User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
group_theory [2017/04/09 08:32]
jakobadmin [Notions]
group_theory [2017/06/22 08:32]
jakobadmin [Quotes]
Line 24: Line 24:
 </​blockquote>​ </​blockquote>​
 +Physicists are mostly agreed that the ultimate laws of Nature enjoy a high degree of
 +symmetry. By this I mean that the formulation of these laws, be it in mathematical
 +terms or perhaps in other accurate descriptions,​ is unchanged when various transformations are performed. Presence of symmetry implies absence of complicated and
 +irrelevant structure, and our conviction that this is fundamentally true reflects an
 +ancient aesthetic prejudice - physicists are happy in the belief that Nature in its
 +fundamental workings is essentially simple. Moreover, there are practical consequences of the simplicity entailed by symmetry: it is easier to understand the predictions of physical laws. For example, working out the details of very-many-body motion is beyond the reach of actual calculations,​ even with the help of computers.
 +But taking into account the symmetries that are present allows one to understand
 +at least some aspects of the motion, and to chart regularities within it.
 +<​cite>​[[https://​​abs/​hep-th/​9602122|The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Quantum Field Theory]] by R. Jackiw</​cite>​
Line 58: Line 69:
 </​blockquote>​ </​blockquote>​
- + <​blockquote>​ 
 +Rovelli: [...] . I 
 +learned from your book that the world in which we happen to live is not Poincare 
 +invariant, and is not described by Poincare invariant theory. There is no sense in 
 +which general relativity is Poincare invariant. (If it were, what would be the Poincare transform of the closed Friedman-Robertson-Walker solution of the Einstein 
 +equation?) Thus, Poincare invariance is neither a symmetry of our universe, nor a 
 +symmetry of the laws governing our universe. Don't you find it a bit disturbing 
 +basing the foundation of our understanding of the world on a symmetry which is 
 +not a symmetry of the world nor of its laws? 
 +Weinberg: Well, I think there'​s always been a distinction that we have to make 
 +between the symmetries of laws and the symmetries of things. You look at a 
 +chair; it's not rotationally invariant. Do you conclude that there'​s something 
 +wrong with rotation invariance? Actually, it's fairly subtle why the chair breaks 
 +rotational invariance: it's because the chair is big. In fact an isolated chair in its 
 +ground state in empty space, without any external perturbations,​ will not violate 
 +rotational invariance. It will be spinning in a state with zero rotational quantum 
 +numbers, and be rotationally invariant. But because it's big, the states of different 
 +angular momentum of the chair are incredibly close together (since the rotational 
 +energy differences go inversely with the moment of inertia), so that any tiny pertur- 
 +bation will make the chair line up in a certain direction. That's why chairs break 
 +rotational invariance. That's why the universe breaks symmetries like chiral invar- 
 +iance; it is very big, even bigger than a chair. This doesn'​t seem to me to be relevant 
 +to what we take as our fundamental principles. You can still talk about Lorentz 
 +invariance as a fundamental law of nature and live in a Lorentz non-invariant 
 +universe, and in fact sit on a Lorentz non-invariant chair, as you are doing. 
 +[Added note: Lorentz invariance is incorporated in general relativity, as the 
 +holonomy group, or in other words, the symmetry group in locally inertial frames.] 
 +<​cite>​Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory edited by Cao</​cite>​ 
 ==== Matrix Groups and Matrix Algebras ==== ==== Matrix Groups and Matrix Algebras ====
group_theory.txt · Last modified: 2017/12/06 09:33 (external edit)