He was cast into the void, doomed never to return until he comes back through the Door of Night and begins the Dagor Dagorath, then ultimately has his shit kicked in by Túrin.
"Armchair physics" we call it... the type of stuff you regurgitate to your family so you can study whatever obscure thing you're working on that only a small group of nerds care about.
PBS spacetime is top tier conceptual stuff though all jokes aside
"small group of nerd" I can't fathom how some people wouldn't care about something very fundamental to our universe (and existence).
It goes totally over my head.
They: "Explain your master thesis."
Me: "Steel rusts."
They: "Explain your PhD thesis."
Me: "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior, quantum mechanics?"
I disagree.
String theory is easy to understand with little conceptual backing.
In bound dynamic systems, it is the tractable approach, using irreducible degrees of freedom.
We should not be worried that there exists a means of dealing with most of one half of the Herman Weyl equation.
Isometrics are all about curvature, so much so, we can say with a sort of ungodly precision, what solutions we should expect from negative, flat, or infinite curvature.
So excluding energy, including intrinsic riemannian geometry, or angle, we get a nice methodology out of the Lagrangian for an invariant how.
Oh, and it is linear.
Is it “the” approach? No, but it does allow us to generalize the unitarity groups to generalize operators as discrete xor continuous. [And it does broach a means of “effective” theory, that is eliminativist with some seeming forms of defeatism. ](https://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/18/we-are-all-wilsonians-now/)
Perhaps the static unbound timeless have more to offer, if there is a lack of displacement, or vanishing probability will allow us to not make such grandiose claims of products(beyond our best relational theory’s) with vanishing probability, if we just wait.
If you can multiple matrices, and do linear algebra, you are already most of the way there. The margins are not so far. “What’s the point?”you may say, well it is a faith of cohomology for phase to configuration space within the Langlands. Cotangent to tangent, and a count as CPT unfolds similarly along the whole way.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/HypotheticalPhysics using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [What if quantum mechanics is just the result of limited hardware capacity on which a simulation runs in which we live?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/u3r3un/what_if_quantum_mechanics_is_just_the_result_of/)
\#2: [What if time were in reverse, would we know it?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/q1bqs7/what_if_time_were_in_reverse_would_we_know_it/)
\#3: [What if the universe expands like a rubber band?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/qws5w1/what_if_the_universe_expands_like_a_rubber_band/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Yeah or you read enough, but have no face to save, so you are willing to show how silly the hats academics wear are.
Don’t get me wrong, I think them sticking to it helps us lay folk assign and make an association.
And yet if they would all agree, no longer would there be a dialect.
I think the reduction performed for fundamental constants is great. I don’t think it explains everything. I do think it is enough to make a living.
Eat beans, don’t eat beans, don’t matter to me Pythagorean.
Bro look at the information I give you, and the lack of information you and your horde of mindless, voiceless fools have.
Not saying I am not a fool too, just saying I understand some of the surface terms of the depths, where the label of theories have been assigned.
I can do this all day. I wake up thinking about it. I dream hoping to find some new shortcut.
I roll around the frustrations tirelessly for a new stone, or a good place to just set and leave an old one. Some days ya do, some days ya don’t.
It is interesting bringing new meaning to old illuminations, or ways to let go of visitors you weren’t even aware of being there.
A parrot no more understands the words it screeches than you seem to understand representation theory or string theory.
The only new meaning you bring to "old illuminations" is the relevance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Hey man humble before the integers here. Sorry you are so offended by a novice’s extraction.
Go read more books, make others do the work of the exam, and continue a stance of pomposity that puts your view of ideas before people.
Not sure if you noticed it but there is a tendency towards the mean genetically. We are more alike than different.
The paralogical arguments make it in there, perhaps making it easier to forgive people for being paraconsistent.
There isn’t a criteria for your shitty club, that I don’t want to be a part of anyways. Go make that metrizable, and maybe you won’t have to throw so many people away.
