/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14182403

132KiB, 1200x860, relativity.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/pg/ - physics general.

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 16:23:47 2022 No.14182403 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14182877 >>14183739 >>14183883 >>14183973 >>14186016

Astronomy, String theory, Hamiltonian mechanics, General Relativity, whatever your heart desires.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:27:34 No.14182813 Report

Quoted By: >>14187949

$F=ma$

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:43:57 No.14182877 Report

Quoted By:

>>14182403
I mean, like, the universe is obviviously a big o'l stretchy springy thing that winds up like a birthday party horn. Thats why all those particles are identical when they wind up. the way they do. Give it enough time it will be birthday time all over again and then the big man will give it a strong blow again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 22:55:46 No.14183739 Report

Quoted By: >>14183766 >>14187959

>>14182403

Say you have a group of hermitian operators that form an algebra, their exponentiation generates a group called the algebra covering group. This group can act on state vectors and turn them into other state vectors. All these transformations must be unitary.
Example: The angular momentum algebra can be exponentiated and generate the SU(2) group, which is unitary.
Question: Are all covering groups of some lie algebra always unitary? Or are they sometimes not unitary and therefore cant be "physical"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:04:48 No.14183766 Report

Quoted By: >>14183822

>>14183739
Aren't Hermitian/observable operators unitary by definition?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:17:13 No.14183822 Report

Quoted By: >>14184068

>>14183766
Lets be accurate in our language. A hermitian operator is simply equal to its complex adjoint. By itself it is not a group element and a hermitian operator isnt necessarily unitary. Taken as a group generator it generates a group, the question is if these group elements are themselves unitary, unlike the algebra operators that are simply hermitian.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:31:30 No.14183883 Report

Quoted By: >>14183913 >>14188868

>>14182403
>String theory
People actually believe this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:37:39 No.14183913 Report

Quoted By: >>14183920

>>14183883
It's an educated guess. Because experimentalists haven't been able to discover anything fundamentally new theoreticians have spent the last 40 years mentally masturbating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:39:20 No.14183920 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183913
It's purely mathematical including the claim that we are actually living in a 9- or 11-dimensional space mostly because string models don't work with only three space and one time variable. Given that you can't actually prove or disprove any of the claim that string theorists make, it's largely pseudo-scientific as of now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:57:14 No.14183967 Report

Quoted By: >>14183976 >>14183991 >>14184014

Let's get down to the actual fun stuff.
What do you guys think is the reason for the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:58:01 No.14183973 Report

Quoted By: >>14183978 >>14183983 >>14183987 >>14184088

>>14182403
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:58:39 No.14183976 Report

Quoted By: >>14183981

>>14183967
Why would we ever think they would be different?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 23:59:17 No.14183978 Report

Quoted By: >>14184061

>>14183973
It's because they're huge and scary, autist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:00:18 No.14183981 Report

Quoted By: >>14184008

>>14183976
There's no reason why they would be the same. One is resisting motion, the other is causing gravitation. Why would you assume those quantities to be the same?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:00:28 No.14183983 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183973
they're the most extreme objects in the universe. of course people find them interesting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:01:26 No.14183987 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183973
> of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures
Probably. People want all the fun but none of the hard work. E.g. that space flight thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:02:15 No.14183991 Report

Quoted By: >>14184014 >>14184023

>>14183967
I'm gonna go the hot take route and say they aren't equivalent *all* the time due to Quantized Inertia Theory, assuming QI is the correct description of reality of course.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:06:11 No.14184008 Report

Quoted By: >>14184020

>>14183981
inertial mass is the resistance to acceleration. gravity is just another source of acceleration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:07:28 No.14184014 Report

Quoted By: >>14184023

>>14183967
>the reason for the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass?
An artifact of observation.
>>14183991
>they aren't equivalent *all* the time due to Quantized Inertia Theory,
I assume that you're referencing the issue that gravitational force and conventional force stop being equivalent if the force exerted on the object is extremely weak. If so, then this is dark-energy tier because this idea was introduced solely to solve the missing mass problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:08:52 No.14184020 Report

