<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>sci.physics.research Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research</link>
  <description>Current physics research. (Moderated)</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/1570d906a9a6d74a?show_docid=1570d906a9a6d74a</link>
  <description>
  Sure path integral quantization applies to curved spacetime. That it &lt;br&gt; be tractable is quite another issue, but is it in flat space? &lt;br&gt; Basically, path integral is the integral formulation of the Huygens &lt;br&gt; principle, and is not the only route to quantization. Indeed, it is &lt;br&gt; not the easiest. It simply leads to the wave equation, also in second
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/1570d906a9a6d74a?show_docid=1570d906a9a6d74a</guid>
  <author>
  xphysic...@gmail.com
  (X-Phy)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2009 17:53:14 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/f340cd934bc03d1a?show_docid=f340cd934bc03d1a</link>
  <description>
  Igor, &lt;br&gt; I think this may be just a question of my not using the right &lt;br&gt; terminology. &lt;br&gt; However one divides up the terminology between &amp;quot;Green function&amp;quot; and &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;propagator,&amp;quot; the calculation of the path integral has two parts to it &lt;br&gt; and that is the way in which I was using different terminologies for &lt;br&gt; each part. Specifically:
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/f340cd934bc03d1a?show_docid=f340cd934bc03d1a</guid>
  <author>
  jyab...@nycap.rr.com
  (Jay R. Yablon)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2009 08:37:24 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Is Perfect Reversibility A Myth?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/671366101ba1fda7?show_docid=671366101ba1fda7</link>
  <description>
  As an approximation, there is nothing inconsistent. &lt;br&gt; All of physics is valid only approximately anyway; so approximations &lt;br&gt; are legitimate. In particular, one conventionally approximates the &lt;br&gt; dynamics of a part of a larger system (whether or not the latter is &lt;br&gt; assumed to be reversible) successfully as that of an irreversible
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/671366101ba1fda7?show_docid=671366101ba1fda7</guid>
  <author>
  arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at
  (Arnold Neumaier)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2009 09:26:11 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Looking for Feedback on an Exercise Calculating the QED Path Integral and Greens Fucntions in Curved Spacetime with Boundary Terms</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/29c05c95fb173c91?show_docid=29c05c95fb173c91</link>
  <description>
  . . . &lt;br&gt; I will look at the rest of this post. But, I did already look at these, &lt;br&gt; and there is nothing I am doing in &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/path-integration-of-the-maxwell-action-2-11.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; which is in any way inconsistent with these presentations. IMHO, I am &lt;br&gt; doing the same type of calculations as are being done in these papers,
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/29c05c95fb173c91?show_docid=29c05c95fb173c91</guid>
  <author>
  jyab...@nycap.rr.com
  (Jay R. Yablon)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2009 09:26:11 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/9bd355df20fe2235?show_docid=9bd355df20fe2235</link>
  <description>
  Jay, I&#39;m sorry to say this, but you are still missing a large point in &lt;br&gt; this discussion. Path integrals in curved space-time and harmonic &lt;br&gt; analysis are not contingent upon each other. You keep asking about &lt;br&gt; generalizations of Fourier transforms, so you keep getting answers &lt;br&gt; about harmonic analysis. However, none of this discussion is moving
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/9bd355df20fe2235?show_docid=9bd355df20fe2235</guid>
  <author>
  igor...@gmail.com
  (Igor Khavkine)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2009 09:26:11 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/d81b753d72e59027?show_docid=d81b753d72e59027</link>
  <description>
  I had meant with the open territorry the problem of a rigorous &lt;br&gt; mathematical definition of the path integral. This is an exceedingly &lt;br&gt; difficult problem, already for flat spacetime. It is unlikely to be &lt;br&gt; solved in the curved case before the flat case is understood. &lt;br&gt; On the handwaving level (i.e., in the way how all path integral stuff
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/d81b753d72e59027?show_docid=d81b753d72e59027</guid>
  <author>
  arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at
  (Arnold Neumaier)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2009 08:42:44 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Looking for Feedback on an Exercise Calculating the QED Path Integral and Greens Fucntions in Curved Spacetime with Boundary Terms</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/f2fb3d55c5e3a944?show_docid=f2fb3d55c5e3a944</link>
  <description>
  You&#39;re looking at everything completely the wrong way. But it would be &lt;br&gt; impossible to explain in detail just what or how until you first get &lt;br&gt; thorough background in the field, itself. &lt;br&gt; First rule of research: (1) try a problem for yourself for a while &lt;br&gt; until you get a proper feel of the layout of the territory. This will
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/f2fb3d55c5e3a944?show_docid=f2fb3d55c5e3a944</guid>
  <author>
  markw...@yahoo.com
  (Rock Brentwood)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2009 08:19:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/4219c64f4d80afa7?show_docid=4219c64f4d80afa7</link>
  <description>
  Hi Arnold, &lt;br&gt; First, let me say that I appreciate your dialogue with both me and Igor. &lt;br&gt; It has been very helpful in trying to clarify the issues involved with &lt;br&gt; doing path integral quantization, which implicitly requires some form of &lt;br&gt; harmonic analysis, in curved spacetime. I think a separate thread might