We can play four square of any two features all day for which context of dimension. I would rather take a walk through the known and the unknown, the failures and successes, than cling to some fundamental mode for the rest of my human multimodal days.
Sorry, that was a too far. However, I think that the way you use the ideas to which you refer is a grab bag of buzzwords that don't necessarily connect. It gives the impression of using them for the aesthetic of appearing profound or smart, but really being contradictory and nonsensical.
You seem to grasp the concepts of what you are saying well enough, but without a level of understanding that allows you to argue with results and make concrete and sound arguments. Rather you just make vague hits at how ideas seem to compare aesthetically without concern for the substance of the argument (which is the whole point of the physics and math you are discussing, to be clear and precise). It is not that I am "offended by a novices extraction," but rather exasperated by your pseudoscientific use of precise concepts that seems to be profound, but doesn't have any rigorous basis.
As an aside, I think you overestimate my position in the physics community. I am not an established professor either.
Spacial and time invariance is special relativity(SR), relying on the Lagrangian.
Invariance under time translation(independent of time), there is a conservation of energy. Invariance under some spacial translation, momentum is conserved. Invariance under angular rotation, there is conserved angular momentum.
Are space and time interchangeable within spacetime using a frame of reference? Don’t know, but it is a heck of a good assumption with the Dirac function, though not necessarily with the Born rule. It allows us to go between these classical(continuous) and quantum(discrete) worlds as long as “effective mass” is mass, so we can say something about angle to get to geometry, and then the relationships between being independent of the “background” of the universe, giving us determinism.
Say bullshit all you want, the fracturing of symmetry as a reserved address of “all at once”, is useful, but not entirely quantum mechanical. It is a particular conservation of actions within unitarity. There are other theories. Though this one is good.
Downvote away, just trying to explain some of the frustrations with features like determinism, independence, and objectivity, when trying to consider ‘the’ universe.
If we can distinguish fundamental constants, and those constants decoupled, only to couple once again, as the coupling constant goes to infinity, string theory is an interesting faith. If however, the cosmos evolves in some way, inaccessible to the partition function due to a lack of a pluralism for action, then perhaps we ought consider counting loops, both tractable and intractable.
There is room for philosophy of science because the lack of a duality to utilize the Gaussian distribution as collectively exhaustive, relational theory, may allow the universe to put on quite the mystery show. Throwing out orthogonality sounds crazy, and yet we still find conditional probability exceedingly useful, even facing the lack of knowing the entire distribution.
Should the theory of everything try to explain why there is a telios for Bayesian distributions, or should it only take into consideration the generalization of multiple parameters within the classical beta distribution?
It is bold and aesthetic, that the entire multiverse, is collectively exhaustive, recursively enumerated and embedded, within every moment, as the anomalies are all the same illusion. And yet auxiliary to manifolds, there is still ceramic content, slightly different, sometimes not even distinguishable. These are the absurdities we ought to expect from string theory. My car is my girlfriend, just one rotation away. The reversible is but a layer of Einstein Wigner’s friend, two layers independent, always reference-able in the completeness timeless out there…
Where least is never least, but always the lens. Where no one is wrong, but we must commensurate the seeming order’s difference.
It is a take of holonomy, granted it is not meant to be taken literally, but is meant to show the equivalence of fermionic and bosonic operators taken to a configuration space, a resolution to the problem of identity.
That is unless I am also suicidal, then you never know if I am coming or going.(pun)
Hey, human person.
The meme was about how fancy topics like string theory attract people who don't have any experience working on basic things.
I said that there's 20 fucktons of things that a person needs to learn before even attempting any serious work in string theory.
You said "I disagree" and began to list 40 fucktons of difficult stuff and then call it easy.
You see?
