The discussion revolves around clarifying the distinction between labels and dynamical variables in various contexts, such as fluid theory and quantum mechanics. It highlights that in fluid dynamics, Eulerian coordinates serve as labels while Lagrangian coordinates represent dynamical variables. In quantum mechanics, the position observable is a dynamical variable, whereas in quantum field theory, spatial coordinates are merely labels. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of having a coordinate system, which functions as labels, to define a position as a dynamical variable. Overall, the participants seek a clearer understanding of how these concepts interrelate.
#1
kof9595995
676
2
I think I understand this, but when I tried to explain it to a friend I couldn't phrase it in a nice and clear way. How would you guys explain it to others?
I don't understand what you even mean. You need more context I think.
#3
kof9595995
676
2
Like in fluid theory, Eulerian coordinate is (sort of?) labels and Lagrangian coordinate is dynamical variables?
Or in old quantum mechanics, when treating EM interation with particle, we write the field as A(\hat {x}), where \hat {x} denote the position observable of the particle(so it's a dynamical varible), whereas in QFT we write the field as \hat{A}(x) where x is just a spatial coordinate(a label),as said in http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7573.pdf : In quantum field theory, x is a label, not a dynamical variable. The x appearing in ϕ(t, x) corresponds to the label a in qa(t) in quantum mechanics. ...
#4
kof9595995
676
2
Emm, it's a bit hard to even express my question clearly, but I'll give it a try: say position x, in order to specify a partcle's postion, which is a dynamical variable(DM for short), we must have a coordinate system, which has all possible values of x, and this coordinate system works like labels, so is it correct to say in order to define a position as a DM it's inevitable to define position labels first? Or is DM is a "subconcept" of coordinate labels?...
I realize my question is ambiguious, please bear with me...
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?