Quoted By: >>14184027

>>14184008
You just described two completely different things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:10:31 No.14184023 Report

Quoted By: >>14184030

>>14183991
>>14184014
Haven't heard about QI yet, but I recall having read about Newton-Schrodinger states which would violate the equivalence measurably. The effect is extremely small though. I guess QI is a consequence of that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:13:14 No.14184027 Report

Quoted By: >>14184039

>>14184020
Are you sure about that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:14:42 No.14184030 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184023
I have no expertise whatsoever on that subject but if Newton-Schrodinger states actually exist, then the effects of them should be more 'general', in example not just affecting gravitation. It's apparently also testable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:18:39 No.14184039 Report

Quoted By: >>14184048 >>14184073

>>14184027
Yes.
>1.: something
>2.: resistance to something

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:20:50 No.14184048 Report

Quoted By: >>14184772

>>14184039
Inertial and gravitational mass are two different things but they're equivalent in every possible way at least according to our measurements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:27:59 No.14184061 Report

Quoted By: >>14184780

>>14183978
you must be emotionally triggered if you were driven to use an epithet in your reply. seems safe to assume that what triggered your emotions was that you were accurately assessed as a soiboi.
so whats it like being a soiboi? you're clearly ashamed of being accurately characterized as a soi, what other shameful secrets are you trying to disguise? are you fat, gay, ugly, otherwise deformed or is it all of the above?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:31:22 No.14184068 Report

Quoted By: >>14184112

>>14183822
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%27s_theorem_on_one-parameter_unitary_groups
This says that when an algebra has hermitian operators, its associated group of transformations is unitary, and viceversa, all physical transformations (unitary) are generated by the exponentiation of hermitian operators or their linear combinations with real coefficients, since in general multiplying a hermitian operator by a complex number makes it not hermitian, a famous example being the raising or lowering operators, which are not hermitian but are a complex linear combination of hermitian operators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:38:27 No.14184073 Report

Quoted By: >>14184772

>>14184039
The equivalence principle is what states that $M_{inertial} a = M_{gravitational} g$

Since our best theory says gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration why would we assume the two are different? Sure in the realm of Newton they are much more distinct, in GR that isn't the case. It's a core requirement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:48:04 No.14184088 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183973
They're superlative relativistic phenomena, of course they're appealing

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO __yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_by_ (...).jpg, 429KiB, 1453x2048

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 00:55:23 No.14184112 Report

Quoted By: >>14184152 >>14184161

>>14184068
>all physical transformations (unitary) are generated by the exponentiation of hermitian operators
Actually, one-parameter groups of unitary operators come from the exponentiation of skew-Hermitian operators. That's what the imaginary unit in $e^{itA}$ does, it takes the Hermitian operator $A$ and turns it into the skew-Hermitian operator $iA$ .

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:16:16 No.14184152 Report

Quoted By: >>14184163

>>14184112
ask me how I know it's the anime-posting phd mathlet....

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:20:57 No.14184161 Report

Quoted By: >>14184170 >>14184185 >>14184191

>>14184112
Yeah i never pay too much attention to these details. What is the physical significance? Are the operators in QM hermitian or skew-Hermitian or its up to convention?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:22:19 No.14184163 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184152
Hes my kind of guy. I wish i could ask him out for dinner and ask him everything i want to know in math

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:24:00 No.14184170 Report

Quoted By: >>14184185 >>14184190 >>14184191

>>14184161
> Are the operators in QM hermitian
Yes because it means the eigenvalues are always real which is kind of a requirement if you want a physical theory that matches reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:28:13 No.14184185 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:30:31 No.14184190 Report

Quoted By: >>14184209

>>14184170
But unitary transformations come from hermitian or skew hermitian operators? Is there some fundamental difference or is it just the same math times "i" constant?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:30:44 No.14184191 Report