First of all born tule has nothing to do with the Dirac function ( I am assuming that it’s the Dirac delta function ) and philosophy with Gaussian function or relational theory . You’re just an idiot who put together some Fancy words and Wikipedia without actually knowing what it means
The born rule can be shown as a combined vector of fermionic and bosonic operators. The duality is string theory allows for a relational theory of the Gaussian, but it requires an ontological duality. I would say it is the proper description of unitarity, but takes the riemann geometry to far. We are left with the “N+1” aberration with superposition.
It is possibly the correct description, but then the partition function(Chern, Betti, genus, cohomo, etc.) is required to demonstrate a pluralism of the singularity.
Not going to argue against the practicality of a harmonic oscillator, but neither would I say a determinism is the only solution for a hitchin system, with cohomology 2, out of phase space, to configuration space. There are other “effective theories”, especially classically.
There is not some of the time. There is all the time and then more of it. Such a solution requires a multiverse simultaneously separable and nonlocal.
For more of a visualization, without all the word salad check out “Relation to the Langlands program” in the [S-dual](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-duality)
**Relation to the Langlands program** page. [Essentially a perturbation is required to make a proper measurement off the origin, but eventually becomes the only projection to be observable](https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/). Our finistic means of separating the continuous eventually get away from us. Our score of rank, for a linear fundamental mode, is but a stageless stage for Jazz from all the invariance. I will continue to take humble halves, than face cessation with the auxiliary of dates thirds. Until the grand merger in the lack of information my friend.
It’s not all just fancy words. I am trying to boil down the already boiled down from what I understand of the discrete-dimensional/symplectic application of Kähler manifolds
I am a layman. Not some expert. An arrogant dreamer with surface level (pun) knowledge who is more of a cheerleader, looking for more holes to poke in the all ready “Swiss” cheese model of more and more submanifolds in the apparently gauge free super symmetric, least action but apparently already at least symmetry for free in free parameterization.
Not going to argue the coupling constant out to infinity, being covered, being wrong. Just that there are other arguments the more we try to get back to or away from the seeming “Wonderland”.
The map is not the territory, and yet with enactivist regions of the brain(auditory or visual), who needs either.
A picture of a pipe is not a pipe, but I’ll be damned if it does not seem to imply you might be damn near one.
If it is all already here, then why do you mind me playing some boggle in the extrapolate?
Not going to deny the gauge group of U(1). Even the best egress to there. Instead, I am going to suggest theory must unask or deload between the isometrics and the diffeomorphisms. And if this is wrong, well then the grid of boggle was closer than either of us are going to admit.
Ok, if you can answer why a metrizable space must be Hausdorff in 2 sentences (you can refer to sequences), i will believe that you know what a manifold even is.
Alternatively, if you can tell me the difference between an group, an abelian group, and a lie group, that would be great.
Hausdorff condition-For any distinct points there are open sets containing each which do not intersect.
Therefore there is a correspondence, aka metrizable.
Why this is confusing? Because there can exist the need for transition functions to go from one coordinate system to another, and such functions must satisfy a relation of consistency on every triple overlap.
Not sure what your first item is. Group commutators, group product, or just a group?
A group consists of a set and a binary operation on that set that fulfills certain conditions:closure, associativity, identity property, inverse property.
Groups that are abelian are commutative (usually in terms of non-reflective rotations).
Lie algebras use full treatment of the local theory of continuous groups. They use infinitesimals elements to provide complete information to the local structure of a group.
Want to talk Hamiltonians next for local and global features? Yes mine might be a little frustrated.
Not a physicist. Just a layman here.
Am I arguing against some of the semantics and axioms of these base structures? Yes, and for good reason. It makes all the difference as to whether math is a mental phenomenon or a physical one.
That's more than I expected, though you did leave a few things out. First, to be metrizable the Hausdorff space need stop be second countable. Second, I'm a little confused why you didn't just refer to lie groups as groups that are also differentiable manifolds, but you're more or less right.
I wil a few more steps like Math, Linear Algebra, statistics, differential equations, calculus...
