Lost in Symmetry and Super Symmetry

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Truthseeker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lost Symmetry
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
4 replies · 4K views
1Truthseeker
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Not getting symmetry at all. I keep reading over and looking for various materials on the subject, but I still can not seem to fully grasp it. Could someone explain what symmetry means in quantum mechanics in a way that a new learner can grasp?

This question also applies to super-symmetry.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That subject isn't very easy, but this post might be useful. It could at least help you understand what a symmetry is. Chapter 2 of Weinberg's QFT book is also a pretty good place to learn about symmetries.
 
Fredrik said:
That subject isn't very easy, but this post might be useful. It could at least help you understand what a symmetry is. Chapter 2 of Weinberg's QFT book is also a pretty good place to learn about symmetries.

Thanks a ton!
 
1Truthseeker said:
Not getting symmetry at all. I keep reading over and looking for various materials on the subject, but I still can not seem to fully grasp it. Could someone explain what symmetry means in quantum mechanics in a way that a new learner can grasp?

This question also applies to super-symmetry.

Thanks!

You need to understand what symmetry means in classical physics first. Try to read post #10 in
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=145080

then go on and read the other posts in that thread.

regards

sam
 
After doing some reading, I have found what it essentially means. In a nutshell it means that the mathematical expressions of QM are "precise" to the definition of the phenomenon, unlike classical symmetry, which are approximations.

My question now becomes, what is the reasoning that the the QM equations are symmetrical to nature, apart from statistical proof from experiments? Isn't it going a bit far to say that these equations are 100% exact to nature? This would necessitate infinite precision.

I ask this from a mathematical standpoint, not an ontological one.