http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.5009.pdf
Level-Undergraduate
Level-Undergraduate
Showing posts with label arxiv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arxiv. Show all posts
Sunday, July 20, 2014
[hep-th] A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics
A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics
This is a wonderfully written paper introducing the topic of particle physics to undergraduates. It approaches the subject leisurely in Part 1 by reviewing some important classical physics concepts. These include Noether's theorem, gauge transformations, and the Classical Electrodynamics Lagrangian $$ \mathcal{L_{EM}} = -\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} - J^{\mu}A_{\mu} $$
Following this, Part 2 introduces the algebraic concepts needed to be successful and harness a true understanding of particle physics. Using these foundations, the generators and Lie algebras for any group may be discovered. This portion of the paper is somewhat mathematically rigorous due to the generality of the discussion.
The fun really begins in Part 3 of the paper where Quantum Field Theory is finally introduced. The author starts with the typical derivation of the Klein-Gordon equation for spin-0 fields through the relativistic Hamiltonian. Moving forward Robinson et al. discuss spinors and why the irreducible representation of the Lorentz group turns out to be $ SU(2) \otimes SU(2) $. After discussing the Dirac sea of antiparticles and the correct QFT interpretation of antiparticles, we move on to discuss the Dirac Lagrangian for a particle in an electromagnetic field and the coupling of the particle's field (e.g. electron) with the gauge field (photon).
Once you reach the section on quantization the paper starts to pick up and get pretty difficult for a reader encountering particle physics for the first time. I suggest only skimming this section or looking up other resources if you have not had experience with this before.
Finally, some investigation of the Standard Model is done. The authors look at spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs sector, and the quark sector. You will need to understand what was going on in the quantization section to keep up with their tempo here.
This is a fantastic paper that will introduce advanced undergraduates to the beauty and rigor of particle physics without assuming too much early on. The paper becomes difficult in the later portions of Part 3 so is pretty approachable. I hope you all enjoy this paper!
P.S. for those of you who highly enjoyed the paper, there is a second paper that goes much deeper into the geometrical approach to gauge theories.
Following this, Part 2 introduces the algebraic concepts needed to be successful and harness a true understanding of particle physics. Using these foundations, the generators and Lie algebras for any group may be discovered. This portion of the paper is somewhat mathematically rigorous due to the generality of the discussion.
The fun really begins in Part 3 of the paper where Quantum Field Theory is finally introduced. The author starts with the typical derivation of the Klein-Gordon equation for spin-0 fields through the relativistic Hamiltonian. Moving forward Robinson et al. discuss spinors and why the irreducible representation of the Lorentz group turns out to be $ SU(2) \otimes SU(2) $. After discussing the Dirac sea of antiparticles and the correct QFT interpretation of antiparticles, we move on to discuss the Dirac Lagrangian for a particle in an electromagnetic field and the coupling of the particle's field (e.g. electron) with the gauge field (photon).
Once you reach the section on quantization the paper starts to pick up and get pretty difficult for a reader encountering particle physics for the first time. I suggest only skimming this section or looking up other resources if you have not had experience with this before.
Finally, some investigation of the Standard Model is done. The authors look at spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs sector, and the quark sector. You will need to understand what was going on in the quantization section to keep up with their tempo here.
This is a fantastic paper that will introduce advanced undergraduates to the beauty and rigor of particle physics without assuming too much early on. The paper becomes difficult in the later portions of Part 3 so is pretty approachable. I hope you all enjoy this paper!
P.S. for those of you who highly enjoyed the paper, there is a second paper that goes much deeper into the geometrical approach to gauge theories.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
[GR-QC] Negative Mass Bu-...Wait, What?
Level: Possibly public, supplemented by undergraduate material
So I will begin by acknowledging that I am stepping outside my proposed subfield for this blog a little bit, here, but that this is something that I feel I should address.
So I will begin by acknowledging that I am stepping outside my proposed subfield for this blog a little bit, here, but that this is something that I feel I should address.
[q-bio.OT] An Integration of Integrated Information Theory with Fundamental Physics
Submitted to the arXiv by Adam B. Barrett on July 3rd, 2014.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4706
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.4706.pdf
-----
My opinion:
This paper rings strongly of a physicist entering psychologists' territory in an attempt to steer the course of consciousness research to one of more physical and fundamental origin. Although no equations nor methods of measurement are provided in this paper, the author extends a theory with the intentions of spurring research into the quantitative measurements of fields with respect to consciousness. I was a bit uneasy with the importance placed on consciousness at first, but by the discussion section I was better able to understand the author's intentions.
---------------------------------------------------------
My familiarity with subject: 5/10
Style: 8/10
Ease (for layman): 10/10
Length: 7pgs (excluding references and images)
----------------------------------------------------------
Any arguments with opinions or analyses in this summary are warmly welcomed. This paper purports what I see to be a possibly controversial issue, and I will try to remain relatively neutral in my synopsis.