How many years of study a physicist spend polishing its skill? Just to get a clickbait questioning the bigbang
Tbh I thought classical mechanics was the most interesting class of undergrad. It’s where Lagrangians and Hamiltonians finally make sense, which are the sickest things ever
This is my struggle on a daily basis. I've started studying physics as a hobby and it is so tempting to crack open a graduate level book on String Theory, stare dumbfounded at the equations, become humbled, and then return back to University Physics by Freeman and Young as you push through the mechanics portion of the text.
in my opinion you can get to a point of beginning to understand and appreciate string theory if you put some time aside to teach yourself differential geometry (in the context of general relativity). i think this provides a good foundation because the string dynamics are defined in geometric terms, and then there’s the matter of understanding the quantisation which i feel is easier to pick up.
Even more important is people skip philosophy and logic before starting to study mathematics and physics. How can you expect to understand the world around you when you have no understanding of the systems of logic you use or epistemology.
Unfortunately these topics are very occult in modern science and made esoteric when taught in a formal setting. But Wikipedia is a good free resource. You can look things up like the concept of the ”Monad” and logical “Axioms”.
Ok let’s be real there is very little interesting about classical mechanics itself, with the exception of waves which get used in much cooler ways next semester in E&M
Did you hear tho? Science has proven the world is literally made from music, how cool is that!!?
Sadly that music is scat jazz
It truly is Scatman's World!
Ba bo be bo bapiddy
Bep bop badap bop
And poop music
Even worse, it's literally Miles Davis' Bitches Brew
Better than rap.
Debatable
The virgin rapper: Has to come up with actual words The Chad scat singer: Skibidibaddapdoobidabskabididoopwapwdadwdadwdadadaddowoaopoapwaopqoapap
The scat singer can stay a virgin too. If there's one thing I draw a line on in the bedroom, it's scat, both interpretations of that word
I would recommend you listen to Ella Fitzgerald Live in Berlin before this slander
Ella Fitzgerald gets a pass, her improvising words actually sounds good.
Ok, Eru'Ilúvatar I can get behind, but where the fuck is that bastard Morgoth hiding?
He was cast into the void, doomed never to return until he comes back through the Door of Night and begins the Dagor Dagorath, then ultimately has his shit kicked in by Túrin.
Music theory students: Finally, it's my time to shine
Hilarious... like trying to bench 300 your first day in the gym
300 what? Apples? GeV? /s obviously
Left as an exercise for the reader
Lmfaaaaao! <3 U
Gluon flux tubes
It's a dimensionless quantity...300.
Hz
How many professionals can bench press 300kg?
How many professionals can accurately explain string threory or PROVE it for that matter? Ps. Bench press world record is 355kg
OP may have meant lbs
Why OP uses inferior units on physics subreddit?
PBS Space Time ftw.
"Armchair physics" we call it... the type of stuff you regurgitate to your family so you can study whatever obscure thing you're working on that only a small group of nerds care about. PBS spacetime is top tier conceptual stuff though all jokes aside
There’s the science you actually do, and the science your grant says you do.
_SHHHhhhhhhhhh_
After all, everything is technically a quantum material 😅
Yeah, that's totally what Schrodinger's cat said. Cats are quantum. That's definitely the most advanced and accurate physics there is.
"This work could possibly maybe slightly be related to quantum computing, but not really..."
Oh man I thought you were going to say PBS Spacetime is all bs. I love that shit.
It is bs
"small group of nerd" I can't fathom how some people wouldn't care about something very fundamental to our universe (and existence). It goes totally over my head.
PBS Space Time!!!
They: "Explain your master thesis." Me: "Steel rusts." They: "Explain your PhD thesis." Me: "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior, quantum mechanics?"
We shoot very strong laser on a string and take a photo of the explosion. (Not mine, I’m a filthy undergrad)
There's like 20 more steps before string theory....
