Timeline for Standard model of particle physics for mathematicians
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2011 at 15:13 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Sorry, Pete -- I wasn't trying to be smart-alecky. I wasn't aware of any stance of yours regarding physics; I guess I don't follow everything you write here. | |
| Mar 9, 2011 at 6:54 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Todd: well, not recently, no. I always thought that my "math: yes; physics: huh?" stance was pretty clear. | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 23:08 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | @Pete, Todd: Every physical theory (and QFT is no exception) has both "kinematical" and "dynamical" aspects. Kinematics is basically representation theory, but dynamics is not. (The exception to this rule might large chunks of two-dimensional conformal field theory; although not everyone might agree.) Hence with a good knowledge of representation theory, one can understand how to set up the QFT models. To extract physically meaningful results, though, requires studying the dynamics... and therein lies the rub, as they say. | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 21:55 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I don't know, Pete: did you ask? :-) | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 20:28 | history | edited | Alex R. | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 692 characters in body
|
| Mar 7, 2011 at 19:27 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | The title of the book makes me very optimistic: I understand finite groups and their representations rather well and have a halfway decent working knowledge of Lie groups / algebras / representations thereof. Am I really so close to being able to understand modern particle physics? Why did no one tell me sooner?? | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 18:49 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | +1 for pointing this book out. I didn't know it -- but it looks like a nice undergraduate level book for physicists. | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 18:22 | history | answered | Alex R. | CC BY-SA 2.5 |