<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research</id>
  <title type="text">sci.physics.research Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  Current physics research. (Moderated)
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/sci.physics.research/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="sci.physics.research feed"/>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:23:50Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.co.uk" version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Arnold Neumaier</name>
  <email>arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:23:50Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/38b6c069ef9e3fa3/47425413cebaedb3?show_docid=47425413cebaedb3</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/38b6c069ef9e3fa3/47425413cebaedb3?show_docid=47425413cebaedb3"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Why does the renormalization group work?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The renormalization group is simply the consequence of having in a &lt;br&gt; theory a parameter E whose value does not affect the ideal theory itself &lt;br&gt; but only the approximation method used. In each such case (whether it &lt;br&gt; arises from quantum field theory or from a simple algebraic problem) &lt;br&gt; one has an associated transfromation group that transforms the results
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>JohnMS</name>
  <email>john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:23:25Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/bcc8441843cfdd74?show_docid=bcc8441843cfdd74</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/bcc8441843cfdd74?show_docid=bcc8441843cfdd74"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  On Nov 26, 9:08 pm, &amp;quot;Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]&amp;quot; &lt;br&gt; I see that Schiller writes about neutrino mixing on pages 280 to 281 &lt;br&gt; of &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; . &lt;br&gt; He predicts neutrino mixing from the model, &lt;br&gt; and he states that knot calculations can determine &lt;br&gt; the numbers. Hm...
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>X-Phy</name>
  <email>xphysic...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:22:43Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/72b95ec2babb5805/fc43e16f245ff80a?show_docid=fc43e16f245ff80a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/72b95ec2babb5805/fc43e16f245ff80a?show_docid=fc43e16f245ff80a"/>
  <title type="text">Re: relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  On 26 nov, 19:32, Arnold Neumaier &amp;lt;Arnold.Neuma...@univie.ac.at&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote: &lt;br&gt; I was too radical effectively. But it remains that incoherent &lt;br&gt; superposition occurs in classical mechanics, and is formalized by &lt;br&gt; plain classical probabilities. &lt;br&gt; That is a contingency I spoke about. We were discussing the theories
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Lester Welch</name>
  <email>lester.we...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:22:06Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4d38bfe3d57bf961/ee60bebb2475d5d7?show_docid=ee60bebb2475d5d7</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4d38bfe3d57bf961/ee60bebb2475d5d7?show_docid=ee60bebb2475d5d7"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Charged or Neutral Strong Nuclear Force Exchanges?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  No. The strong nuclear force causes an attraction between any &lt;br&gt; combination of p&#39;s &amp;amp; n&#39;s. &lt;br&gt; The strength depends of the spin. Some particle/spin combinations are &lt;br&gt; not allowed because of &lt;br&gt; Fermi statistics.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Arnold Neumaier</name>
  <email>arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:20:46Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/9147c0013b3b43ae?show_docid=9147c0013b3b43ae</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/9147c0013b3b43ae?show_docid=9147c0013b3b43ae"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Quantum Field Theory: The Big, Simple Picture?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  As long as it has not been shown to be well-defined, it _is_ &lt;br&gt; ill-defined. &lt;br&gt; No. it means that, at present, it is ill-defined, and that therefore &lt;br&gt; the question of its existence is, strictly speaking, meaningless. &lt;br&gt; What I meant in precise terms is, that nobody has been able to figure &lt;br&gt; out a definition of the path integral that makes logically sense.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Richard D. Saam</name>
  <email>rds...@att.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:20:14Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/d1b272bfaa2df78a/65bce8ce9fcf2cbf?show_docid=65bce8ce9fcf2cbf</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/d1b272bfaa2df78a/65bce8ce9fcf2cbf?show_docid=65bce8ce9fcf2cbf"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Who said Work = F d and Kinetic energy KE = (1/2)mv^2?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Perhaps &lt;br&gt; Emilie du Ch&#39;telet (December 17, 1706 -- September 10, 1749) &lt;br&gt; She did some basic work indicating Energy related to v^2 and not v &lt;br&gt; by dropping ball masses from different heights into clay &lt;br&gt; and checking deformation. &lt;br&gt; Richard D. Saam
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Anamitra Palit</name>
  <email>palit.anami...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:19:55Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/a6bd90d3e2d5326b/e48a32e740c448f4?show_docid=e48a32e740c448f4</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/a6bd90d3e2d5326b/e48a32e740c448f4?show_docid=e48a32e740c448f4"/>
  <title type="text">Virtual Photons and the Infinite Range of Electromagnetic Interaction</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Virtual Photons are responsible for electromagnetic interactions which &lt;br&gt; extend for an infinitely large distance.When these virtual photons are &lt;br&gt; shot out of charged particles the process conforms to the principle of &lt;br&gt; momentum conservation but energy conervation is violated. They move &lt;br&gt; with &amp;quot;borrowed energy&amp;quot; which is accommodated with the help of the
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jay R. Yablon</name>