------------------------------------------------
This paper deals with the subject of consciousness as an incarnation of complex underlying physical and biological mechanisms. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) states that consciousness is compounded information which acts above the sum of its parts. Since non-fundamental information cannot be intrinsic, descriptions of the information in a system depend on an observer's reference point. To surmount this problem, the author provides his solution -- field integrated information hypothesis (FIIH) -- which rests the intrinsic information of a system in the hands of fundamental, physical fields.
Fields in physics (as opposed to mathematics) are constructs that associate a mathematical object with every point in space and time. All particles have associated fields, and "all forces in nature can be described by field theories which model interactions" (page 4). Since FIIH goes to say that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of matter, the author claims a need to express its manifestation in the behavior of fields/particles.
To help quantify consciousness, "the amount of consciousness generated by a patch of field is the amount of integrated information intrinsic to it" (page 4). The quantification must be frame invariant. The author does not delve much further since determining the measurement equation is "beyond the scope of this present paper", but does "speculate" the formula is in terms of "thermodynamic entropy" (page 5).
Opponents of IIT criticize the fact that consciousness is produced by integrated information since this continuum approach implies that everyday objects have some consciousness. Since consciousness has multiple definitions depending on the individual, "the key point [...] is that on the theory discussed here, intrinsic integrated information is what underlies subjective experience at the most fundamental level of description" (page 6).
The author then continues in a discussion of similar theories of consciousness. One of which he follows with, "this is not however compatible with the laws of physics" (page 7). #rekt. The author goes on to say that although IIT and FIIH do not have yet equations for consciousness, the theories point in the direction of a more quantitative view of the subject.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4706
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.4706.pdf
-----
My opinion:
This paper rings strongly of a physicist entering psychologists' territory in an attempt to steer the course of consciousness research to one of more physical and fundamental origin. Although no equations nor methods of measurement are provided in this paper, the author extends a theory with the intentions of spurring research into the quantitative measurements of fields with respect to consciousness. I was a bit uneasy with the importance placed on consciousness at first, but by the discussion section I was better able to understand the author's intentions.
---------------------------------------------------------
My familiarity with subject: 5/10
Style: 8/10
Ease (for layman): 10/10
Length: 7pgs (excluding references and images)
----------------------------------------------------------
Any arguments with opinions or analyses in this summary are warmly welcomed. This paper purports what I see to be a possibly controversial issue, and I will try to remain relatively neutral in my synopsis.
------------------------------------------------
This paper deals with the subject of consciousness as an incarnation of complex underlying physical and biological mechanisms. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) states that consciousness is compounded information which acts above the sum of its parts. Since non-fundamental information cannot be intrinsic, descriptions of the information in a system depend on an observer's reference point. To surmount this problem, the author provides his solution -- field integrated information hypothesis (FIIH) -- which rests the intrinsic information of a system in the hands of fundamental, physical fields.
Fields in physics (as opposed to mathematics) are constructs that associate a mathematical object with every point in space and time. All particles have associated fields, and "all forces in nature can be described by field theories which model interactions" (page 4). Since FIIH goes to say that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of matter, the author claims a need to express its manifestation in the behavior of fields/particles.
To help quantify consciousness, "the amount of consciousness generated by a patch of field is the amount of integrated information intrinsic to it" (page 4). The quantification must be frame invariant. The author does not delve much further since determining the measurement equation is "beyond the scope of this present paper", but does "speculate" the formula is in terms of "thermodynamic entropy" (page 5).
Opponents of IIT criticize the fact that consciousness is produced by integrated information since this continuum approach implies that everyday objects have some consciousness. Since consciousness has multiple definitions depending on the individual, "the key point [...] is that on the theory discussed here, intrinsic integrated information is what underlies subjective experience at the most fundamental level of description" (page 6).
The author then continues in a discussion of similar theories of consciousness. One of which he follows with, "this is not however compatible with the laws of physics" (page 7). #rekt. The author goes on to say that although IIT and FIIH do not have yet equations for consciousness, the theories point in the direction of a more quantitative view of the subject.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
[q-bio.BM] An Introduction to Biomolecular Simulations and Docking -- Mura and McAnany
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3752
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.3752.pdf
Any arguments with opinions in this post are welcome. I write this as (hopefully) a guide for those interested in the topic but do not want to go head first into the paper. This paper is a wonderful explanation of molecular dynamics as a tool in computational biophysics, and I highly recommend reading it if you are interested in the field. This is the best paper I've read so far that covers the computational biophysicist's toolset as a whole.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.3752.pdf
Any arguments with opinions in this post are welcome. I write this as (hopefully) a guide for those interested in the topic but do not want to go head first into the paper. This paper is a wonderful explanation of molecular dynamics as a tool in computational biophysics, and I highly recommend reading it if you are interested in the field. This is the best paper I've read so far that covers the computational biophysicist's toolset as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)