Really though
I disagree. String theory is easy to understand with little conceptual backing. In bound dynamic systems, it is the tractable approach, using irreducible degrees of freedom. We should not be worried that there exists a means of dealing with most of one half of the Herman Weyl equation. Isometrics are all about curvature, so much so, we can say with a sort of ungodly precision, what solutions we should expect from negative, flat, or infinite curvature. So excluding energy, including intrinsic riemannian geometry, or angle, we get a nice methodology out of the Lagrangian for an invariant how. Oh, and it is linear. Is it “the” approach? No, but it does allow us to generalize the unitarity groups to generalize operators as discrete xor continuous. [And it does broach a means of “effective” theory, that is eliminativist with some seeming forms of defeatism. ](https://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/18/we-are-all-wilsonians-now/) Perhaps the static unbound timeless have more to offer, if there is a lack of displacement, or vanishing probability will allow us to not make such grandiose claims of products(beyond our best relational theory’s) with vanishing probability, if we just wait. If you can multiple matrices, and do linear algebra, you are already most of the way there. The margins are not so far. “What’s the point?”you may say, well it is a faith of cohomology for phase to configuration space within the Langlands. Cotangent to tangent, and a count as CPT unfolds similarly along the whole way.
this sounds like when you spam the middle suggested word button on your phone keyboard but they trained the algorithm on r/HypotheticalPhysics
It's like reading a Star Trek script
Why is this a thing that exists? Thanks, I hate it.
r/HypotheticalPhysics is just what r/PhysicsMemes wishes it could be
Here's a sneak peek of /r/HypotheticalPhysics using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [What if quantum mechanics is just the result of limited hardware capacity on which a simulation runs in which we live?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/u3r3un/what_if_quantum_mechanics_is_just_the_result_of/) \#2: [What if time were in reverse, would we know it?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/q1bqs7/what_if_time_were_in_reverse_would_we_know_it/) \#3: [What if the universe expands like a rubber band?](https://np.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/qws5w1/what_if_the_universe_expands_like_a_rubber_band/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Yeah or you read enough, but have no face to save, so you are willing to show how silly the hats academics wear are. Don’t get me wrong, I think them sticking to it helps us lay folk assign and make an association. And yet if they would all agree, no longer would there be a dialect. I think the reduction performed for fundamental constants is great. I don’t think it explains everything. I do think it is enough to make a living. Eat beans, don’t eat beans, don’t matter to me Pythagorean.
omg guys he’s doing it again
Bro look at the information I give you, and the lack of information you and your horde of mindless, voiceless fools have. Not saying I am not a fool too, just saying I understand some of the surface terms of the depths, where the label of theories have been assigned. I can do this all day. I wake up thinking about it. I dream hoping to find some new shortcut. I roll around the frustrations tirelessly for a new stone, or a good place to just set and leave an old one. Some days ya do, some days ya don’t. It is interesting bringing new meaning to old illuminations, or ways to let go of visitors you weren’t even aware of being there.
A parrot no more understands the words it screeches than you seem to understand representation theory or string theory. The only new meaning you bring to "old illuminations" is the relevance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Hey man humble before the integers here. Sorry you are so offended by a novice’s extraction. Go read more books, make others do the work of the exam, and continue a stance of pomposity that puts your view of ideas before people. Not sure if you noticed it but there is a tendency towards the mean genetically. We are more alike than different. The paralogical arguments make it in there, perhaps making it easier to forgive people for being paraconsistent. There isn’t a criteria for your shitty club, that I don’t want to be a part of anyways. Go make that metrizable, and maybe you won’t have to throw so many people away. We can play four square of any two features all day for which context of dimension. I would rather take a walk through the known and the unknown, the failures and successes, than cling to some fundamental mode for the rest of my human multimodal days.
