Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

178 submissions , 140 unreviewed
4,360 questions , 1,685 unanswered
5,105 answers , 21,689 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
649 active unimported users
More ...

  Research problems in application of Lie groups to differential equations

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
138 views

Are there any open problems in physics involving Lie groups and differential equations for a phd theses.

Some applications are say, Noether's theorem in classical or quantum field theory. But I am not sure if those topics lead to any research problems.

So any idea about prospective research problems in application of Lie groups to differential equations?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user excitedaboutphysics
asked Feb 25, 2014 in Resources and References by excitedaboutphysics (0 points) [ no revision ]
This seems to be a list question. Cross-posted to math.stackexchange.com/q/689843/11127

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
There certainly are mathematical research problems in this area, see e.g. Open Problems in Symmetry Analysis by P.A. Clarkson core.ac.uk/download/pdf/63703.pdf

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user just-learning

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I do not believe that there are any.
You can check Stephanie Singer's book on Lie groups as applied as symmetries of differential equations, and also the book on mechanics and look at the unfortunately old-fashioned review http://people.ucsc.edu/~rmont/papers/Symm_in_Mech_Review.PDF

There you will see that although there is some research activity, it is what a physicist would consider "pure math", e.g., the possibility of collisions in the three body problem. And this activity, also in Symplectic Geometry and Lorentzian manifolds, takes place in the mathematics community, it is not done or interesting to physicists. And Prof. Singer herself is now doing Statistics...just like me: she left Lie Groups to do Stats, as I did too.

Statistical Mechanics is the future of Physics.

Now Lie Groups do play an important role in Statistical Mechanics, see Mackey's wonderful review article in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, and Volume 4 of Gelfand and Naimark's Les Distributions: applications de l'analyse harmonique (I am sure there is an English translation, too). And some of that activity is indeed Physics, although what is grouped around Ergodic Theory and particularly interested Mackey was purely mathematical.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user joseph f. johnson
answered Jun 1, 2014 by joseph f. johnson (500 points) [ no revision ]
"Statistical Mechanics is the future of Physics." This is quite a bold statement, could you elaborate on it what you mean with this?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Hunter
It is so bold that it would require an entire survey talk to answer your comment, and I'm not qualified to defend or prove the statement anyway. But: the theoretical concepts are exciting, require new maths, and one can get the experimental evidence that is relevant. In contrast, cosmology and fundamental theoretical particle physics are at a dead end in that regard. I am a string theory skeptic, as are many physicists, in private. The whole string theory community is a case study in what happens when you have no experimental evidence.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2019-03-29 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user joseph f. johnson

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...