary.

of course it is subjevtive, try to derive the einstein equations for GR to a kid in elementary school...

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

 

[cmc]

of course it is subjevtive, try to derive the einstein equations for GR to a kid in elementary school...

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

I have a master's degree in mathematics. Not quite a layman.
In the law there is a concept of "a reasonable man" standard.
They don't go to the level of a "child's understanding" for proof by preponderence or beyond reasonable doubt.
I guess I'll leave the "subjectiveness" question there.

I don't defend the relativistic wave equations at the site I quoted. The mathematics is correct. But don't take my word for it. Find mathematical error in it, and point it out. Whether or not it corresponds to any physical reality is for experiental evidence to establish.
At least qcd has been given a chance to confront experiment.

 

[Hoku]

again, why should we bother about "laymans" understanding?

I don't mean to interrupt a perfectly productive argument but I can't let this one go. I am a layman and I'm happy to give you some very good reasons why "you" should bother.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

I'm 37 now and the idea of going back to school in the future is not out of the question. Even if I never could make it back, I have a 3-year old daughter. The information, in laymans terms, that I learn here can easily be passed on to her AND her friends that reach out to me. This means I have the power to instill a passion for science in these children. When any child asks me, "why should I care?" about math, science, whatever, I can give them reasons that inspire them to go further - because kind people in PF reached out to me.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid". In fact, some layman have what it takes in the raw intelligence and creativity department to help solve some important problems. Similarly, just because you've earned a degree doesn't mean you have the raw intelligence or creativity to move anything forward. It just means you were able to memorize some things. How many "non-layman" graduate with a C average? Unfortunately, many. This is pretty sad.

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place. There are only two points that layman have trouble with; math and vocabulary. Fortunately, these don't have to be a problem. Science vocabulary is generally big words that describe ultimately simple concepts. If you can't find smaller words to "paraphrase" a vocabulary word, then you should start excercising that portion of your brain. Math describes physical processes. They are *proofs*. Laymen don't need to understand these proofs, they just need to understand what the proofs are describing. Why bother in this case? Because it pushes you to make new connections and solidify your own understanding. Wanna test how well you understand something? Explain it to a layman.

I'll leave it at that. Just becaue a person is "lay" doesn't mean they aren't influential. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are. Please open your mind and your heart just a little more...

 

[cmc]

I just asked for some citations to some qcd mass calculations, so I could make some of my own in a similar situation - more inexpensive than the texts on amazon or stanford bookstore. Comparing to experimental evidence is the only proof everyone will accept. More to the point, that I will for my problem. I didn't expect the barrage of bile I've received.

 

[ansgar]

I just asked for some citations to some qcd mass calculations, so I could make some of my own in a similar situation - more inexpensive than the texts on amazon or stanford bookstore. Comparing to experimental evidence is the only proof everyone will accept. More to the point, that I will for my problem. I didn't expect the barrage of bile I've received.

as I have said, the calculations are coded in a certain programming language, one implements the equations from Lattice QCD and compute them using large computers. If you want to have such program to go through it yourself then you have to ask the authors of such programs. Otherwise, all the derivations and how one writes the code is written in textbooks.


The reason for the side step was your attitude I think.

 

[ansgar]

You have misinterpreted me

I said that the formalism (math) of the physical theories should not be adjusted so that laymans can understand it.

However, the physical CONSEQUENCES - phenomenology - one should as a scientist pursue to formulate it in such a way that it can be found appealing and exciting for persons without knowledge of math. I.e popular science.
So this is wath you wrote futher down in your post, and that I have never objected.

One should NEVER claim that "the math in this theory is too complicated for laymen to understand, let's find another theory".

