I guess this is more of an anthropological post. Is there any pattern to which sign convention people prefer? Or is it just a matter of which you were exposed to first?
neutrino said:Just wondering...isn't +++- more prominent than -+++?
robphy said:(I can't imagine switching sign conventions in [say] optics problems.)
Which is what puzzled me about metric sign switching. Physics guys are often sticklers about convention (& for good reasons, i think). It seems too pervasive given the amount of time its been around & I was curious why.robphy said:(IMHO, it's okay to switch signature conventions in private or among friends. However, for presentations (research or pedagogical), one should stick to one and be consistent.)
Green, Schwartz and Witten use -+++ (or rather -+++++++++ :tongue: ) in their book and that's Green's personal preference too.pervect said:Most of what I've read (in GR) uses the Landau-Lifschitz spacelike convetion, i.e. -+++. I don't read much about string theory, QFT, etc.
AlphaNumeric said:I never used to understand why they didn't just nail down a convention once and for all, but I suppose it's now past the point of no return, since there's so many textbooks and lecture courses using various conventions and plenty of researchers stuck in their ways. Too late to do much about it now which wouldn't just annoy loads of people.
I always thought that -+++ was used by mathists, and +--- by physicistsAlphaNumeric said:Green, Schwartz and Witten use -+++ (or rather -+++++++++ :tongue: ) in their book and that's Green's personal preference too.
do much about it now which wouldn't just annoy loads of people.
Yes, but some physicists don't like the equation p^2=-m^2.lalbatros said:Anyway, physics is invariant with respect to sign conventions!
Especially particle physicists.Meir Achuz said:Yes, but some physicists don't like the equation p^2=-m^2.