The physical meaning of a symmetry

  • Thread starter Thread starter Planck const
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical Symmetry
Planck const
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I know that the physical meaning of SU3 and SU2 - you can change the places of the quarks or/and leptons and you will get the same results.

What is the physical meaning of U1, and O3,1 (Lorentz group if I am not wrong)?

I know U1 is connect with the Polarization of the light.

Thanks very much to the people who will answer... (sorry about my bad english)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems many of the laws of physics originate in symmetries.

You might find Nother's Theorem of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nöther's_theorem

where different symmetries are shown to underly different conservation "laws".
 
U(1) is isomorphic to SO(2), the 2D rotation group.

The connection with the polarization of light is that the polarization of massless fields in n space-time dimensions lives in the (n-2) transverse dimensions, in this case, 2. So the transverse-dimension rotation group in 4D is SO(2).

The Lorentz group is indeed SO(3,1) -- the numbers are because the space-time metric's signature is +++- or ---+, depending on the convention.
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Back
Top