More than the usual number of interesting articles at arXiv caught my eye this week. I’m thinking about making this a weekly habit.
Denis Kochan’s new arXiv article: Does path integral really need a Lagrangian/Hamiltonian?, 0812.0678
Path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is strongly dependent on a given Lagrangian and/or Hamiltonian function. In the paper a simple rearrangement of the path integral to a surface functional integral is proposed. It is shown that the surface integral formulation of a transition probability amplitude is free of any particular choices and requires just the underlying classical equations of motion. A simple example examining functionality of the proposed method is considered.
The paper magnificently describes how I think of of Feynman diagrams. In the usual formalism, they are connected to a Largrangian / Hamiltonian, that is, a definition of the energy. To me, this is unfortunate because energy should not be the fundamental description of nature. Energy is just a symmetry, the fundamental description of nature has to be a differential equation, or the equations of motion. An interesting sentence from the first page:
It is a miraculous consequence (not requirement!) of the propagator definition that it satisfies an evolutionary chain rule (Chapman-Kolmogorov equation)
whose infinitesimal version is equivalent to the celebrated Schroedinger equation.
This is interesting to me because, as the alert reader will have noticed, it is an example of the idempotency equation . The reason for the similarity is that there is a relationship between pure density matrices and propagators. So in my version of “one past Feynman”, I look for interesting solutions to the idempotency equation. The Weak Quantum Numbers paper is an example of this type of idea.
Wonderfully amusing Cosmology article by Martin Lopez-Corredoira, Sociology of Modern Cosmology, 0812.0537.
Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the “snowball effect” or “groupthink”. We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.
The same critique could be made of many other branches of physics. Right now, I’m busily typing up a paper on my version of quantum gravity and its cosmological consequences. Part of the paper will be a cleaned up and much improved version of the blog post on Louise Riofrio’s cosmology and the CMBR correlation anomaly.
The subject of ball lightning is a fascinating and so far unsolved problem. This might even be right (though I just quickly scanned it): Levan N. Tsintsadze: A New Concept of Ball Lightning, 0811.4640
We suggest that the ball lightning (BL) is a weakly ionized gas, in which the electromagnetic radiation can be accumulated through the Bose-Einstein condensation and/or the photon trapping in the plasma density well. We derive the set of equations describing the stability of BL, and show that the BL moving along charged surface becomes unstable. Eventually the instability leads to explosion of BL and release of energy of the trapped photons and/or the Bose-Einstein condensate.
A theorist fight is always entertaining and enlightening. This one is over the subject of 1/R gravity. This is a variation of general relativity that better explains inflation / cosmic acceleration observations (about which my new paper will address):
Solar system tests do not rule out 1/R gravity, and on the other hand,
Solar System tests DO rule out 1/R gravity.