Stratus

Ah, so if I understand what you're saying, that because we can always add another df to A, we can not say that we know exactly what A is. But, because adding another df effectively makes no different, it does not change the field strength F? So, a transformation would really just be having the freedom to add another df to the equation? At least in EM theory? Also, if I can ask, which areas of mathematics are these ideas normally covered? Such as, which areas of mathematics are most commonly used in physics? Ideally particle physics.

hmm i don't think i'm quite there yet, as I somewhat understand the equations, but am not in calculus now. Hopefully I'll be able to re-read this later and it would make more sense (i'm in trig/pre-calc right now). I know a little bit about differential forms, but not quite enough right now. seems like most things in physics are currently over my head, but hopefully it will make more sense as i proceed in my math studies. I always have a habit of trying to skip the basics and understand the complex stuff, one of my character flaws. right now I think i'll just continue trying to understand what I can until I get far enough into math

Hello again everybody, i'm back again for another question that i've come across in my studies. According to many books I've read, a feature of gauge theory is that the fundamental field from which the excitations come from can not be measured in any way, but change by a gauge transformation. Whereas the excitation's observable quantities like charge and velocity can be measured, but can not be changed by a gauge transformation. That makes sense to me, but this next part is where I have trouble. I came across this problem in a book, then went to Wikipedia looking for an answer to my question. In Wikipedia's words "For example, in electromagnetism the electric and magnetic fields, E and B, are observable, while the potentials V ("voltage") and A (the vector potential) are not.[3] Under a gauge transformation in which a constant is added to V, no observable change occurs in E or B." Is this saying that it's impossible to measure the potential V, and in that case, how do voltage meters work? I'm not familiar with vector potential yet myself, but I imagine that there would be a way to calculate or measure it as well. As well, I understand a gauge transformation is a "change in a fields configuration". what is referred to here as being configured differently? I don't understand what is being configured differently in one of the fundamental fields? Thank you

Thank you so much for getting back to me, but I'm afraid this doesn't help me a ton. I do, or at least somewhat, understand the strong force along with gluons. I suppose my main questions are 1.why does the gluon field have such changes as seen in that diagram 2.how are quarks bound inside protons? I understand it's due to the strong force, but is it like the common picture i've seen on many sites like wikipedia, or is it more like what he's predicting? 3. are those diagrams already accepted to be fact? or are they more one personal belief at how quarks can be bound?

Hello there everyone, it's been awhile since I last visited here. In that time I have been studying very much so into quantum physics and have found what I'm most interested in, particle physics, and have been looking into it a lot. While looking around on the depths on the internet, I found this link, http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/OriginMass/index.html ,which seems to state that the internal structure of protons and related hadrons is much different than I thought. I always assumed that is was three quarks bound by gluons jumping to each other changing the color force of each. My question is that, is this just hypothetical or has it actually been accepted as a scientific fact? The website seems to imply a rather high certainty, but with something this ground-breaking, it seems like I would have heard of it before now. Also, the fact that I can't find it on any other websites also makes me question it. ((Also, if this is fact, would someone mind explaining me it in greater detail?))

Ah, okay, that makes sense. related to this topic, earlier today I realized that I wasn't sure if it was the wavelength or the frequency that determined the type of wave (color wave, uv, if, etc), so in my research (which was quite conflicting, some sites said wavelength, some said frequency), I came across this graph while I was looking at it I noticed that the wavelength and frequency are inversely proportionate (wavelength goes up, frequency goes down and vice versa). I knew this from some books I had read, but this caused me to wonder. Is it possible for these to become un-proportionate? IE: a microwave with the normal 10-2 wavelength, but a frequency of 1012, which corresponds to IR. Is this possible, or? What would the wave look like if this could happen?

ah, i see. so the lines are just colored like that to make them stand out? They aren't really blue, green, and red? ah, i see. The reason that it would take an infinite amount of energy to get every standing wave equal is because of the different frequencies I would imagine?

