Impact

~15k
people reached

- 0 posts edited
- 13 helpful flags
- 95 votes cast

Dec
11 |
comment |
Does quantum mechanics ever really quantize classical mechanics?
I am also not clear what you're asking. Naively, I'd think that you're looking for the phase space formulation of quantum mechanics, which was developed independently in the 1940s by Moyal and Groenewold. In particular, Moyal showed that one may formulate quantum mechanics via Wigner Quasiprobability Distributions, which are just functions on phase space. However, decoherence is still a bit subtle in this framework, so I'm not sure if that would answer your question. |

Feb
4 |
awarded | Yearling |

Oct
16 |
awarded | Guru |

Sep
24 |
awarded | Autobiographer |

Mar
19 |
comment |
The amplituhedron minus the physics
@AllenKnutson You're welcome to edit as you see fit or post your own answer (for reference, I agree with everything you said in your comments). As I said above, the answer is based on what Nima explained to me. I tried to phrase it in a way that would be readable by mathematicians but keep it as close to the way he presented it at that time as possible. In my mind, the answer is already basically obsolete now that they have a couple of papers on the subject available which are quite readable. |

Feb
4 |
awarded | Yearling |

Dec
29 |
awarded | Enlightened |

Dec
29 |
awarded | Nice Answer |

Dec
26 |
awarded | Fanatic |

Dec
10 |
awarded | Good Answer |

Dec
10 |
revised |
The amplituhedron minus the physics
added reference to the arXiv paper |

Dec
10 |
comment |
A gentle introduction to CFT
@Dilaton I agree that this question would not be accepted by Physics SE standards, but I don't think that immediately makes it acceptable on MathOverflow. MathOverflow is a site for professional mathematicians. While physicists and physics questions are sometimes welcome, we aren't the intended audience. As this question is right now, this is the wrong venue IMO (though there do seem to be some above who disagree). This question's closing on PSE may be an argument for creating a different Physics Q&A site or changing the rules there, but not for changing the rules here just to accommodate us. |

Nov
9 |
comment |
Higher dimensional Rubik's cube group
@JasonPioneer That seems correct to me. The full expression should be (assuming I haven't made a typo) $$\displaystyle (A_n \wr S_{2^n}) \times \left(\prod_{i=2}^{n-1} S_i \wr S_{{n \choose i} 2^{i}} \right).$$ |

Nov
8 |
comment |
Higher dimensional Rubik's cube group
I agree with your argument, but if by $C_n$ in your final formula you mean the cyclic group of order $n$, then I don't see exactly where that is coming from. Naively I would think that for the corners the group should be $A_4$, and for the cubies with 3 stickers it should be $S_3$. More generally I'd expect for a $d$-dimensional cube that the corners correspond to $A_d$ and all other types of pieces correspond to $S_k$ for $k=2,\ldots,d-1$. Could you explain how you get that (or if I'm misunderstanding your claim)? |

Nov
7 |
comment |
Higher dimensional Rubik's cube group
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that the standard proof for ordinary Rubik's cubes works for $3^n$ cubes for any $n$ to give the cube group as a subgroup of a direct product of wreath products, with each factor corresponding to acting on cubies with $k$ stickers for $k=2,3,\ldots,n$. Is this what you want, or are you looking for something else? |

Oct
29 |
comment |
A gentle introduction to CFT
@FedericoCarta I'll also note that questions should be tailored to the community. The original questions you posted were decent for physicists, though they were too broad together and should have been split up. However, if you're going to ask the same question on a site for research mathematicians, you need to be more tailored to that community. CFTs are of interest to mathematicians as well as physicists, but the literature in the two disciplines is quite different. I'm not sure which one you wanted to learn, but if it's the physics version this would probably not be the right place to ask. |

Oct
29 |
comment |
A gentle introduction to CFT
@FedericoCarta Yes, different sites have different standards, and cross-posting isn't always bad. However, cross-posting immediately is frowned upon, whether or not the question was closed. This MSO post details the proper protocol for if you think you posted on the wrong site. Immediately cross-posting a closed question to a different site with no indication that it is a cross-post can come across as trying to game the system (I don't thin this was your intention). At minimum you should try to improve your post there first before reposting it here. |

Oct
29 |
comment |
A gentle introduction to CFT
This is probably irrelevant since this question is already closed, but I'll just note that it's a cross-post of a question which was put on hold on Physics SE. |

Oct
18 |
revised |
The amplituhedron minus the physics
Clarified minor point |

Oct
17 |
revised |
The amplituhedron minus the physics
Now it is (probably) correct! |