  <email>jyab...@nycap.rr.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:18:40Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/30b106170ba0f7cf?show_docid=30b106170ba0f7cf</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/30b106170ba0f7cf?show_docid=30b106170ba0f7cf"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Quantum Field Theory: The Big, Simple Picture?[repost]</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Yes, see, e.g., the first page of the file linked below. &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/zee-field-equations-and-inverses-markup.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Jay
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jay R. Yablon</name>
  <email>jyab...@nycap.rr.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:18:29Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/efccafa3a6dd9ee0/739a054af2e0b3d8?show_docid=739a054af2e0b3d8</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/efccafa3a6dd9ee0/739a054af2e0b3d8?show_docid=739a054af2e0b3d8"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The Mathematical Substructure Underlying Quantum Field Theory, and Why I Like Anthony Zee&#39;s Book so Much</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  For those who like conciseness, the core of what I am driving at in &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/zee-and-the-mathematical-substructure-of-quantum-field-theory.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; can be put into a one-equation, one page synopsis, linked below: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/one-equation-synopsis.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Igor Khavkine</name>
  <email>igor...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:17:31Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/a2200df9a034e9dc?show_docid=a2200df9a034e9dc</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/bf59203692ad7033/a2200df9a034e9dc?show_docid=a2200df9a034e9dc"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Quantum Field Theory: The Big, Simple Picture?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Jay, as I pointed out in another post. This result is wrong. No matter &lt;br&gt; what steps you believe lead you to this result, it is incorrect. This &lt;br&gt; equality can only hold if S_EH were linear in the integration &lt;br&gt; variable, be it g_uv, sqrt(-g)g_uv, or just sqrt(-g). And it should be &lt;br&gt; quite clear that S_EH is not linear in any of these variables.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>X-Phy</name>
  <email>xphysic...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:17:10Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/72b95ec2babb5805/33d077ffea36eaa8?show_docid=33d077ffea36eaa8</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/72b95ec2babb5805/33d077ffea36eaa8?show_docid=33d077ffea36eaa8"/>
  <title type="text">Re: relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  On 25 nov, 07:52, Bob_for_short &amp;lt;vladimir.kalitvian...@wanadoo .fr&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote: &lt;br&gt; You seem to forget the uncertainty relation. For a single particle, &lt;br&gt; the position can be measured with any precision, even if its quantum &lt;br&gt; state is dispersed. Yet, the quantum state is afterward changed, &lt;br&gt; projected onto an eigenfunction, and thus it is impossible the measure
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Phillip Helbig---undress to reply</name>
  <email>hel...@astro.multiclothesvax.de</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:16:40Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/76264b6948bc0359?show_docid=76264b6948bc0359</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/76264b6948bc0359?show_docid=76264b6948bc0359"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  In article &lt;br&gt; &amp;lt;3e988b94-e2be-4207-9d55-d1070 1453...@p19g2000vbq.googlegrou ps.com&amp;gt;, &lt;br&gt; Keep in mind that the neutrino was first detected a couple of decades &lt;br&gt; after it was first theoretically postulated. Isaac Newton mentioned the &lt;br&gt; bending of light by gravitation, and it took over 200 years before that &lt;br&gt; was observed.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Fizix 2009</name>
  <email>fizix2...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T10:16:15Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/38b6c069ef9e3fa3/b67453ab06d7c7b0?show_docid=b67453ab06d7c7b0</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/38b6c069ef9e3fa3/b67453ab06d7c7b0?show_docid=b67453ab06d7c7b0"/>
  <title type="text">Why does the renormalization group work?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Why does the renormalization group work so well? In fact, why does it &lt;br&gt; even work at all? Before you think this is a dumb question on my part, &lt;br&gt; please consider this for a moment. The renormalization group involves &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;decimating&amp;quot;, i.e. integrating away the ultraviolet degrees of &lt;br&gt; freedom. The basic idea of the renormalization group is that as long
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]</name>
  <email>jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T20:08:22Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/1ffa510b78349b20?show_docid=1ffa510b78349b20</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/dd23383c8b5b8054/1ffa510b78349b20?show_docid=1ffa510b78349b20"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Your thoughts on idea that may kill string theory.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  In a moderator&#39;s note earlier in this thread, I wrote &lt;br&gt; Gordon Stangler &amp;lt;gordon.stang...@gmail.com&amp;gt; asked &lt;br&gt; Yes. &amp;quot;K2K&amp;quot; was a brain glitch on my part; the new experiment is T2K. &lt;br&gt; There&#39;s a bit more information about T2K at &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2K&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; and at &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jnusrv01.kek.jp/public/t2k/&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Chalky</name>
  <email>chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T18:32:03Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4d38bfe3d57bf961/26b1e181b4e48dac?show_docid=26b1e181b4e48dac</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4d38bfe3d57bf961/26b1e181b4e48dac?show_docid=26b1e181b4e48dac"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Charged or Neutral Strong Nuclear Force Exchanges?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  This would seem to imply that protons can only bind to neutrons and &lt;br&gt; vice versa in heavy nuclei. &lt;br&gt; Is that correct? &lt;br&gt; If so, I guess my original question would resolve into: &lt;br&gt; How often is this interaction neutral, and how often charged (ie &lt;br&gt; proton becomes neutron and vice versa)
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