Quoted By: >>14184225 >>14184239

>>14184161
As >>14184170 anon pointed out, physicists want observables to be hermitian rather than skew-hermitian because then measurements return real numbers.
Specifying that you're exponentiating skew-hermitian operators rather than hermitian operators to get unitary operators in Stone's theorem is slightly relevant because you might otherwise get confused when you remember that the Lie algebra of the unitary group is the algebra of skew-hermitian matrices.
"Why are we exponentiating hermitian operators and getting unitary operators here but exponentiating skew-hermitian operators there and still getting unitary operators?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:36:42 No.14184209 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184190
>Is there some fundamental difference or is it just the same math times "i" constant?
Is there a fundamental difference between the exponential function on the real line and on the imaginary line?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:41:35 No.14184225 Report

Quoted By: >>14184239 >>14184242

>>14184191
So formally speaking every unitary operator or "the set of all unitary operators" one can define on a Hilbert space (really just all transformations that preserve the metric) are associated with a skew-hermitian algebra, but physicists then use it to define a hermitian algebra based off it?
In the skewed-hermitian algebra the linear combinations of elements have only real coefficients?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:52:49 No.14184239 Report

Quoted By: >>14184784

>>14184191
>>14184225
This topic interests me because i want to understand how specific hilbert spaces are defined, and how any state can transform into another. Its much less spooky when you know its just some lie algebra of hermitian (times i ok?") and its associated cover group. These structures are easier to study as pure math than as physics, because physicists use extremely sloppy language and innuendo

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 01:53:50 No.14184242 Report

Quoted By: >>14184258

>>14184225
>but physicists then use it to define a hermitian algebra based off it?
No, not really.
Physicists have two physically relevant objects: observables, which are hermitian operators because they need to have positive eigenvalues, and time-evolution operators, which are unitary because they need to preserve probability. Skew-hermitian operators are just mathematical constructions of no particular physical relevance but of mathematical importance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 02:01:42 No.14184258 Report

Quoted By: >>14184264

>>14184242
Right but cant hermitian operators be defined by just multiplying skew hermitian by "i"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 02:03:03 No.14184264 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184258
Yeah.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 06:19:15 No.14184772 Report

Quoted By: >>14185258 >>14185351

>>14184048
>>14184073
I wish people on here could read...
The question is WHY.
Sigh... It's pointless. Back to spamming vaxx threads and /pol/paganda.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 06:24:03 No.14184780 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184061
Your delusion of this being an eloquent reply is both saddening and frightening. You need to go back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 06:28:12 No.14184784 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184239
>physicists use extremely sloppy language
That's not true. Look at engineers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 06:28:27 No.14184785 Report

Quoted By: >>14185593

How much qft should I know before studying string theory? Schizos need not reply

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 10:19:13 No.14185258 Report

Quoted By: >>14185590

>>14184772
The universe tells us mass is always simply mass and it resists acceleration by the same amount no matter the source. Just because we can write some equations where things are different means nothing - the universe is always right and we are just plebs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 11:14:18 No.14185351 Report

Quoted By: >>14185404 >>14185590

>>14184772
>The question is WHY.
There's not why question in physics. Only how.
Maybe at one point we can explain the equivalence between the two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 11:35:38 No.14185404 Report

Quoted By:

>>14185351
why and how are two sides of the same coin, if you're not investigating both at once that's on you

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 12:42:43 No.14185590 Report

Quoted By:

>>14185258
>The universe tells us
>>14185351
>There's not why question in physics
The absolute state of /sci/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 12:45:23 No.14185593 Report

Quoted By: >>14185727

>>14184785
This is just an opinion, because I know many string theory courses and books now cater to people wanting to rush in.
But back when I was a grad student I remember being told you need to at least be comfortable with non abelian gauge theories and pretty much all but the last 10% of Peskin and Schroeder to begin on string theory, otherwise there's no point
That said, zwiebach manages to introduce pretty sophisticated stuff to undergrads.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 13:20:53 No.14185727 Report