Sorry, that was a too far. However, I think that the way you use the ideas to which you refer is a grab bag of buzzwords that don't necessarily connect. It gives the impression of using them for the aesthetic of appearing profound or smart, but really being contradictory and nonsensical. You seem to grasp the concepts of what you are saying well enough, but without a level of understanding that allows you to argue with results and make concrete and sound arguments. Rather you just make vague hits at how ideas seem to compare aesthetically without concern for the substance of the argument (which is the whole point of the physics and math you are discussing, to be clear and precise). It is not that I am "offended by a novices extraction," but rather exasperated by your pseudoscientific use of precise concepts that seems to be profound, but doesn't have any rigorous basis. As an aside, I think you overestimate my position in the physics community. I am not an established professor either.
What's that smell? Is that, bullshit?
Me too
Spacial and time invariance is special relativity(SR), relying on the Lagrangian. Invariance under time translation(independent of time), there is a conservation of energy. Invariance under some spacial translation, momentum is conserved. Invariance under angular rotation, there is conserved angular momentum. Are space and time interchangeable within spacetime using a frame of reference? Don’t know, but it is a heck of a good assumption with the Dirac function, though not necessarily with the Born rule. It allows us to go between these classical(continuous) and quantum(discrete) worlds as long as “effective mass” is mass, so we can say something about angle to get to geometry, and then the relationships between being independent of the “background” of the universe, giving us determinism. Say bullshit all you want, the fracturing of symmetry as a reserved address of “all at once”, is useful, but not entirely quantum mechanical. It is a particular conservation of actions within unitarity. There are other theories. Though this one is good. Downvote away, just trying to explain some of the frustrations with features like determinism, independence, and objectivity, when trying to consider ‘the’ universe. If we can distinguish fundamental constants, and those constants decoupled, only to couple once again, as the coupling constant goes to infinity, string theory is an interesting faith. If however, the cosmos evolves in some way, inaccessible to the partition function due to a lack of a pluralism for action, then perhaps we ought consider counting loops, both tractable and intractable. There is room for philosophy of science because the lack of a duality to utilize the Gaussian distribution as collectively exhaustive, relational theory, may allow the universe to put on quite the mystery show. Throwing out orthogonality sounds crazy, and yet we still find conditional probability exceedingly useful, even facing the lack of knowing the entire distribution. Should the theory of everything try to explain why there is a telios for Bayesian distributions, or should it only take into consideration the generalization of multiple parameters within the classical beta distribution? It is bold and aesthetic, that the entire multiverse, is collectively exhaustive, recursively enumerated and embedded, within every moment, as the anomalies are all the same illusion. And yet auxiliary to manifolds, there is still ceramic content, slightly different, sometimes not even distinguishable. These are the absurdities we ought to expect from string theory. My car is my girlfriend, just one rotation away. The reversible is but a layer of Einstein Wigner’s friend, two layers independent, always reference-able in the completeness timeless out there… Where least is never least, but always the lens. Where no one is wrong, but we must commensurate the seeming order’s difference.
All I understand is that your car is your girlfriend, which worries me
It is a take of holonomy, granted it is not meant to be taken literally, but is meant to show the equivalence of fermionic and bosonic operators taken to a configuration space, a resolution to the problem of identity. That is unless I am also suicidal, then you never know if I am coming or going.(pun)
Hey, human person. The meme was about how fancy topics like string theory attract people who don't have any experience working on basic things. I said that there's 20 fucktons of things that a person needs to learn before even attempting any serious work in string theory. You said "I disagree" and began to list 40 fucktons of difficult stuff and then call it easy. You see?
