- #36
- 1,616
- 133
I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.And for a student, restoration of hbars is also a helpful practice.
I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.And for a student, restoration of hbars is also a helpful practice.
There comes a moment in a professor’s life where he is so used to c=1 that he starts using c to represent other things in his relativity lectures …I'm fairly confident in my unit analysis. I've been working with c=1 for a couple years now.
Pure evil!There comes a moment in a professor’s life where he is so used to c=1 that he starts using c to represent other things in his relativity lectures …
That’s probably because second quantization is rarely mentioned in introductory quantum physics classes.Also, @malawi_glenn , I looked into the "replacing with operators" thing I was rambling about to try to be more precise. Apparently what I'm talking about is called first quantization. That term never got mentioned in my Quantum class, and I only found out what it meant yesterday. Unfortunately.
This is huge, actually. I'm trying to follow through the development pseudo-historically, so Pauli and Dirac original papers are perfect for this. Also the generally relativistic and spinor paper, but especially the Dirac and Pauli papers.possibly useful:
For some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.Very important is this one:
Perhaps Breit-Wigner distribution, and/or Wigner-Eckart theoremFor some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.
DIrac: https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/island...rge_ms:Dirac,\ Paul,\ 1902\-1984\ \(Creator\)This is huge, actually. I'm trying to follow through the development pseudo-historically, so Pauli and Dirac original papers are perfect for this. Also the generally relativistic and spinor paper, but especially the Dirac and Pauli papers.
Wigner and Dirac are also brothers-in-law.For some reason the name Wigner seems familiar, but wasn't someone I was immediately aware of. From his wiki, he seems like someone I should probably be more familiar with.
In the very first term (and in the whole expression), don't indices mu and nu should be on different levels like -1/2 d_\nu g_\mu^a d^\nu g^{\mu a}?
Yes. There are however some authors that consider it so basic that they state that is obvious and subtextual. I know that Schwartz does this in his QFT book for example (it is explicitly stated in the introduction).In the very first term (and in the whole expression), don't indices mu and nu should be on different levels like -1/2 d_\nu g_\mu^a d^\nu g^{\mu a}?