Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli 40

$L^p$ is:

And then this is why quantum mechanics basically lives in $L^2$: not being complete makes no sense physically, it would mean that you can get closer and closer to states that don't exist!

TODO intuition

4 K. Enough for to make "low temperature superconductors" like regular metals superconducting, e.g. the superconducting temperature of aluminum if 1.2 K.

Contrast with liquid nitrogen, which is much cheaper but only goes to 77K.

Advantages over Riemann:

Show up when solving the Laplace's equation on spherical coordinates by separation of variables, which leads to the differential equation shown at: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legendre_polynomials&oldid=1018881414#Definition_via_differential_equation.

This is how you transform the Lagrangian into the Hamiltonian.

Suppose that a rod has is length $L$ measured on a rest frame $S$ (or maybe even better: two identical rulers were manufactured, and one is taken on a spaceship, a bit like the twin paradox).

Question: what is the length $L^{\prime }$ than an observer in frame $S^{\prime }$ moving relative to $S$ as speed $v$ observe the rod to be?

The key idea is that there are two events to consider in each frame, which we call 1 and 2:Note that what you visually observe on a photograph is a different measurement to the more precise/easy to calculate two event measurement. On a photograph, it seems you might not even see the contraction in some cases as mentioned at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

Measuring a length means to measure the $x_2-x_1$ difference for a single point in time in your frame ($t2=t1$).

So what we want to obtain is $x_2^{\prime }-x_1^{\prime }$ for any given time $t^{\prime }2=t^{\prime }1$.

In summary, we have:

By plugging those values into the Lorentz transformation, we can eliminate $t_{2}and{t}_1$, and conclude that for any $t_2^{\prime }=t_1^{\prime }$, the length contraction relation holds:

The key question that needs intuitive clarification then is: but how can this be symmetric? How can both observers see each other's rulers shrink?

And the key answer is: because to the second observer, the measurements made by the first observer are not simultaneous. Notably, the two measurement events are obviously spacelike-separated events by looking at the light cone, and therefore can be measured even in different orders by different observers.

Their websites a bit shitty, clearly a non cohesive amalgamation of several different groups.

E.g. you have to create several separate accounts, and different regions have completely different accounts and websites.

The Europe replacement part website for example is clearly made by a third party called flex.com/ and has Flex written all over it, and the header of the home page has a slightly broken but very obviously broken CSS. And you can't create an account without a VAT number... and they confirmed by email that they don't sell to non-corporate entities without a VAT number. What a bullshit!

Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais (1982) mentions that this has a good summary of the atomic theory evidence that was present at the time, and which had become basically indisputable at or soon after that date.

On Wikimedia Commons since it is now public domain in most countries: commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Perrin,_Jean_-_Les_Atomes,_F%C3%A9lix_Alcan,_1913.djvu

An English translation from 1916 by English chemist Dalziel Llewellyn Hammick on the Internet Archive, also on the public domain: archive.org/details/atoms00hammgoog

Ciro Santilli dislikes the fact that they take themselves too seriously. Ciro prefers the jokes and tech approach.

Just like computers, biological systems can be seen as being composed of several different layers of complexity.

Bibliography: med.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anatomy_and_Physiology/Book%3A_Human_Anatomy_and_Physiology_Preparatory_Course_(Liachovitzky)/01%3A_Levels_of_Organization_of_the_Human_Organism/1.01%3A_Levels_of_Organization_of_the_Human_Organism

Ah, the choice of name, both grim and slightly funny, Dr. Strangelove comes to mind quite strongly. Also Fallout (franchise).

Bibliography:

These people are heroes. There's nothing else to say.

Like everything else in Lie groups, first start with the matrix as discussed at Section "Lie algebra of a matrix Lie group".

Intuitively, a Lie algebra is a simpler object than a Lie group. Without any extra structure, groups can be very complicated non-linear objects. But a Lie algebra is just an algebra over a field, and one with a restricted bilinear map called the Lie bracket, that has to also be alternating and satisfy the Jacobi identity.

Another important way to think about Lie algebras, is as infinitesimal generators.

Because of the Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence, we know that there is almost a bijection between each Lie group and the corresponding Lie algebra. So it makes sense to try and study the algebra instead of the group itself whenever possible, to try and get insight and proofs in that simpler framework. This is the key reason why people study Lie algebras. One is philosophically reminded of how normal subgroups are a simpler representation of group homomorphisms.

To make things even simpler, because all vector spaces of the same dimension on a given field are isomorphic, the only things we need to specify a Lie group through a Lie algebra are:Note that the Lie bracket can look different under different basis of the Lie algebra however. This is shown for example at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 71 for the Lorentz group.

As mentioned at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4 "Lie Algebras", taking the Lie algebra around the identity is mostly a convention, we could treat any other point, and things are more or less equivalent.

Bibliography:

We can almost reach the Lie algebra of any isometry group in a single go. For every $X$ in the Lie algebra we must have:because $e^{tX}$ has to be in the isometry group by definition as shown at Section "Lie algebra of a matrix Lie group".

Then:so we reach:With this relation, we can easily determine the Lie algebra of common isometries:

Bibliography:

For this sub-case, we can define the Lie algebra of a Lie group $G$ as the set of all matrices $M\in G$ such that for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$:If we fix a given $M$ and vary $t$, we obtain a subgroup of $G$. This type of subgroup is known as a one parameter subgroup.

The immediate question is then if every element of $G$ can be reached in a unique way (i.e. is the exponential map a bijection). By looking at the matrix logarithm however we conclude that this is not the case for real matrices, but it is for complex matrices.

Examples:

TODO example it can be seen that the Lie algebra is not closed matrix multiplication, even though the corresponding group is by definition. But it is closed under the Lie bracket operation.

Is the set of all n-by-y square matrices.

Because $GL(n)$ is a Lie group we can use Section "Lie algebra of a matrix Lie group".

For every matrix $x$ in the set of all n-by-y square matrices $M_n$, $e^x$ has inverse $e^{-}x$.

Note that this works even if $x$ is not invertible, and therefore not in $GL(n)$!

Therefore, the Lie algebra of $GL(n)$ is the entire $M_n$.

This is a good first concrete example of a Lie algebra. Shown at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" has an example.

We can use use the following parametrization of the special linear group on variables $x$, $y$ and $z$:

Every element with this parametrization has determinant 1:Furthermore, any element can be reached, because by independently settting $x$, $y$ and $z$, $M_{00}$, $M_{01}$ and $M_{10}$ can have any value, and once those three are set, $M_{11}$ is fixed by the determinant.

To find the elements of the Lie algebra, we evaluate the derivative on each parameter at 0:

Remembering that the Lie bracket of a matrix Lie group is really simple, we can then observe the following Lie bracket relations between them:

One key thing to note is that the specific matrices $M_x$, $M_y$ and $M_z$ are not really fundamental: we could easily have had different matrices if we had chosen any other parametrization of the group.

TODO confirm: however, no matter which parametrization we choose, the Lie bracket relations between the three elements would always be the same, since it is the number of elements, and the definition of the Lie bracket, that is truly fundamental.

Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" then calculates the exponential map of the vector $x{M}_x+y{M}_y+z{M}_z$ as:with:

TODO now the natural question is: can we cover the entire Lie group with this exponential? Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation" explains why not.