Scalar field: Physics vs. Math



 Science > Physics > Scalar field: Physics vs. Math

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Hatto von Aquitanien"
Date: 25 May 2007 05:12:47 AM
Object: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math
What does a mathematician call the thing a physicist calls a scalar field?
I am of the impression that "scalar field" to a mathematician is an
algebraic structure devoid of geometric meaning.
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
.

User: "Lax"

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 25 May 2007 07:16:31 AM
On May 25, 6:12 am, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

What does a mathematician call the thing a physicist calls a scalar field?
I am of the impression that "scalar field" to a mathematician is an
algebraic structure devoid of geometric meaning.

A function from a subset of F^n into F, where F is a field, (thus F^n
is can be considered vector space).
Usually F is set of Reals for physicists, and n = 2 or 3.
i.e., function from a subset of R^3 (or R^2) into R
.
User: "Rock Brentwood"

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 25 May 2007 01:51:57 PM
On May 25, 7:16 am, Lax <Lax.Cla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 25, 6:12 am, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

What does a mathematician call the thing a physicist calls a scalar field?
I am of the impression that "scalar field" to a mathematician is an
algebraic structure devoid of geometric meaning.


A function from a subset of F^n into F, where F is a field, (thus F^n
is can be considered vector space).

A field (to a mathematician) is a section on a bundle whose base space
is 4-dimensional (for field theory and dynamics), 3-dimensional (for
statics or equilibrium physics in field theory) or 1-dimensional (for
mechanics) or even 0-dimensional (for statics or equilibrium physics
in mechanics). This is the modern mathematical treatment of a field
and includes the notion of particles and systems with finite numbers
of degrees of freedom, also, as special cases.
If the base space X is locally coordinatized by X: (x^0,...,x^{n-1})
(where n = 1, 3 or 4 here), the bundle Q will have local coordinates
Y: (x^0, ..., x^{n-1}, q^0, ..., q^{p-1}). The "fibre" Q_x at each
point (x) in X is a space locally coordinatized by Q_x: (q^0, ...,
q^{p-1}). The usual definition of a fibre bundle also requires that
the fibres Q_x, Q_x' for two different points (x), (x') in X have the
same structure, so that one can talk about a "typical fibre" Q
irrespective of the point x.
For a scalar field, n = 4 and p = 1; the fiber is 1-dimensional and is
either the real line or a circle.
For n = 1, the coordinate X: (t) is just time. For an ordinary
particle (without internal structure) n = 1, p = 3. The field
coordinates are Q: (x, y, z) (i.e. the coordinates of the particle),
and a section is then a map r: t in (a,b) |-> (x(t), y(t), z(t)),
which describes a trajectory for a given time interval (a,b).
The bundle is trivial if it is topologically equivalent to a product
space
Y = X x Q,
with the "fibre" space Q possessing the coordinates (q^0,...,q^{p-1}).
Not all bundles are trivial. Therefore, this is NOT the same thing as
saying that the space is
Total Configuration Space = (Spacetime) x (Field Configuration
Space).
All bundles over the 1-dimensional base space, however, are trivial if
the base space is the real line. If, on the other hand, the base space
is a circle, then there are plenty of non-trivial bundles (the Moebius
strip, in fact, provides the basis for the example of one).
A local section q: X -> Y is a map q: (x) |-> (x, q(x)) that picks out
a particular configuration on the fibre at each point x.
If the domain of the section dom(q) = { x in X: q(x) is defined } is
all of the base space X, then the section is a global section and can
then be thought of as a function. But more generally, sections are not
functions!
More to the point: a field is NOT regarded as merely a function in the
standard mathematical treatment of field theory -- which is what the
original question relates to.
The first derivatives of the field reside in the jet bundle J1(Y),
whose coordinates locally are
J1(Y): (x^m: m=0,...,n-1; q^a: a=0,...,p-1; v^a_m: a=0,...,p-1,
m=0,...,n-1).
The section q: X -> Y representing a field then extends to its "first
derivative" section (which is called the first jet extension of q),
j1(q): (x) |-> (x, q(x), dq(x)/dx); i.e. v^a_m = dq^a/dx^m.
For mechanics, n = 1, and v^a_m reduces to the single component v^a =
dq^a/dt -- the "generalized velocity". Therefore, the extra
coordinates v^a_m are sometimes called the fields "velocity"
components.
The configuration space for a field has n+p diimensions. Counting the
velocity components, you get (n+1)(p+1)-1 dimensions for the total
space J1(Y). For a scalar field (n = 4, p = 1), this gives you
respectively 5 and 9 for the dimensions of Y and J1(Y).
Lagrangians, for instance, are defined in reference to these objects.
So, the action S is actually a function of a region Omega in the base
space X, and a section q: X -> Y (the space of sections is sometimes
denoted Gamma(Y) or explicitly Gamma(X->Y)),
S(Omega, q) = integral (L(j1(q)) omega)
where omega = dx^0 dx^1 ... dx^{n-1} and the integral is taken over
the region Omega and the Lagrangian L: J1(Q) -> R.
.
User: "Hatto von Aquitanien"