I don't mean to interrupt a perfectly productive argument but I can't let this one go. I am a layman and I'm happy to give you some very good reasons why "you" should bother.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

I'm 37 now and the idea of going back to school in the future is not out of the question. Even if I never could make it back, I have a 3-year old daughter. The information, in laymans terms, that I learn here can easily be passed on to her AND her friends that reach out to me. This means I have the power to instill a passion for science in these children. When any child asks me, "why should I care?" about math, science, whatever, I can give them reasons that inspire them to go further - because kind people in PF reached out to me.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid". In fact, some layman have what it takes in the raw intelligence and creativity department to help solve some important problems. Similarly, just because you've earned a degree doesn't mean you have the raw intelligence or creativity to move anything forward. It just means you were able to memorize some things. How many "non-layman" graduate with a C average? Unfortunately, many. This is pretty sad.

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place. There are only two points that layman have trouble with; math and vocabulary. Fortunately, these don't have to be a problem. Science vocabulary is generally big words that describe ultimately simple concepts. If you can't find smaller words to "paraphrase" a vocabulary word, then you should start excercising that portion of your brain. Math describes physical processes. They are *proofs*. Laymen don't need to understand these proofs, they just need to understand what the proofs are describing. Why bother in this case? Because it pushes you to make new connections and solidify your own understanding. Wanna test how well you understand something? Explain it to a layman.

I'll leave it at that. Just becaue a person is "lay" doesn't mean they aren't influential. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are. Please open your mind and your heart just a little more...

 

[humanino]

3) If you can't describe something you've learned in layman's terms then chances are you don't understand it all that well in the first place.

This I very much agree with.

2) Just because you're a layman doesn't mean you're "stupid".

Sure. But that is irrelevant.

1) In every layman lies the potential for a future scientist. If you can successfully reach out to an interested layman you are increasing the likelyhood that they will go deeper into the subject, possible ending up back in school to earn graduate degrees because kind people reached out to them and fueled their passion.

This is quite against my personal experience. I did not choose physics, Physics chose me. Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it, to which their life is devoted to. I learned very little, maybe nothing, from texts aimed at "laymen". I only learn from equations written for people who want to understand by themselves.

 

[ansgar]

This is quite against my personal experience. I did not choose physics, Physics chose me. Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it, to which their life is devoted to. I learned very little, maybe nothing, from texts aimed at "laymen". I only learn from equations written for people who want to understand by themselves.

Well the same applies to me, it was not primarily the popular science books and articles I read that made me go into science and Physics - it was that already at an early stage in my life could understand math and physics - I was the best student in the natural science classes and math in my class - and that was motivating for me! And that was the reason for WHY i started to pursue popular science books, that I know that "science is my thing"

So maybe I should blaim the popular science books for why I am into particle physics, but not into science in general.

 

[cmc]

Greiner's book on QCD has an entire chapter number 7 on lattice QCD. It includes a discussion of the differences between the string tension and the Polyakov loop. This is detailed enough to provide a sufficient (not proven necessary) mechanism for proton mass and confinement. When you claimit seems you have not understood Greiner's book.

I had WG's qcd, relativistic wave equations, & quantum mechanics books until a recent move and the post office lost some of my boxes. I guess I'll need to get some of them again, or maybe copy some pages at stanford library. (I don't have it memorized)
Thanks for directing me back to chapter 7.

 

[Hoku]

ansgar, I understand your perspective and I agree with you. It's nice to know that I simply misunderstood your quote, although I'm sure you can see how easy it was to do.

Sure. But that is irrelevant.

The relevance of my point is twofold: First, intelligent layman can still be of value to those with degrees by offering unique insights. Second, even if those who help laymen don't get any such value, the knowledge that laymen obtain can still be applied as insights that make meaningful impacts elsewhere. So, saying, "why bother about a laymans understanding" is just as much saying, "laymen have no ultimate value, are stupid and not worth wasting time on". I'm saying that intelligent laymen exist and, if they're interested, they ARE worth the time.

Physics would be better off if it only had people truly passionate about it[...]

I completely agree here. This was part of my point. There are people that have degrees in physics that did it for reasons other than a passion. They make good "minions" but are unlikely to drive the progress of science. I think your point here is that, if someone hasn't had a passion for physics since the age of 16, then they will never develope it. This I have to disagree with.

