There is also a nice discussion and possibly a very detailed answer to the exact question posted above, in paper by Pons, as well as in Sundermeyer 's book " Symmetries in Fundamental Physics ". The bottom line is: isolated first class constraints (primary or secondary or tertiary...) do not, in general, generate gauge transformations.
In the past, after Fleischmann and Pons announced their cold fusion results, in perfectly good faith, they were proven wrong by subsequent experiments. What are the experimental realities that make Fleischmann and Pons style cold fusions experiments easy to get wrong? Would the same risks apply to this new set up?
Pons and Fleischmann and McKubre did electrolysis, and noticed excess heat and correlated He production. Bocris measured large amounts of tritium production (and was accused of scientific misconduct for this, and exonerated), as did others in contact with Miley.
I can't seem to understand why charge accumulates on the sharp points on a conductors surface. I've seen many solutions with math's but I don't understand them and I want a more intuitive explanati...
I'm still confused because your answer only addresses a non-uniqueness of the energy-momentum tensor. However, in the context I've encountered it this modification is claimed to affect the physics. For example, in CFT the OPE with energy-momentum tensor determines scaling dimensions of the fields, so these are different whether we add the $\phi R$ term or not (this was actually a reason for ...
Yes, but I was trying to find the absolute entropy (like the one in the Boltzmann definition), not the Δ. So I thought to do this. Once we know that ΔS=Cln (T2/T1) we can split everything S2-S1=Cln (T2)-Cln (T1) and call S (n)=Cln (T (n)). I don't understand why I can't do it. Thanks