What is the sum of terms supposed to be equal to?
Anything. It's a state function measuring energy, so pick a number and keep it the same. Usually zero is a good choice.
The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
11–20 of 58 posts
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#12What is the sum of terms supposed to be equal to?
[deleted]
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#13What is the sum of terms supposed to be equal to?
It's a Lagrangian, so this is the function nature tries to minimize. In common everyday systems, the Lagrangian is kinetic energy minus potential energy.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#14What is the sum of terms supposed to be equal to?
It's a Lagrangian, so this is the function nature tries to minimize. In common everyday systems, the Lagrangian is kinetic energy minus potential energy.
I visit this blog first time and inspire by this good stuff work. Incredible post keeps up posting such great information. You can use this best" rel="nofollow">http://www.clazwork.com">best essay writing service for any kind of academic writing work.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#15I haven't seen an article so math intensive in a while... since I saw this one: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bayesian_Ying_Yang_learn...
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, as a layman with basic college physics knowledge, and passing knowledge of the standard model, want to understand the meaning of those terms. Do you know how I can go about that? Ideally, with something a little less dense than a textbook.
I have a PhD in physics, though not particle physics. QFT was required, since the methods appear all over in condensed matter physics. Unfortunately, there is no real shortcut to being able to understand those terms except by studying one of the standard texts. And, physics being what it is, you can expect a pretty hard slog because the texts will assume you know first quantization back and forth. Add to that, it's n…
If you are looking for the book, the name is "Introduction to Elementary Particles" (not Elementa which is a typo).
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#17Am I correct in understanding that this takes every kind of interaction that particles can have, and simply adds them all together?
How does it deal with some particles only interacting in certain ways and not others? Is the user of the equation supposed to make sure to enter zero for those terms, or does the equation capture that knowledge as well?
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#18Am I correct in understanding that this takes every kind of interaction that particles can have, and simply adds them all together? How does it deal with some particles only interacting in certain ways and not others? Is the user of the equation supposed to make sure to enter zero for those terms, or does the equation capture that knowledge as well?
If you apply an operator of such an interaction to the Lagrangian the equations of motions automatically return zero (e.g. similar to a derivation of a constant).
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#19I've been banging my head on QFT and the Standard Model for enough time now that I can actually glimpse more or less what those terms actualy mean , as in , I can translate them into words. It's almost like learning a new language! Pretty awesome. Still, despite all this complexity, we still have several minor and major theoretical gaps to fill. Exciting times!
Can you recommend how to get started on this? Like beginner links or something? I'm currently just a physics noob, but have some of the basic concepts of quantum theory down. I would love to just have a basic grasp of that monstrous equation.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#20Given the world we live in, right now, why does mathematics continue to insist on minified expressions?
Given the option, most development teams would choose to read and write against verbose source code, rather than scrape obfuscated variables and method signatures out of a minified, transpiled, compressed package.
So why do we continue this archaic practice of obscure, inscrutable symbols in mathematics? Cultural inertia?
The cycle of madness must end!