Every person is different. Every life goes in different directions, discovering different passions at different times and for different reasons. You find no value in layman books, I find tremendous value in them. Science and math classes can be very dry and boring for me. It wasn't until I entered college at 23 that I was able to enjoy them (I went for 2 years then had to abandon it). If not for the layman books, I might never have taken science in college and I would never have known what I was missing. My nature is more philosophical. I am more interested by the questions left to answer than the I am the answers that there is nothing to left to question. It wasn't until I encountered layman books that I discovered the fascination to be found in science. Layman books jump to the heart of the philosophical questions that early, routine science classes miss. THIS is what sparks my passion and why I was a late bloomer for my interest in science.

Life takes us all down different paths, but that doesn't mean we won't end up at the same destination. One path is not better than another. In fact, the more different paths we can take to a similar destination, the more insights we have to pool in making discoveries. Viva la difference!

 

[ansgar]

again, you misinterpreted me, you took the quote from it's context.

ansgar, I understand your perspective and I agree with you. It's nice to know that I simply misunderstood your quote, although I'm sure you can see how easy it was to do.


The relevance of my point is twofold: First, intelligent layman can still be of value to those with degrees by offering unique insights. Second, even if those who help laymen don't get any such value, the knowledge that laymen obtain can still be applied as insights that make meaningful impacts elsewhere. So, saying, "why bother about a laymans understanding" is just as much saying, "laymen have no ultimate value, are stupid and not worth wasting time on". I'm saying that intelligent laymen exist and, if they're interested, they ARE worth the time. I completely agree here. This was part of my point. There are people that have degrees in physics that did it for reasons other than a passion. They make good "minions" but are unlikely to drive the progress of science. I think your point here is that, if someone hasn't had a passion for physics since the age of 16, then they will never develope it. This I have to disagree with.

Every person is different. Every life goes in different directions, discovering different passions at different times and for different reasons. You find no value in layman books, I find tremendous value in them. Science and math classes can be very dry and boring for me. It wasn't until I entered college at 23 that I was able to enjoy them (I went for 2 years then had to abandon it). If not for the layman books, I might never have taken science in college and I would never have known what I was missing. My nature is more philosophical. I am more interested by the questions left to answer than the I am the answers that there is nothing to left to question. It wasn't until I encountered layman books that I discovered the fascination to be found in science. Layman books jump to the heart of the philosophical questions that early, routine science classes miss. THIS is what sparks my passion and why I was a late bloomer for my interest in science.

Life takes us all down different paths, but that doesn't mean we won't end up at the same destination. One path is not better than another. In fact, the more different paths we can take to a similar destination, the more insights we have to pool in making discoveries. Viva la difference!

 

[Hoku]

again, you misinterpreted me, you took the quote from it's context.

Hmm... I have to say this post has me most perplexed. The best I can think is that you thought I was quoting you when I was actually quoting Humanino?? I think that must be what happened. At any rate, I'm off to bed now.

 

[qsa]

What is mass is linked to what is charge. What is energy? Can you link all three in a unified concept. If you did, you got the answer. Wilczek's Grid is really a good idea. My own idea is a Grid.

check post #240

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2665832#post2665832

 

[humanino]

I think your point here is that, if someone hasn't had a passion for physics since the age of 16, then they will never develope it. This I have to disagree with.

Every person is different. Every life goes in different directions, discovering different passions at different times and for different reasons. You find no value in layman books, I find tremendous value in them. Science and math classes can be very dry and boring for me. It wasn't until I entered college at 23 that I was able to enjoy them (I went for 2 years then had to abandon it). If not for the layman books, I might never have taken science in college and I would never have known what I was missing.

Thanks for clarifying. Yours is an experience quite different from mine, which I have never witnessed. One should mention against myself the example of Ed Witten, who seem to have come to physics after quite some twists and turns, and undoubtedly contributed enormously. Yet again, I am unsure whether "layman books" played any role in that story.

Also, I do appreciate "layman books" every now and then, and I do think they are important. I am simply unsure they can trigger genuine passion, the sort of which people devote their life to.