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 25 May 2007 04:25:00 PM
Rock Brentwood wrote:

On May 25, 7:16 am, Lax <Lax.Cla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 25, 6:12 am, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

What does a mathematician call the thing a physicist calls a scalar
field? I am of the impression that "scalar field" to a mathematician is
an algebraic structure devoid of geometric meaning.


A function from a subset of F^n into F, where F is a field, (thus F^n
is can be considered vector space).


A field (to a mathematician) is a section on a bundle whose base space
is 4-dimensional (for field theory and dynamics), 3-dimensional (for
statics or equilibrium physics in field theory) or 1-dimensional (for
mechanics) or even 0-dimensional (for statics or equilibrium physics
in mechanics). This is the modern mathematical treatment of a field
and includes the notion of particles and systems with finite numbers
of degrees of freedom, also, as special cases.

How does that relate to the definition of "field" as a set with two binary
operations on it, the first of which forms an Abelian group, and the second
of which has the properties of associativity, left and right
distributivity, invertibility and commutativity?

If the base space X is locally coordinatized by X: (x^0,...,x^{n-1})
(where n = 1, 3 or 4 here), the bundle Q will have local coordinates
Y: (x^0, ..., x^{n-1}, q^0, ..., q^{p-1}). The "fibre" Q_x at each
point (x) in X is a space locally coordinatized by Q_x: (q^0, ...,
q^{p-1}). The usual definition of a fibre bundle also requires that
the fibres Q_x, Q_x' for two different points (x), (x') in X have the
same structure, so that one can talk about a "typical fibre" Q
irrespective of the point x.

It appears that condition follows from a requirement that the manifold X be
continuously differentiable within the region under consideration. That
may not be strictly necessary if we make appropriate allowances for a
finite number of singularities.

For a scalar field, n = 4 and p = 1; the fiber is 1-dimensional and is
either the real line or a circle.

If the scalar field is assumed to continuously differentiable, then the
fibers should form a curve in the product space of n+1 dimensions.

For n = 1, the coordinate X: (t) is just time. For an ordinary
particle (without internal structure) n = 1, p = 3. The field
coordinates are Q: (x, y, z) (i.e. the coordinates of the particle),
and a section is then a map r: t in (a,b) |-> (x(t), y(t), z(t)),
which describes a trajectory for a given time interval (a,b).

The bundle is trivial if it is topologically equivalent to a product
space
Y = X x Q,
with the "fibre" space Q possessing the coordinates (q^0,...,q^{p-1}).
Not all bundles are trivial. Therefore, this is NOT the same thing as
saying that the space is
Total Configuration Space = (Spacetime) x (Field Configuration
Space).

All bundles over the 1-dimensional base space, however, are trivial if
the base space is the real line. If, on the other hand, the base space
is a circle, then there are plenty of non-trivial bundles (the Moebius
strip, in fact, provides the basis for the example of one).

A local section q: X -> Y is a map q: (x) |-> (x, q(x)) that picks out
a particular configuration on the fibre at each point x.

If the domain of the section dom(q) = { x in X: q(x) is defined } is
all of the base space X, then the section is a global section and can
then be thought of as a function. But more generally, sections are not
functions!

More to the point: a field is NOT regarded as merely a function in the
standard mathematical treatment of field theory -- which is what the
original question relates to.

