advanced_tools:internal_symmetry
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
advanced_tools:internal_symmetry [2018/04/15 09:39] ida [Why is it interesting?] |
advanced_tools:internal_symmetry [2019/01/24 10:19] (current) jakobadmin [Intuitive] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Internal Symmetry ====== | ====== Internal Symmetry ====== | ||
| + | //see also [[basic_tools:symmetry]] and [[advanced_tools:gauge_symmetry]]// | ||
| <tabbox Intuitive> | <tabbox Intuitive> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 63: | ||
| <blockquote>For the case of regular [[basic_notions:spin|spin]], we had to take spin-space seriously because it was associated with a concrete, measurable, physical quantity—angular momentum. This was only mildly uncomfortable because, although spinspace has the somewhat hard-to-stomach property that you have to turn all the way around twice to get back to your original condition, it’s otherwise pretty much like regular space. Isospin space, however, is completely abstract; it bears no relation whatsoever (other than through analogy) to anything we can grasp with our faculties of perception. How could rotations in such a space possibly have anything to do with the physical world? And yet the physical manifestation of the invariance of the strong force with respect to rotations in this space, the conservation of isospin, is a solidly established fact in the world of experimental science. So, what then is isospin-space from a physical point of view? Physicists usually describe it as an internal symmetry space, but what’s that, really? It’s your old buddy again, telling you that your car’s carburetion system “works on a vacuum principle.” How’s that going to help you to understand and fix the thing? It isn’t. Regarding the physical interpretation of the notion of isospin space, again your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps its experimental manifestations are hinting at some new and deeper truth about the universe that lies just beyond the current limits of our comprehension. Perhaps not. But one thing, however, is true: The introduction of the idea of internal symmetry spaces, of which isospin space was the first example, was an essential step forward in our understanding of the universe and the nature of the laws that govern it." | <blockquote>For the case of regular [[basic_notions:spin|spin]], we had to take spin-space seriously because it was associated with a concrete, measurable, physical quantity—angular momentum. This was only mildly uncomfortable because, although spinspace has the somewhat hard-to-stomach property that you have to turn all the way around twice to get back to your original condition, it’s otherwise pretty much like regular space. Isospin space, however, is completely abstract; it bears no relation whatsoever (other than through analogy) to anything we can grasp with our faculties of perception. How could rotations in such a space possibly have anything to do with the physical world? And yet the physical manifestation of the invariance of the strong force with respect to rotations in this space, the conservation of isospin, is a solidly established fact in the world of experimental science. So, what then is isospin-space from a physical point of view? Physicists usually describe it as an internal symmetry space, but what’s that, really? It’s your old buddy again, telling you that your car’s carburetion system “works on a vacuum principle.” How’s that going to help you to understand and fix the thing? It isn’t. Regarding the physical interpretation of the notion of isospin space, again your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps its experimental manifestations are hinting at some new and deeper truth about the universe that lies just beyond the current limits of our comprehension. Perhaps not. But one thing, however, is true: The introduction of the idea of internal symmetry spaces, of which isospin space was the first example, was an essential step forward in our understanding of the universe and the nature of the laws that govern it." | ||
| <cite>Deep Down Things by Schumm></cite></blockquote> | <cite>Deep Down Things by Schumm></cite></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>„What the heck is an internal space?” you ask. Good question. The best answer I have is “useful.” It’s what we invented to quantify the observed behavior of particles, a mathematical tool that helps us make predictions. | ||
| + | “Yes, but is it real?” you want to know. Uh-oh. Depends on whom you ask. Some of my colleagues indeed believe that the math of our theories, like those internal spaces, is real. Personally, I prefer to merely say it describes reality, leaving open whether or not the math itself is real. How math connects to reality is a mystery that plagued philosophers long before there were scientists, and we aren’t any wiser today. But luckily we can use the math without solving the mystery. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <cite>Lost in Math by Sabine Hossenfelder</cite> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| <tabbox Concrete> | <tabbox Concrete> | ||
advanced_tools/internal_symmetry.1523777963.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/04/15 07:39 (external edit)
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
