i am a little bit confused about how to obtain the second line.
i have that $\kappa([A \wedge \delta A] \wedge A) = \kappa([\delta A \wedge A] \wedge A)$ by antisymmetry of $\wedge$ and $[,]$
but i get that $\kappa([A \wedge A] \wedge \delta A) = -\kappa(\delta A \wedge [A \wedge A]) = -\kappa([\delta A \wedge A] \wedge A)$ by cyclicity of $\kappa$ and antisymmetry of $\wedge$ and $[,]$
but this would make the term in question $\kappa(\frac{2}{3} \delta A \wedge A \wedge A)$, which I don't think is correct
Since earth's gravitational field is independent of object mass all bodies fall at same rate but when we throw a feather and a ball they don't fall at same rate. Is this has to do something with air resistance?
So what does air resistance depends on I read somewhere it depends on area and in others it depends on velocity. Why does this force does not have a mathematical equation
@Slereah That's linear drag, which is easy to describe. Sadly above speeds of a few mm/s the flow becomes turbulent and the linear drag equation no longer applies.
@Sanjana i only ultimately stationized the non-abelian classical chern-simons action on a trivial bundle and also computed how it changes under arbitrary gauge transformations. so, i didn't actually do a lot of chern-simons theory content-wise. i used nakahara mainly to learn (or perhaps just familiarize) some differential geometry and then looked at D. S. Freed's notes on classical chern-simons part 1
but the Freed notes are a little bit turgid to me now :P maybe to someone more well versed in the mathematics would see it as clear
and then asking questions here to ACM mainly and also some mathoverflow and physics stack answers
i found the answer by josé here particularly helpful
@vengaq Yes. When we talk about Hawking radiation we mean that the radiation escapes to infinity, so it can be observed by an observer far from the horizon.
@ACuriousMind in its unwavering attempts to become more like the US, education in India for the most part isnt cheap, unless you study @ a government institution, wherein, post scholarship, youre still paying some $250 a year
@Semiclassical i expected him to give up hidden variables for a richer philosophy. but i got the impression that he was pushing hidden variables as the explicate order and the pilot wave as the implicate order, but i havent read it fully because i got bored
Can we have in real life, only linear polarized light? Wouldn't that be impossible, as a linearly polarized light, implies one frequency i.e a plane wave, and plane waves are not physical ?
@ACuriousMind Afaik elementary education is compulsory and free even in the USA. Its quality, well we could talk about :-) But things are not fine in this sense even in Germany, imho
there is somewhat of a difference between linearly and circularly polarized light, insofar as you can relate left/right circular polarized light to photons having spin angular momentum