Can you provide an example of a scalar field with physical significance
which cannot be described as a function? I cannot even conceive of such a
thing.

The first derivatives of the field reside in the jet bundle J1(Y),
whose coordinates locally are
J1(Y): (x^m: m=0,...,n-1; q^a: a=0,...,p-1; v^a_m: a=0,...,p-1,
m=0,...,n-1).
The section q: X -> Y representing a field then extends to its "first
derivative" section (which is called the first jet extension of q),
j1(q): (x) |-> (x, q(x), dq(x)/dx); i.e. v^a_m = dq^a/dx^m.

For mechanics, n = 1, and v^a_m reduces to the single component v^a =
dq^a/dt -- the "generalized velocity". Therefore, the extra
coordinates v^a_m are sometimes called the fields "velocity"
components.

The configuration space for a field has n+p diimensions. Counting the
velocity components, you get (n+1)(p+1)-1 dimensions for the total
space J1(Y). For a scalar field (n = 4, p = 1), this gives you
respectively 5 and 9 for the dimensions of Y and J1(Y).

Lagrangians, for instance, are defined in reference to these objects.
So, the action S is actually a function of a region Omega in the base
space X, and a section q: X -> Y (the space of sections is sometimes
denoted Gamma(Y) or explicitly Gamma(X->Y)),
S(Omega, q) = integral (L(j1(q)) omega)
where omega = dx^0 dx^1 ... dx^{n-1} and the integral is taken over
the region Omega and the Lagrangian L: J1(Q) -> R.

It is a common error to confuse phase space with physical space. Such
misunderstanding leads to all manner of nonsense such as the idea that
probability amplitudes are somehow physically real, and not merely
mathematical constructs.
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 25 May 2007 10:42:20 PM
On May 25, 4:25 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

It is a common error to confuse phase space with physical space.

Well, first of all, this does not relate to anything you're replying
to.
Second of all: Hello?! Do you know you who you're replying to? Mr.
Configuration-Space-Is-Not-Physical-Space?!
I practically invented that phrase and it is, no less, one of the
central aspects of the framework that couches what you're replying
to ... as well as one of my major bones of contention, as illustrated
in the following (which one could even be excused from having the
impression that that's where you got your reply from)
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#QuantumDynamics
"In contrast to the conclusions, drawn by Feynman and (before him)
Dyson, who purported to pull out the formal structure of
electromagnetic theory from the consideration of the commutator
algebra, here the Lorentz law and force are placed in their proper
context. The 'Lorentz force' resides in configuration space, not in
ordinary space. The confusion with electromagnetism occurs when one
restricts attention to a one-particle system (as Feynman and Dyson
did), where the configuration space is three-dimensional."
or
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#Nelson
"A deeper analysis shows that the quantum potential is generated by
the quantum deformation of a stress tensor, representing the
probabilistic flow of the system in configuration space, subject to
the continuity equation and a force law that expresses the flow of the
momentum density for the system in terms of a configuration space
Lorentz force."
As to your original question, you'd do best to do a web search on the
whole framework of bundles, "triviality", etc. I can't fill in on all
the details here. For one, I've never done a study in any depth on the
intricacies related to non-trivial bundles.
The examples that come to my mind come more from pure mathematics:
those relating to Riemann surfaces in complex analysis (the logarithm
and exponential are closely linked to an archetypical example of the
general phenomenon of non-triviality, with the logarithm technically
not being a function at all because of this issue). In a more physical
context might be projective Lie group representations; which can be
thought of a sections over complex bundles that have a Lie group
manifold as a base space (i.e. phase). The Galilei group, for
instance, (for Newtonian physics) forms a manifold whose corresponding
complex bundle is non-trivial. Out of this ultimately comes the
classical Newtonian notion of mass.
The somewhat standard model of a Maxwell monopole makes essential use
of the non-triviality of the bundle corresponding to the Maxwell field
around a singular point to construct (piecemeal) the magnetic source.
The gauge is locally trivial, but globally non-trivial. This bears
some similarity (and relation) to the integrability constraint
mentioned in the "Nelson" article above.
.
User: "Hatto von Aquitanien"

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 26 May 2007 12:34:25 AM
wrote:

On May 25, 4:25 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

It is a common error to confuse phase space with physical space.


