Phase of a probability

Vkothii

Banned
Banned
Is the time derivative of the Hamiltonian integral over phase space (the gamma distribution) the equivalent of an action which conserves the probability phase/volume.

Probability Wave Dispersion

The function $$ S_0(l) $$ is called the action of the path, and to each path we define an action,

$$ S_0(l) = \int_{t_l} E dt $$

It is weighted against Planck’s constant, which also has units of action per radian.

The presence of an electromagnetic field adds the interaction term, (superscript $$ I$$),

$$ {S_0}^I(l) = q \int_{t_1}^{t_2} A^\alpha g_{\alpha\beta} \partial x^{\beta} $$

which is the action of the electromagnetic Lorentz force. This is the quantum mechanical Bohm-Aharonov Effect, where $$ q $$ is the charge and $$ A^\alpha $$ is the electromagnetic gauge potential. In the absence of a magnetic field this becomes the prepared state of a quantum computation.

Derive the action that shifts the phase angle $$ \theta_I $$ for a static EM field...?

This is the integral.

$$ {d \over dt} \int_{\Gamma} f(x,p) dxdp = \int_{\Gamma}({\partial f \over \partial x} {dx \over dt} \,+\, {\partial f \over \partial p } {dp \over dt})dxdp $$

$$ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = \int_{\Gamma}({\partial f \over \partial x} {\partial \hat H \over \partial p} \,+\, {\partial f \over \partial p } {\partial \hat H \over \partial x})dxdp $$
 
Last edited:
Well, probably it will get flamed to buggery once again.

The probability phase is just an abstract angle, an amplitude.
(as if that's any help)

The lil' piccy in my avatar is one of these phase angle things.

This has something to do with the conservation of probability and Lorentz invariance. Probability density actually, because the information content - which essentially is fundamental spin has to be conserved. I'm trying to see why the density changes in the Lorentz frame.
 
Last edited:
I am assuming q here is charge? S is spin yes?

I absolutely find it annoying, (not just on this occasion), but many occasions, that people come here, write down equations, and never explain the variables, or their specific functions.

I'm not daft, and niether are other people, but to simply have load of equations written and then taken for granted we should know, is absolutely ridiculous.
 
I am assuming q here is charge? S is spin yes?

I absolutely find it annoying, (not just on this occasion), but many occasions, that people come here, write down equations, and never explain the variables, or their specific functions.

I'm not daft, and niether are other people, but to simply have load of equations written and then taken for granted we should know, is absolutely ridiculous.

q is a generalized coordinate, and S is the action. E presumably is the lagrangian density? This is a bit confusing, but ok.

So what's the claim? Or even the question?
 
Ok.

My question is, or rather, i implore you to make a rule in this forum for the future. If equations are written down, the variables must be explained, instead of taken for granted we should know.
 
Ok.

My question is, or rather, i implore you to make a rule in this forum for the future. If equations are written down, the variables must be explained, instead of taken for granted we should know.

Why do you feel like you have to be involved in every thread? If you're a physicist, as you've claimed before, and you've never seen an action integral, one has to be suspicious of your qualifications.
 
Why do you feel like you have to be involved in every thread? If you're a physicist, as you've claimed before, and you've never seen an action integral, one has to be suspicious of your qualifications.


Where did that come from?

If you check my history, i've involved myself in about four or five discussions, five different threads. I did not deserve that you say i involve myself in every discussion.

Secondly, i know how to work integrals. The reason why i have a [[problem]] with people using variables i may be not so knowable of, is because of reasons like these:

$$\mu_{S}=q \frac{q}{2m}S$$

Do you see two symbols used here identical to the symbols used in the OP? See how some people could become confused?

Now, as i said, i don't think i deserved that.
 
And eh, after readin your post a second time, i know what an action integral is. Where did i say i didn't?
 
And eh, after readin your post a second time, i know what an action integral is. Where did i say i didn't?
To defend BenTheMan's statement, if you were in any way, shape or form familiar with action integrals, you'd be familiar with Hamiltonian mechanics and the notation within it.

Is it a new craze on this forum for people to pretend to know about things they don't? Do they not realize how transparent it is?
 
Don't patronize me, or my knowledge on physics. There is a library of equations out there, and there is also area's of interest. You cannot simply come to recognize an equation (willy-nilly) all of the time.

Besides, i thought it was an action integral. I just didn't know the symbols; or to be more precise, i did not know what those particular symbols where highlighting.

Are you a physicist?
 
And can i also say, its been ages since i have worked on Hamiltonians, or Langrangians, which are similar.

You unfair bunch of peeps.
 
Well what I've said is completely true. If you knew advanced things like path integrals, you'd know about Hamiltonian mechanics and so you'd know the notation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing about those things, but it does seem daft to make out you know more than you do.
Are you a physicist?
I guess I'm more of a mathematician. I have published results in mathematical physics journals, if that counts?
 
No... dear guest... what you have said is something i guessed to be little interest to your job career.

Let me tell you, in physics we deal with many equations; what you said is only half true, with very little logic behind the twist of it all.
 
I could qoute a great deal of equations: hundreds to be precise, and i would still forget a number of equations, because i have not dealt with them in months, in some cases, years.

Do you see?
 
My "job career"?

Look, the more you post the more it seems you have a vivid imagination. Are you telling us, that hand-on-heart, you have a working knowledge of (for instance) Hamiltonian mechanics? Be honest.
 
Well I wouldn't have gone that far! But as an example, would you be capable of constructing the action-angle coordinates for the Hamiltonian:

$$H(r,\theta,p_r,p_\theta) = \frac{p_\theta^2}{2r^2} + \frac{p_r^2}{2} - \frac{1}{r}$$

?
 
You wouldn't have gone that far?

You hyocrotical man/woman... you just blatently admitted i know nothing about them... and then when i said i would go through some of what i know, you said ''i wouldn't go that far,'' and then posted an equation, as if to prove something.

And here is the pivotal peak of your ignorance. Just the other day, Vkothii was posting threads on physics, he even admitted to copying from a book, only for you to blame him of going about and trying tro floute he was more intelligent by doing so.

And today, you have proved yourself a dirty hypocrite.
 
Back
Top