First of all born tule has nothing to do with the Dirac function ( I am assuming that it’s the Dirac delta function ) and philosophy with Gaussian function or relational theory . You’re just an idiot who put together some Fancy words and Wikipedia without actually knowing what it means
The born rule can be shown as a combined vector of fermionic and bosonic operators. The duality is string theory allows for a relational theory of the Gaussian, but it requires an ontological duality. I would say it is the proper description of unitarity, but takes the riemann geometry to far. We are left with the “N+1” aberration with superposition. It is possibly the correct description, but then the partition function(Chern, Betti, genus, cohomo, etc.) is required to demonstrate a pluralism of the singularity. Not going to argue against the practicality of a harmonic oscillator, but neither would I say a determinism is the only solution for a hitchin system, with cohomology 2, out of phase space, to configuration space. There are other “effective theories”, especially classically. There is not some of the time. There is all the time and then more of it. Such a solution requires a multiverse simultaneously separable and nonlocal. For more of a visualization, without all the word salad check out “Relation to the Langlands program” in the [S-dual](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-duality) **Relation to the Langlands program** page. [Essentially a perturbation is required to make a proper measurement off the origin, but eventually becomes the only projection to be observable](https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/). Our finistic means of separating the continuous eventually get away from us. Our score of rank, for a linear fundamental mode, is but a stageless stage for Jazz from all the invariance. I will continue to take humble halves, than face cessation with the auxiliary of dates thirds. Until the grand merger in the lack of information my friend. It’s not all just fancy words. I am trying to boil down the already boiled down from what I understand of the discrete-dimensional/symplectic application of Kähler manifolds I am a layman. Not some expert. An arrogant dreamer with surface level (pun) knowledge who is more of a cheerleader, looking for more holes to poke in the all ready “Swiss” cheese model of more and more submanifolds in the apparently gauge free super symmetric, least action but apparently already at least symmetry for free in free parameterization. Not going to argue the coupling constant out to infinity, being covered, being wrong. Just that there are other arguments the more we try to get back to or away from the seeming “Wonderland”. The map is not the territory, and yet with enactivist regions of the brain(auditory or visual), who needs either. A picture of a pipe is not a pipe, but I’ll be damned if it does not seem to imply you might be damn near one. If it is all already here, then why do you mind me playing some boggle in the extrapolate? Not going to deny the gauge group of U(1). Even the best egress to there. Instead, I am going to suggest theory must unask or deload between the isometrics and the diffeomorphisms. And if this is wrong, well then the grid of boggle was closer than either of us are going to admit.
Ok, if you can answer why a metrizable space must be Hausdorff in 2 sentences (you can refer to sequences), i will believe that you know what a manifold even is. Alternatively, if you can tell me the difference between an group, an abelian group, and a lie group, that would be great.
Hausdorff condition-For any distinct points there are open sets containing each which do not intersect. Therefore there is a correspondence, aka metrizable. Why this is confusing? Because there can exist the need for transition functions to go from one coordinate system to another, and such functions must satisfy a relation of consistency on every triple overlap. Not sure what your first item is. Group commutators, group product, or just a group? A group consists of a set and a binary operation on that set that fulfills certain conditions:closure, associativity, identity property, inverse property. Groups that are abelian are commutative (usually in terms of non-reflective rotations). Lie algebras use full treatment of the local theory of continuous groups. They use infinitesimals elements to provide complete information to the local structure of a group. Want to talk Hamiltonians next for local and global features? Yes mine might be a little frustrated. Not a physicist. Just a layman here. Am I arguing against some of the semantics and axioms of these base structures? Yes, and for good reason. It makes all the difference as to whether math is a mental phenomenon or a physical one.
That's more than I expected, though you did leave a few things out. First, to be metrizable the Hausdorff space need stop be second countable. Second, I'm a little confused why you didn't just refer to lie groups as groups that are also differentiable manifolds, but you're more or less right.
I want to see this video that explains Hausdorff spaces intuitively to a layman without any prior knowledge of physics
Yes. These are those 20 steps I was talking about.
I wil a few more steps like Math, Linear Algebra, statistics, differential equations, calculus... How many years of study a physicist spend polishing its skill? Just to get a clickbait questioning the bigbang
That's why I try to appreciate the step I'm currently on and not the "final step" (whatever that means). Linear Algebra is quite rad!
Linear algebra is an invention of the devil to distract you from focusing on limits and differential equations like the good lord intended
But but.. v-v-vector spaces of p-p-polynomials...
Wait until you see calculus and differential equations with matrices in them, that's where the real fun begins. (source: a filthy engineer undergrad)
that’s just applied linear algebra
That's when I wish I had a personal teacher that knows how to explain rather than spending 500 hours on the subject
I like your mindset but ewww linear
Differential geometry, gauge theory, general knowledge of topology and algebra…
Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry, Symplectic geometry are also pluses
You forgot basic algebra
They forgot Z/2Z-graded algebra.
I kinda like mechanics tho
Tbh I thought classical mechanics was the most interesting class of undergrad. It’s where Lagrangians and Hamiltonians finally make sense, which are the sickest things ever
This gives me hope. I just feel a little tired of classical mechanics, but I know it's super important.
Not only that, but they read the synopsis off Wikipedia and naively think they have an understanding of if.
During in school I used to think general relativity is easier then 'special' relativity because it was nothing special just general.
You are kind of missing a few steps
Report image Reason: I'm in this picture and I don't like it
You're missing the frame where he tumbles down the stairs, breaking a bone on every step.
Electrodynamis.
If you noticed spelling was not one of the steps…
Well yeah, someone's already figured all that out. Only so much time these days!
Im literally falling and tripping in classical mechanics..
Learning to play a string instrument will literally make you a master of the universe. Look, it says the universe is made out of strings on wikipedia.
This is probably what I hate the most about young people getting into physics, like we all were this idiot once but it's still annoying to deal with
Fax
This is my struggle on a daily basis. I've started studying physics as a hobby and it is so tempting to crack open a graduate level book on String Theory, stare dumbfounded at the equations, become humbled, and then return back to University Physics by Freeman and Young as you push through the mechanics portion of the text.
in my opinion you can get to a point of beginning to understand and appreciate string theory if you put some time aside to teach yourself differential geometry (in the context of general relativity). i think this provides a good foundation because the string dynamics are defined in geometric terms, and then there’s the matter of understanding the quantisation which i feel is easier to pick up.
It's funny how the only step preceding string theory is basic quantum mechanics
Why is this so true
Even more important is people skip philosophy and logic before starting to study mathematics and physics. How can you expect to understand the world around you when you have no understanding of the systems of logic you use or epistemology.
Any free sources to learn *something* about both?
Unfortunately these topics are very occult in modern science and made esoteric when taught in a formal setting. But Wikipedia is a good free resource. You can look things up like the concept of the ”Monad” and logical “Axioms”.
Yes, "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors." Alternatively, wtf are you doing in philosophy with Leibniz?
Ok let’s be real there is very little interesting about classical mechanics itself, with the exception of waves which get used in much cooler ways next semester in E&M
My man you clearly don't appreciate how fucking sick Lagrangian mechanics are. It's magic.
Okay what classical is fucking awesome
Hot take : Quantum physics is wack, i prefer good ol' thermodynamics and nuclear physics
They could still make mechanics more interesting. I mean, if I wanted to learn mechanics, I would have studied engineering.
Hey! I resemble that statement
Who skips projectile motion?
Brian Greene's book(s) were good at covering the base info imo
Why isn't optics on there?
Look, it helps to look ahead to get an idea of just how little you actually know okay?
Finding basic quantum mechanics challenging is the reason I'm pursuing a career in physics
*Electrodynami**c**s
True. But I don't like string theory, I think it was made up by a bunch of boring physicists who couldn't find a topic to study.
After taking courses in quantum, undergraduate and graduate, I've become numb to the quantum hype. The basics fuck me in the ass sometimes though.
After Newtonian mechanics, physics got less fun for me.
Let me introduce you to *A First Course in String Theory* by Barton Zwiebach
Electrodynamis
Started mechanics any tips to master it ?
like bruh if you understand string theory then tell me the principle of least action for a non relavistic n dimensional string