Well, first of all, this does not relate to anything you're replying
to.

I do not agree. The last part of the post I was replying to discussed the
integral of the Lagrangian, etc. That is an essential precursor to
Hamilton's canonical equations used the terms of which constitute the
coordinates of phase space as Gibbs used the term. Since the essential
distinction to which I was referring between phase space and physical space
is a result of the method of deriving the Euler-Lagrange equation by
requiring the variation of the path integral of a functional to vanish, my
comment was fully justified.

Second of all: Hello?! Do you know you who you're replying to? Mr.
Configuration-Space-Is-Not-Physical-Space?!

I practically invented that phrase

Dr. Schrödinger! What a pleasant surprise! I thought you were long dead.

and it is, no less, one of the
central aspects of the framework that couches what you're replying
to ... as well as one of my major bones of contention, as illustrated
in the following (which one could even be excused from having the
impression that that's where you got your reply from)

http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#QuantumDynamics
"In contrast to the conclusions, drawn by Feynman and (before him)
Dyson, who purported to pull out the formal structure of
electromagnetic theory from the consideration of the commutator
algebra, here the Lorentz law and force are placed in their proper
context. The 'Lorentz force' resides in configuration space, not in
ordinary space. The confusion with electromagnetism occurs when one
restricts attention to a one-particle system (as Feynman and Dyson
did), where the configuration space is three-dimensional."

or

http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#Nelson
"A deeper analysis shows that the quantum potential is generated by
the quantum deformation of a stress tensor, representing the
probabilistic flow of the system in configuration space, subject to
the continuity equation and a force law that expresses the flow of the
momentum density for the system in terms of a configuration space
Lorentz force."

As to your original question, you'd do best to do a web search on the
whole framework of bundles, "triviality", etc. I can't fill in on all
the details here. For one, I've never done a study in any depth on the
intricacies related to non-trivial bundles.

The examples that come to my mind come more from pure mathematics:
those relating to Riemann surfaces in complex analysis (the logarithm
and exponential are closely linked to an archetypical example of the
general phenomenon of non-triviality, with the logarithm technically
not being a function at all because of this issue). In a more physical
context might be projective Lie group representations; which can be
thought of a sections over complex bundles that have a Lie group
manifold as a base space (i.e. phase). The Galilei group, for
instance, (for Newtonian physics) forms a manifold whose corresponding
complex bundle is non-trivial. Out of this ultimately comes the
classical Newtonian notion of mass.

The somewhat standard model of a Maxwell monopole makes essential use
of the non-triviality of the bundle corresponding to the Maxwell field
around a singular point to construct (piecemeal) the magnetic source.
The gauge is locally trivial, but globally non-trivial. This bears
some similarity (and relation) to the integrability constraint
mentioned in the "Nelson" article above.

--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
.
User: "Hatto von Aquitanien"

Title: Re: Scalar field: Physics vs. Math 26 May 2007 11:05:46 AM
Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:

markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 25, 4:25 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

It is a common error to confuse phase space with physical space.


Well, first of all, this does not relate to anything you're replying
to.


I do not agree. The last part of the post I was replying to discussed the
integral of the Lagrangian, etc. That is an essential precursor to
Hamilton's canonical equations used the terms of which constitute the
coordinates of phase space as Gibbs used the term. Since the essential
distinction to which I was referring between phase space and physical
space is a result of the method of deriving the Euler-Lagrange equation by
requiring the variation of the path integral of a functional to vanish, my
comment was fully justified.

Well, it looks as though that is not an essential path to Hamilton's
canonical equations, so I must conclude that Hamilton's formulation should
be completely compatible with the Newtonian form of mechanics unless other
assumptions are added. That is to say, it appears that phase space can be
formulated in such a way as to correspond to causal physics. OTOH,
Schrödinger begins with the variational method, so I am confident that his
results do not directly represent real entities. Schrödinger was also
confident of that fact.

Second of all: Hello?! Do you know you who you're replying to? Mr.
Configuration-Space-Is-Not-Physical-Space?!

I practically invented that phrase


Dr. Schrödinger! What a pleasant surprise! I thought you were long dead.

--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
.







  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER