Necessity of Integral Formalism

To describe the physical reality, there are two ways of constructing the dynamical equation of field, differential formalism and integral formalism. The importance of this fact is firstly emphasized by Yang in case of gauge field [Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 （1974） 44fi], where the fact has given rise to a deeper understanding for Aharonov-Bohm phase and magnetic monopole [Phys. Rev. D 12 （1975） 3846]. In this paper we shall point out that such a fact also holds in general wave function of matter, it may give rise to a deeper understanding for Berry phase. Most importantly, we shall prove a point that, for general wave function of matter, in the adiabatic limit, there is an intrinsic difference between its integral formalism and differential formalism. It is neglect of this difference that leads to an inconsistency of quantum adiabatic theorem pointed out by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 （2004） 160408]. It has been widely accepted that there is no physical difference of using differential operator or integral operator to construct the dynamical equation of field. Nevertheless, our study shows that the Schroedinger differential equation （i.e., differential formalism for wave function） shall lead to vanishing Berry phase and that the Schroedinger integral equation （i.e., integral formalism for wave function）, in the adiabatic limit, can satisfactorily give the Berry phase. Therefore, we reach a conclusion： There are two ways of describing physical reality, differential formalism and integral formalism; but the integral formalism is a unique way of complete description.

A Mathematical Comparison of the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics

A few physicists have recently constructed the generating compatibility conditions (CC) of the Killing operator for the Minkowski (M), Schwarzschild (S) and Kerr (K) metrics. They discovered second order CC, well known for M, but also third order CC for S and K. In a recent paper (DOI:10.4236/jmp.2018.910125) we have studied the cases of M and S, without using specific technical tools such as Teukolski scalars or Killing-Yano tensors. However, even if S(m) and K(m, a) are depending on constant parameters in such a way that S → M when m → 0 and K→ S when a → 0, the CC of S do not provide the CC of M when m → 0 while the CC of K do not provide the CC of S when a → 0. In this paper, using tricky motivating examples of operators with constant or variable parameters, we explain why the CC are depending on the choice of the parameters. In particular, the only purely intrinsic objects that can be defined, namely the extension modules, may change drastically. As the algebroid bracket is compatible with the prolongation/projection (PP) procedure, we provide for the first time all the CC for K in an intrinsic way, showing that they only depend on the underlying Killing algebra and that the role played by the Spencer operator is crucial. We get K < S < M with 2 < 4 < 10 for the Killing algebras and explain why the formal search of the CC for M, S or K are strikingly different, even if each Spencer sequence is isomorphic to the tensor product of the Poincaré sequence for the exterior derivative by the corresponding Lie algebra.

Minimum Resolution of the Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Kerr Differential Modules

Our recent arXiv preprints and published papers on the solution of the Riemann-Lanczos and Weyl-Lanczos problems have brought our attention on the importance of revisiting the algebraic structure of the Bianchi identities in Riemannian geometry. We also discovered in the meantime that, in our first GB book of 1978, we had already used a new way for studying the compatibility conditions (CC) of an operator that may not be necessarily formally integrable (FI) in order to construct canonical formally exact differential sequences on the jet level. The purpose of this paper is to prove that the combination of these two facts clearly shows the specific importance of the Spencer operator and the Spencer &delta;-cohomology, totally absent from mathematical physics today. The results obtained are unavoidable because they only depend on elementary combinatorics and diagram chasing. They also provide for the first time the purely intrinsic interpretation of the respective numbers of successive first, second, third and higher order generating CC. However, if they of course agree with the linearized Killing operator over the Minkowski metric, they largely disagree with recent publications on the respective numbers of generating CC for the linearized Killing operator over the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics. Many similar examples are illustrating these new techniques, providing in particular a few resolutions in which the orders of the successive operators may go “up and down” surprisingly, like in the conformal situation for various dimensions.

The high level language for system specification: A model-driven approach to systems engineering

We present HiLLS(High Level Language for System Specification),a graphical formalism that allows to specify Discrete Event System(DES)models for analysis using methodologies like simulation,formal methods and enactment.HiLLS’syntax is built from the integration of concepts from System Theory and Software Engineering aided by simple concrete notations to describe the structural and behavioral aspects of DESs.This paper provides the syntax of HiLLS and its simulation semantics which is based on the Discrete Event System Specification(DEVS)formalism.From DEVS-based Modeling and Simulation(M&S)perspective,HiLLS is a platform-independent visual language with generic expressions that can serve as a front-end for most existing DEVS-based simulation environments with the aid of Model-Driven Engineering(MDE)techniques.It also suggests ways to fill some gaps in existing DEVS-based visual formalisms that inhibit complete specification of the behavior of complex DESs.We provide a case study to illustrate the core features of the language.

Sufficient Condition for Validity of Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

In this paper, we attempt to give a sufficient condition of guaranteeing the validity of the proof of the quantum adiabatic theorem. The new sufficient condition can clearly remove the inconsistency and the counterexample of the quantum adiabatic theorem pointed out by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 （2004） 160408].