Quoted By: >>14185783 >>14185840

>>14185593
> Peskin and Schroeder
I fucking hate that book

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 13:42:53 No.14185783 Report

Quoted By: >>14185835

>>14185727
So did I, but it gives you a clear answer which you can translate into whatever other book you like.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:02:18 No.14185835 Report

Quoted By: >>14185840

>>14185783
Fair. It's good as a reference book but horrible as an introduction to QFT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:04:44 No.14185840 Report

Quoted By: >>14185861 >>14185904

>>14185727
>>14185835
Quantum field theory is hard that's why you didn't like it. It is the best textbook out there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:13:34 No.14185861 Report

Quoted By: >>14185890

>>14185840
> It is the best textbook out there.
I disagree. It does a bad job at explaining the physics underpinning all the super dense mathematics. Something like Coleman's book does a much better job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:21:42 No.14185890 Report

Quoted By: >>14185906 >>14185913

>>14185861
Sidney Coleman wrote a QFT textbook?

In any case I tried to teach myself QFT long ago, and even back then people were hating on Peskin and Schroeder because there were too many calculations. So I read Ryder and Zee which were absolute shit for learning QFT. Then I read Weinberg, from whom I at least started to learn a little and see how it was connected to what I already learned. But when I finally read Peskin and Schroeder, that's when it clicked. It's written at the perfect level for someone who is just starting to learn QFT. Explicit calculations are a feature not a bug

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:27:16 No.14185904 Report

Quoted By:

>>14185840
There's no best QFT book. As far as they go, Peskin and Schroeder is simple but also commits the sin of being a bit of a cookbook. Schwartz is a good alternative which goes into concepts a bit more, especially the importance of representations and so on. Coleman's notes are excellent too, and then there are all sorts of other notes lying around which do different things very well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:28:18 No.14185906 Report

Quoted By: >>14185913

>>14185890
>Sidney Coleman wrote a QFT textbook?
Possibly referring to aspects of symmetry

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:30:15 No.14185913 Report

Quoted By: >>14185917

>>14185890
>>14185906
> Possibly referring to aspects of symmetry
No. "QFT - The Lectures of Sidney Colman"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:31:52 No.14185917 Report

Quoted By: >>14185935

>>14185913
As far as I was aware those were just notes typed up by a student. Or are there other lectures in proper book form?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 14:37:15 No.14185935 Report

Quoted By:

>>14185917
It's based on his lectures but its a proper book just like the Feynman Lecturers are.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643442145807.png, 1MiB, 2618x1504

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:14:47 No.14186016 Report

Quoted By: >>14186050

>>14182403
i am in the process of making a theory of everything, have made predictions successfully with it, and i want to prove to others that it is a good theory. i have no idea how i would go about doing that though, beyond showing people what it successfully predicts and explaining the reasoning behind the theory. does anybody have any recommendations on how i need to go about convincing others and what i should focus on providing as evidence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:25:28 No.14186050 Report

Quoted By: >>14186144

>>14186016
A new theory will not be accepted unless it improves on what we already have. So make a successful prediction that no other theory achieves or solve an unanswered question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:26:35 No.14186053 Report

Quoted By: >>14186072 >>14186096 >>14186516

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just copes for physicists who are too egotistical to just say “I don’t know”

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:31:58 No.14186072 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186053
Not sure what your point is since they are literally the labels used to describe two separate phenomena we don't yet understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:40:48 No.14186096 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186053
>who are too egotistical to just say “I don’t know”
No, they're saying pretty much exactly that

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643442563666.png, 207KiB, 2618x1504

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 15:59:56 No.14186144 Report