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/4219c64f4d80afa7?show_docid=4219c64f4d80afa7</guid>
  <author>
  jyab...@nycap.rr.com
  (Jay R. Yablon)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2009 04:00:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/623651dd67f98335?show_docid=623651dd67f98335</link>
  <description>
  These are indeed the only symmetric spaces, apart from Minkowski space, &lt;br&gt; that figure in general relativity. There are mor homogeneous spaces, though. &lt;br&gt; Yes, you are right; I was too quick. &lt;br&gt; Because of the big bang, there cannot be time invariance, and &lt;br&gt; realistic cosmological models with symmetry only have 3 independent
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/623651dd67f98335?show_docid=623651dd67f98335</guid>
  <author>
  arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at
  (Arnold Neumaier)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2009 03:58:58 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Is Perfect Reversibility A Myth?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/62a52a17e9d74ca1?show_docid=62a52a17e9d74ca1</link>
  <description>
  Arnold Neumaier wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:51:17 -0500: &lt;br&gt; (...) &lt;br&gt; Untrue. It is not possible to derive irreversibility from reversibility. &lt;br&gt; As Van Kampen brilliantly noted &amp;quot;One cannot escape from this fact by any &lt;br&gt; amount of mathematical funambulism&amp;quot;. &lt;br&gt; The open-system approach is totally inconsistent. The subdynamics of a
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/62a52a17e9d74ca1?show_docid=62a52a17e9d74ca1</guid>
  <author>
  email.addr...@not.supplied
  (Juan R. González-Álvarez)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2009 03:58:42 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Looking for Feedback on an Exercise Calculating the QED Path</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/1d8930c70b2b9892?show_docid=1d8930c70b2b9892</link>
  <description>
  I have that book, and have reviewed that book, and believe that this is &lt;br&gt; consistent with what I have done. I made a few tweaks and corrections &lt;br&gt; to this, in sections 1-3 of and update at &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/path-integration-of-the-maxwell-action-2-11.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;br&gt; Thanks, &lt;br&gt; Jay
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/1d8930c70b2b9892?show_docid=1d8930c70b2b9892</guid>
  <author>
  jyab...@nycap.rr.com
  (Jay R. Yablon)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:59:27 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Looking for Feedback on an Exercise Calculating the QED Path Integral and Greens Fucntions in Curved Spacetime with Boundary Terms</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/cad34960bbcd80a6?show_docid=cad34960bbcd80a6</link>
  <description>
  I have uploaded an update of this exercise, to: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/path-integration-of-the-maxwell-action-2-11.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; I made a few tweaks and corrections to this, in sections 1-3. &lt;br&gt; The new sections 4-7 get to how to calculate the propagators explicitly &lt;br&gt; in curved spacetime, and get to questions about being able to do
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/87fb791116c0a452/cad34960bbcd80a6?show_docid=cad34960bbcd80a6</guid>
  <author>
  jyab...@nycap.rr.com
  (Jay R. Yablon)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:59:27 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Is Perfect Reversibility A Myth?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/f9ada9a06833a0bf?show_docid=f9ada9a06833a0bf</link>
  <description>
  Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:08:59 -0400: &lt;br&gt; (...) &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;*Any* law of physics is a mathematical ideal. One would not confound &lt;br&gt; reality with our models of her. &lt;br&gt; For certain systems the production of entropy is so low that cannot be &lt;br&gt; differentiated from zero and are explained using reversible models.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/ee2429a82560e1e2/f9ada9a06833a0bf?show_docid=f9ada9a06833a0bf</guid>
  <author>
  juanrem...@canonicalscience.com
  (Juan R. González-Álvarez)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:39:32 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/f4516889f509e298?show_docid=f4516889f509e298</link>
  <description>
  On Nov 4, 9:06 am, Arnold Neumaier &amp;lt;Arnold.Neuma...@univie.ac.at&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote: &lt;br&gt; I do indeed have only finitely many fingers. :-) &lt;br&gt; Do you mean de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spaces, or something else? The &lt;br&gt; spatial slices of FRW cosmologies are usually treated as homogeneous &lt;br&gt; spaces. But their time evolution is put together in such a way
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/f4516889f509e298?show_docid=f4516889f509e298</guid>
  <author>
  igor...@gmail.com
  (Igor Khavkine)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:30:47 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: What Happens to Fourier Transforms in Curved Spacetime?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/a5c12db9f82b5942?show_docid=a5c12db9f82b5942</link>
  <description>
  it was intentional. One can do it for highly symmetric space-times, &lt;br&gt; assuming that gravitational distortions that violate the symmetry can &lt;br&gt; be ignored. Then one gets a contracted approximate description in &lt;br&gt; terms of a simplified dynamics. Indeed, this is what happens in the &lt;br&gt; Post-Newton approximation, where the highly symmetric space-time is
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/84ccd15f412ea11b/a5c12db9f82b5942?show_docid=a5c12db9f82b5942</guid>
  <author>
  arnold.neuma...@univie.ac.at
  (Arnold Neumaier)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:38:54 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
