I just jumped on that question because it was tagged mathematical-physics, and after I edited that out, I figured I could as well answer it for the edit+answer badge
@0celo7 Yeah, that part is just like normal QFT. Surprisingly much of the intro to String Theory is "just" a bunch of somewhat unusual QFT
@0celo7 CFT is a QFT.
@obe In this case, completely superfluous, but the question is better this way when I think of all the questions where people just write down a formula and ask about the meaning of a symbol we can't have a clue about without context
@TanMath @obe For instance, the string is essentially a Fourier transform, with operator "modes" $\alpha^\mu_n$ that can create states. In light cone gauge, we have, for instance, $$\alpha^i_{-1}\tilde\alpha^j_{-1}|0;k\rangle\sim\text{graviton}\oplus\text{Kalb-Ramond}\oplus\text{dilaton}$$
Here $|0;k\rangle$ is the string ground state with momentum $k$.
@NeilGraham I don't like to understand Physics by it's terms, I would rather have experimental data presented to me in which I can interpret it myself.
@FenderLesPaul I was looking at a glass of water and was thinking about why we see water as completely clear. For some reason, I delved more into this idea. I began to think that it may be an evolutionary advantage that we were able to see 'clean' water as clear and 'dirty' water as murky, but to be honest this was not significant and only led me onto more in depth thinking. I then understood that all biological life originated in the ocean's, full of mostly water, and that sight was developed..
by these biological organisms. The main thing I understood finally was that the light that could perfectly go through water, aka visible light, was the only light that could be perceived by these organisms, and that is simply why we see in visible light only.
Other organisms that can see ultraviolet (which is not many) and ones that can see in infrared light use antennas and other methods, but the eyes developed from early organisms in the oceans
Light doesn't perfectly go through water though. The reason we see visible light only is because the spectrum of the sun is focused in the area that we call visible light.
Yes, I understand that, but then again I am interested in all of science, not specifically physics. I find that kinda hard to get around, to only be focused on one science subject.
The main idea I'm trying to portray is that the only information that organisms underwater who developed eyes could interpret was the light that could be seen through water, and that has influenced the spectrum in which we can see in overall.
@NeilGraham See, this is why your approach to science is flawed. If you had bothered to do some research and reading in the origin of life, eyes, and formation of the oceans and atmosphere by well established facts, you would not think of these theories and instead learn a lot more.
That is the problem that you have, you think that you need to be a genius to be able to understand how things work. Physics isn't understood by geniuses, it's understood by the curious.
@NeilGraham Infinitely intelligent is a kind of abstract term.
@NeilGraham Why would the curious waste their time coming up with theories about things that have already been explained before by someone else, rather than learning about things that already exist?
The benefit that theory has over experimentation is that it can make predictions within its own framework, and that is where experimentalists fall behind theorists.
@NeilGraham You need to read more books instead, or learn to research from the internet properly.
They are just sort of providing basic information, but I use them to get ideas about neural systems by learning more about the properties for unusual species
@ACuriousMind I was rereading my ballentine quantum mechanics book. I read about gauge transformations I finally now understand that they are a mathematical construct. But I dont quite get why. Could you try explaining it to me? I get the $\phi$ and $\mathbf{A}$ constitute the four potential but I am so used to thinking about E and B as fields in the vector sense, I am habing trouble imagining what the four potnetial is. Any help would be great :D
I'm logged into the main sites for Workplace.SE, Physics.SE, Money.SE, and Space.SE; but show as logged out when I go to any of the meta's for those sites. Attempting to log in again results in the page refreshing with my still being logged out. I am able to visit meta.StackOverflow, and meta.S...
@dmckee : re your find, yes, that's what an electron is. In atomic orbitals "electrons exist as standing waves". Kick that electron out of that orbital, and it still exists as a standing wave. That's why you can diffract electrons. Standing wave, standing field. The Einstein-de Haas effect is for real. If I can expand on this please don't hesitate to ask.
Oh, and could you do something about the serial downvoting please? Somebody's going through my old answers downvoting them for no good reason.
Following a conversation I had with Bosoneando, I thought I'd ask a question about why electrons and positrons move in opposite helical paths. Here it is. I couldn't find any duplicates. I'd be grateful for your answers and/or comments.
@StanShunpike You'll have to tell me more specifically what your trouble is. The idea of a gauge transformation you can already see in the three-dimensional potential $\vec A$, because you can add any gradient $\nabla\phi$ to $\vec A$ and have the $\vec B$-field unchanged: $\nabla\times(\vec A + \nabla\phi) = \nabla\times\vec A$.
I'm logged into the main sites for Workplace.SE, Physics.SE, Money.SE, and Space.SE; but show as logged out when I go to any of the meta's for those sites. Attempting to log in again results in the page refreshing with my still being logged out. I am able to visit meta.StackOverflow, and meta.S...