I'm sorry, this will be my last question for a while, I promise xD. I'm currently reading through a book of the history of quantum physics and got to the Ultraviolet catastrophe, which as i'm sure you know was when classical physics predicted an infinite energy/wavelength light. I believe that's what it is anyway What I do know about this subject is 1. In the classical interpretation, the intensity would keep increasing as long as the blackbody keeps receiving energy and the wavelength would keep going down forever. This would create a very high intensity higher than ultra violet ray, correct? 2.I don't understand the quantum view though. Why does a blue light keep going up in intensity and down in wavelength, then at a sudden point, the intensity starts dropping. Why is this? An example of this is here http://upload.wikime...lackbody-lg.png On the correct interpretation, you can see the blue and all other color light reaches a certain intensity then drops. Why? Also, well i'm talking, I don't really understand the idea of a blackbody either. If you could explain this all in laymen's terms, I would very very very much appreciate it I'm sorry for all the questions.

exactly about the history, I never found it interesting at all also. uhhh, I believe I actually already have that book. It's next on my to read list. If it's not asking too much, could I get a list of the QM proper books? I probably won't buy them all now, but it's nice to know which ones are good in case I find one on sale or something.

ah, alright, thank you everyone for your advice. I currently have a pretty great grade in math and science courses, as I enjoy those the most. My history could use a little work, but meh xD. I've been trying to read some books on QM and related subjects in addition to my current studies to help with my understanding in the future, is there any recommended books that you guys know of that is of beginner level? I'm sure I don't know enough for an advanced book, but I suppose I could try to understand a book somewhere in between. Any ideas come to mind? Thank you.

Alright, well, this is somewhat of a continuation from my previous topic. I'm new here so I wasn't sure if it would be better to post a new topic or just edit my previous topic. I figured that it would be better to make a new topic as it's a topic change, if it's incorrect or against the rules, please delete this topic and let me know. xD anyway, before I get into a lot of detail here, keep in mind I'm only in high school currently. I'd love to enter a field in quantum physics, but I would imagine it would be incredibly hard without tons of experience. I just want to plan for the future and try to set a path ahead of me. well, I'm greatly interested in quantum physics. I'm not sure what I find so interesting about it, as when I bring it up with others they always act like I'm crazy. I just know that I enjoy learning about it and if I say so, I can understand it pretty well. I've bought a few books, have been studying, and have been watching lectures and videos online. And well I'm sure I'm nowhere near understanding half of quantum physics, I'd love to find a way to get into it. anyway, I know there's a few physicists on these forums. So, if I may ask, what's my best idea to try and end up in the course I want? I do plan on going to college, also.

Alright, thank you for the help understanding this. ^^

Ahhh, I see. So, the chunk of energy (the band gap) in the quanta that is released is equal to P (Planck's constant) times F (the frequency). And, if you divide the energy (band gap) divided by planck's constant would give the frequency of the wavelength, or the color of the light ((assuming the wave is of visible light) ? If this is correct could someone confirm it for me? I, being very dense on this, still am slightly confused about the mechanics of how light come into existence though. From what I've been reading and placed together Electron jumps releasing energy -> creates an electric field which creates a perpendicular magnetic field which continues through this cycle -> this energy moving at the speed of light is called a photon-> photon interacts with matter that is affected by the electromagnetic force, which causes the electrons in that atom to jump -> electron jumps back down releasing another photon, photon eventually reaches our eyes and we see the object. Is this correct? Thank you so much for your help everyone. I'm still very new at this whole thing so it's very hard to comprehend, but I'm trying to understand. I really am xD.

Okay, I think I understand now. If what I gathered it correct, then A set amount of energy (Plank's constant I imagine?) is required to be released or absorbed for an electron to jump up or down through the levels. When an electron jumps down, it released a self propagating EM wave in the form of a photon? And with a certain wavelength, that photon would be light? If this is not correct, maybe you could correct the step that was wrong? I'm sorry about not understanding this perfectly, it's been a long day so far and I'm only in high school, so I might be a little dense at all this stuff xD.

Thank you for the very nice visualization ((that is also a very nice portrait, much better than anything I could draw/paint)). But, I actually understand the process pretty well. My question was that, I've heard that the perpendicular magnetic and electric field create EM waves, which are light. But, I've also heard that the electron movement creates photon, which are light. So, do both create light? Or am I misunderstanding something in my text books? What i'm thinking right now is that the electron movement is only used to reflect light after the light that was created by the fields interacts with an object. ohhhh, I see. now I realize that I'm probably being a nuisance here asking so many questions, but I'm just very interested in this is all xD. I believe that Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment of superpositions, correct? But, based on Schrodinger's cat, once a superposition comes into contact with real matter (protons, air molecules, etc), nature breaks down to one position? So, my question is, how do we keep something in a superposition when it breaks down so rapidly according to the cat story? Or am I misunderstanding?