Quoted By: >>14186149 >>14186537 >>14187017

>>14186050
a part of the problem i am having with it is that the theory answers too many of the problems that have been posed and i suspect people will find it hard to believe without an infinite amount of proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 16:02:06 No.14186149 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186144
>i suspect people will find it hard to believe without an infinite amount of proof.
Rightly so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 17:51:01 No.14186516 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186053
>who are too egotistical to just say “I don’t know”
Why would you say something utterly useless that no one wants to hear?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 17:55:03 No.14186537 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186144
not sure what else you expect? unless a theory can be experimentally tested then at best its an interesting idea, at worst utter nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 20:11:19 No.14187017 Report

Quoted By:

>>14186144
>working on it
>scared
>asking for advice

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 20:43:38 No.14187067 Report

Quoted By: >>14187115

Always gives me a laugh when people think there's a reason to go faster than light.

General relativity is a trip

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 20:59:01 No.14187115 Report

Quoted By: >>14187123

>>14187067
You'll have to explain that one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:03:55 No.14187123 Report

Quoted By: >>14187126 >>14187138 >>14187143 >>14187155

>>14187115
As you approach the speed of light the distance to everything approaches zero. At the speed of light you're in the same place as everything in the universe.

As you approach the speed of light the rate of time passing for everything else in the universe increases to infinite. At the speed of light you find yourself at the end of time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:05:12 No.14187126 Report

Quoted By: >>14187133

>>14187123
Doesn't work that way bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:06:54 No.14187133 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187126
But it does though. Time and space dilation is exactly like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:11:35 No.14187138 Report

Quoted By: >>14187147

>>14187123
>At the speed of light you're in the same place as everything in the universe.
No, you just get frozen in time and then slowly, at the speed of light, move there without experiencing anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:14:00 No.14187143 Report

Quoted By: >>14187147

>>14187123
Nope. All that happens is that your clock stops if you managed to travel at c - moot point since nothing with mass can.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:15:49 No.14187147 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187138
>>14187143
>brainlets can't into different observer perspectives of relativistic phenomenon

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO __yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_by_ (...).jpg, 799KiB, 744x901

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 21:19:24 No.14187155 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187123
>As you approach the speed of light the rate of time passing for everything else in the universe increases to infinite. At the speed of light you find yourself at the end of time.
I have also watched Fate/Zero. My favorite servant was Gilgamesh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 22:43:26 No.14187430 Report

Quoted By: >>14187925

luv conformal field theory lads

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:10:46 No.14187925 Report

Quoted By: >>14188047

>>14187430
Are you just reading the big yellow book in general, or are you working on a particular aspect?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:16:33 No.14187935 Report

Quoted By: >>14188027

what sort of evidence is there for big crunch vs big bang vs big rip? is it all just metaphysics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:20:51 No.14187949 Report

Quoted By: >>14188793

>>14182813
is this true?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:23:48 No.14187959 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183739
You can certainly find examples of Lie groups that violate unitary. All you have to have is a non-unit determinant that "stretches" all of your state vectors, thus fucking up the norm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:48:26 No.14188027 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187935
The Friedmann equations. Given the measured mass+energy of the universe and any cosmological constant (dark energy) we can calculate if the universe is going to rip, expand, remain stationary, shrink, crunch or whatever. It all comes down to how accurate our measurements are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:56:40 No.14188047 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187925
Yeah reading through the yellow pages
I work in integrable systems in general and a lot of what I did in classical mechanics carries over to CFT because of all the exactly solvable models it gives you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 07:20:50 No.14188793 Report

Quoted By:

>>14187949
It's a linearization of general relativity or quantum mechanics, so its usefulness is limited to our everyday lives. Which is a lot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 08:06:40 No.14188868 Report

Quoted By:

>>14183883
only smart people with the correct phenotype

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot 2022-02-05 at 15-41-3 (...).png, 214KiB, 1075x605

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 20:42:53 No.14191235 Report

Quoted By:

thoughts on:
https://youtu.be/8vBuq3lyjxs?t=283

you can simulate a dissipitative system backwards in time without it un-dissipating.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches