20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare

File: 98 KB, 420x420, 1645009560244.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare Anonymous Sat Sep 17 18:17:42 2022 No.21003457 [Reply] [Original]

Michio Kaku made a fundamental and significant advance in physics, he created light-cone string field theory, following Mandelstam's light-cone formulation of string theory, along with Kikkawa. This contribution was central because it was the first definition of string theory which was Hamiltonian, meaning it could tell you a detailed story of how strings split and join in space-time. It also allowed you to produce a detailed description of the Hilbert space of string theory which is not a scattering space.

The thing about physics is that it has become annoyingly politicized, with two branches--- the technical branch which produces all the results, and the popularization branch which gets all the political clout. This division is extremely unfortunate, but it is a byproduct of the fact that nobody in the general public reads the technical literature. So people with immense technical clout, like Georgio Parisi, are incomparably less politically relevant than those with popular books, like Brian Greene.

This is a plea to the general public: please read the technical literature. I mean it. Please read it. It is a precious production of our culture, it is the main thing we will be leaving to future generations. The 20th-century physics literature is our Shakespeare, it is our Homer, and it is the thing that defines our cultural legacy to the largest extent. It is not acceptable to have this literature be the domain of an elite, it must be universally appreciated.

Under these circumstances, there will be no need for Michio Kaku to go around selling himself to mass media, he would have been appreciated for his technical contributions, without any need for him to become a publicity hound. But since we don't live in such a world, he has become a publicity hound. It is a bit of a shame, but it will never take away his earlier achievements.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 18:41:20 2022 No.21003553 >>21003457 >This is a plea to the general public the general public can't understand ohm's law, let alone quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 18:41:55 2022 No.21003556 >>21003457 Stupid frogposter

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:00:40 2022 No.21003652
File: 53 KB, 436x600, wagner_von-lenbach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21003457
>All in the long run is done with; even Voltaire’s Tragedie could not hold on, and the thing capsized. What has Science not pinned its faith to, and not so very long ago, that to-day lies on the dust-heap? The contrary with works of Art; alter, transform your views and sciences as ye will – there still stands Shakespeare, there Goethe’s Faust, there the Beethoven Symphony, with undiminished power!

>Physics etc. bring truths to light against which there is nothing to say, but which also say nothing to us.

>The most crying proof how little the sciences help us, is that the Copernican system has not yet dislodged dear God from heaven, for the great majority of men: here an attempt might haply be made from some other side, to which the God Within might lend his aid! To Him, however, it is quite indifferent how the Church may fret about Copernicus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:03:43 2022 No.21003670 >>21003652 a predictable cope mathematics is home to the deepest beauty and the most fundamental truths, a claim no art can ever come close to

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:04:46 2022 No.21003675 >>21003652 I sometimes wonder what talking to these people must have been like, especially at that time.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:17:02 2022 No.21003719

>>21003457
As if anyone on /lit/ has the intelligence, inclination, background or dignity to read and understand physics texts.

Instead we have blatantly anti-science retards like this brainlet right here
>>21003652
Now what mystical nonsense he believes in , that is btfo'ed by science and makes him endlessly seethe? Take any guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:17:47 2022 No.21003721 >>21003652 the joke writes itself

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:23:57 2022 No.21003738 >>21003652 Metaphysics has been solved by Chris Langan's CTMU. Anything else in that field remains nonsensical language games.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:27:36 2022 No.21003749 >>21003670 Except it can't bring forth universal happiness, which makes it entirely disposable at such a calamitous hour.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:28:47 2022 No.21003753 >>21003749 >it can't bring forth universal happiness How so? >which makes it entirely disposable How so?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:30:56 2022 No.21003763 >>21003753 Math and with science have divested themselves from the end of serving human causes, and since we life in a time where hope is on its way out, study of mathematics can serve as a way too busily stay away from the problems we are faced with

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:32:40 2022 No.21003769

>>21003763
>Math and with science have divested themselves from the end of serving human causes
How so?
>since we life in a time where hope is on its way out, study of mathematics can serve as a way too busily stay away from the problems we are faced with
non sequitur

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:38:28 2022 No.21003788 >>21003769 Conversation doesn't evolve when you respond to everything with a dumb question. It's also not a non sequitur, you just have poor reading comprehension. This is how the average stem-brain reasons unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:39:39 2022 No.21003797 >>21003788 You made a claim. As long as it's unsubstantiated, anything you claim that follows therefrom is a non sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:43:38 2022 No.21003808 >>21003652 viewing science as art as fundamentally different entities, this is the great flaw

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:44:09 2022 No.21003812

>>21003797
But this isn't how human conversation works. Perhaps a mathematical demonstration, but even then, you are writing proof within a certain system where not everything must be demonstrated, because some things are assumed, or known(you don't need to define what a function is when doing calculus proofs).

In this case, I "claim" that science divested itself from human causes. To respond in ways that are constructive(if you are not aware of what was called the "crisis of the human sciences"), you could respond with something like, "but science was never meant to serve humans, it was meant to serve truth", or perhaps an alternate response.
You are asking me to do all the work for you in thinking, which I am not willing to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:46:06 2022 No.21003821 never being exposed to quantum mechanics is like never experiencing good music

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:46:57 2022 No.21003824 >>21003797 NTA but this is a conversation. Talk to him like you would talk to the demented grandpa of your second cousin. Assume no mental faculty and expect meaningless truisms. And then go from there

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:48:12 2022 No.21003830 String theory is 21st-century physics. But this is a leebait thread so it doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:49:15 2022 No.21003834 >>21003821 Experiencing quantum mechanics to me was like experiencing a fever nightmare. I blame a lack of background in real analysis

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:51:11 2022 No.21003847 >>21003812 nta but >you don't need to define what a function is when doing calculus proofs I hope you understand that whatever you're doing, then, is certainly not "proving" things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:51:12 2022 No.21003848 >>21003824 nothing reveals the presence of a stem-brain better than the shameless use of their favorite word "truism" which they use to dismiss thinking about concepts which they deem too difficult

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:52:28 2022 No.21003854 >>21003847 you give the definition of a function before doing a proof? and the natural numbers? what about the * operator? bee quiet dummy

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:53:42 2022 No.21003858 >>21003854 You absolutely do. Every analysis book has a chapter trying to rigorously define the real numbers first.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:56:25 2022 No.21003871 >>21003858 that doesn't refute anything. you establish properties of the real numbers, but once you've had them established you don't re-establish them at the start of every proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:56:50 2022 No.21003872 >>21003848 >stem-brain using phrases like this you're outing yourself as having some kind of superiority complex

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 19:59:45 2022 No.21003884 >>21003872 oh okay

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:07:58 2022 No.21003926

>20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare
you cant just declare an identity and then make statements as if it was already proven. you either derive this identity from another known identity or you prove that both sides are equal by transforming one into another with accepted operations.

>>21003670
math isn't beautiful, there are only beautiful simplifications of known theories. and the meme of sublime simplicity belongs to limited domain of classic aesthetics anyway because the golden ages of math and neoclassicism coincided in france. try explaining beauty of science to a romantic or modernist

>>21003821
exposure to QM isn't different from exposure to other scientific facts. schopenhauer was right when he wrote
>we obtain only a few arbitrarily communicated results from them, and are in the same position as the man to whom the different effects of an ingenious machine are shown, while its inner connexion and mechanism are withheld from him. we are forced by the principle of contradiction to admit that everything demonstrated by euclid is so, but we do not get to know WHY it is so. we therefore have almost the uncomfortable feeling that we get after a conjuring trick, and in fact most of euclid's proofs are remarkably like such a trick. the truth almost always comes in by the back door, since it follows per accidens from some minor circumstance. frequently, an apagogic proof shuts all doors one after the other, and leaves open only one, through which merely for that reason we must now pass. often, as in the theorem of pythagoras, lines are drawn without our knowing why. it afterwards appears that they were traps, which shut unexpectedly and take prisoner the assent of the learner, who in astonishment has then to admit what remains wholly unintelligible to him in its inner connextion. this happens to such an extent that he can study the whole of euclid throughout without gaining real insight into the laws of spatial relations, but instead of these, he learns by heart only a few of their results... in our view, however, this method of euclid in mathematics can appear only as a very brilliant piece of perversity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:08:43 2022 No.21003929 >>21003871 And you've failed to establish the equivalent thing and refuse to do so upon being asked to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:17:38 2022 No.21003979 >>21003926 I'm glad you agree we're all wasting our time here.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:22:25 2022 No.21003995

>>21003457
>popular books, like Brian Greene
Have you read a Greene book?

Greene is no Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He does have a loud public persona as a popularizer but he has also done some heavy lifting in academic string theory. All of his books have technical footnotes for the mathematically inclined. Don't throw the guy under the bus just because he makes an effort to bring some of these concepts down to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:24:05 2022 No.21004003 >>21003872 Would be funny to see some humanities tard feign any kind of intellectual superiority over STEMchads

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:26:04 2022 No.21004014 >>21003848 It makes the brainlet seethe because its true lol

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:26:09 2022 No.21004015

>>21003821
Based. I've experienced both. By the way, the only music qualifying as "good music" is rap.

>>21003926
>you either derive this identity ...
She did not make any mathematical claim, therefore she does not need to provide a formal proof. Calling it an identity already shows you didn't understand the statement.

>exposure to QM isn't different from exposure to other scientific facts
QM is deeper than most other scientific facts because it raises philosophical questions about the structure of reality itself and the role of consciousness. QM destroys the illusion of a deterministically closed universe.

>>21003738
Lmao, you stole my /sci/ post.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:36:20 2022 No.21004065

>>21004015
>QM is deeper than most other scientific facts because it raises philosophical questions about the structure of reality itself and the role of consciousness. QM destroys the illusion of a deterministically closed universe.

The wave function collapse problem could have explainations that are not contradictory to determinism. The problem is defining what even is an observer. Experimental setups with no consciousness can act as "observers" too.

But yeah, there really is no local hidden variable within the theory. Think about it, if Brain is a complex quantum system this could mean that free will may still not be free, as a Newtonian perspective may suggest, but randomly generated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:38:58 2022 No.21004083 >>21003812 The anon never explicitly contested any of your claims, simply wanted you to clarify. Why you want her to reply to you with a counterclaim so desperately is beyond me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:43:11 2022 No.21004097 File: 232 KB, 637x619, 1634482626557.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003749

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:43:26 2022 No.21004099 >>21003670 Math isn't beautiful; it's reductionist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:48:36 2022 No.21004114 >>21004015 >By the way, the only music qualifying as "good music" is rap. >STEMtrannies are nigger lovers Why is it always the case, bros?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:52:35 2022 No.21004127 >>21003821 This is the post of an individual who lacks a chin.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 20:56:04 2022 No.21004140 >>21003457 Stupid frogposter

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:00:07 2022 No.21004157 >>21004127 Lacking a chin is considered alpha nowadays. Look at Andrew Tate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:00:42 2022 No.21004159 >>21003457 >20th century physics literature is our Shakespeare "No"

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:03:00 2022 No.21004171 >>21003670 /lit/ is home to the most retarded takes possible these days. It makes reddit seem decent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:04:03 2022 No.21004174 >>21003457 Thinking science is le fucking beautifulerino is ridiculously kitsch, not that /sci/ posters even have a discerning eye for art for the first place mind. >>21003808 Fuck off and die, worm.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:10:18 2022 No.21004196
File: 36 KB, 770x433, 1663448808672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21004174
>a discerning eye for art
Art is dead. It died with the transition to the so called "modern art" and now postmodernism is dancing on its rotting corpse. For more than 100 years now "art" has abandoned eternal aesthetics and truth, and instead was turned into the opposite. Intentionally repulsive, provocative and primitive - modern and postmodern art is demoralizing and only serves as a money laundering scheme for NFT scammers and immorally rich people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:11:58 2022 No.21004199 >>21004196 Pure cope. If you care so much about "demoralization" then you wouldn't be a logical positivist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:16:05 2022 No.21004212 >>21004174 >Thinking science is le fucking beautifulerino is ridiculously kitsch Pretty much. It's the "I heckin' love science" attitude that makes redditors and soibois cream their pants.

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:17:43 2022 No.21004219
File: 192 KB, 828x724, 1663449453256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21004199
"Logical positivism" is a poorly constructed strawtransperson. It's a silly caricature made up by pseuds who fail to cope with the metaphilosophical fact that most of philosophy is useless language games. Calling someone a "logical positivist" is nothing more than an intellectually empty knee-jerk reaction triggered by your own cognitive dissonance when being confronted with the intellectual, aesthetic and moral inferiority of your world view.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:23:58 2022 No.21004247 ITT: people with virtually no knowledge of science or mathematics disparaging science and mathematics

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:32:29 2022 No.21004294 File: 2.95 MB, 1456x852, einstein and godel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:37:57 2022 No.21004325

>>21004219
>strawtransperson
How pomo of you. Thanks for confirming to me that you're just projecting against other hateful robots despite being a hateful robot yourself. Why are masochistic males like you so fucking weak and pathetic?
>>21004247
Stop samefagging, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 21:47:15 2022 No.21004382 File: 865 KB, 2544x4000, 1527039894322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003719 >dignity to read and understand physics texts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 22:18:27 2022 No.21004516 >>21003808 Correct. And that's also why OP is a gay faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 22:50:44 2022 No.21004689 >>21003808 Except there's nothing in those quotes that views science and art as fundamentally different.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 23:54:02 2022 No.21004960 File: 352 KB, 2327x3554, c02810_da70337bc0594a59b2bb8e859bf3b465_mv2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003457 20th century physics literature, you say?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 17 23:57:17 2022 No.21004977 quantum field theory was easier to learn than kant

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 00:06:09 2022 No.21005029 >>21004196 What are your thoughts on Jove's Cove?

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 00:09:34 2022 No.21005045
File: 42 KB, 567x543, photo_2022-09-01_16-13-46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21003457
>please read the technical literature. I mean it. Please read it
The layperson of the time does not read technical literature in the same vein as the layperson of the time did not read Shakespeare. I read IEEE RFCs and white papers because it is my field, but I don't pretend to understand or wish to know about the scientific whitepapers coming out on physics.

also you're a stupid frogposter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 06:26:23 2022 No.21006426 >>21004015 >QM is deeper than most other scientific facts because it raises philosophical questions Sic semper midwit. Materialists will swing come the day of the rope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 06:34:38 2022 No.21006438 File: 16 KB, 400x386, string_theory.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >string theory lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 06:40:18 2022 No.21006459 >>21003457 Stupid frogposter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:04:50 2022 No.21006507 File: 2.42 MB, 1024x1024, 1663437014316118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003457 Recommend me a book or two.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:25:57 2022 No.21006543 >>21004219 Lmao based. Same goes for "materialist". Hey we have an example in this very thread>>21006426 Look at this pseud lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:27:29 2022 No.21006546 >>21004977 That's one way of declaring you don't understand QFT

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:35:27 2022 No.21006564

>>21004099
>>21004114
>>21004127
>>21004171
>>21004174
>>21004199
>>21004212
It would be considerably healthier for humanities brainlets to just accept their inferior position in the intellectual and aesthetic hierarchy instead of infinitely cope, seethe and dilate over it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:38:20 2022 No.21006569 >>21005045 The point of Kaku is he's writing books for the average person who can't read the scientific papers.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:53:04 2022 No.21006592
File: 10 KB, 250x250, 1455242811813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21006438
You’re a complete parrot. You "hate" modern physics because you associate it with an obscene caricature which lives rent-free in your minuscule head. Try learning something on your own instead of reading Sabine PopSci books and repeating mindlessly. AdS/CFT shows that string theory and QFT are so connected to one another that they are basically the same thing, and even in experimental particle physics, there have been string techniques applied for making predictions (QGP and others). The fact is that if you are studying QCD or the standard model (real physics) it has been demonstrated that string theory has a real connection. Just because two theories are dual to one another does not mean the simpler one is real and the more complicated one is vetoed by Popper shit. Mathematically there are real connections and that opens a whole 'nother toolkit for making experimental predictions. Just because you and some internet bloggers don’t appreciate that this connection is there doesn’t mean all the top experts are wrong and the whole study of this new toolbox should stop. On the contrary, buttblasted bloggers like you should be a prime example of how self-identified “smart internet commentators” can be completely ignorant of obvious things that show how ST is definitely opening new doors even on “ordinary” physics

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:54:35 2022 No.21006600 >>21004382 retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 07:57:37 2022 No.21006606 >>21006507 Landau and Lifshitz's 10 books on theoretical physics. Vol 1 and 2 are amazing specifically

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 08:02:24 2022 No.21006617

>>21003457
Shakespeare was an artist who pushed the boundaries of the English language as an art, weaved magical stories, and is able to effortlessly connect with new generations still. I get what you're trying to say, but it's a bad comparison. Scientific literature couldn't be more different. It's devoid of ethos almost entirely.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 08:06:45 2022 No.21006631 >>21003457 michio kaku is a nihilist and a pop scientist. he is only marginally less offensive than nigger degrasse tyson.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 08:10:38 2022 No.21006650 >>21003457 Science be boring, grug like pretty words

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 09:33:31 2022 No.21006819 >>21003652 pussy-repellant

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 10:28:29 2022 No.21006899 >>21003457 But I can’t understand it

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 10:29:53 2022 No.21006905 >>21003670 Yeah, my wife is beautiful too buddy...

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 10:56:58 2022 No.21006935

There are people in this board shilling Aristotle every day as if he hasn’t been btfo a million times. Meanwhile everything Euclid wrote holds true to this day and forever will.
>oh b..b.but it’s just reductionism
>it won’t tell me anything about my feeling :(
>I’m a retard so I can’t see why axiomatic reasoning and scientific method is superior to metaphysical drivel.
Look faggot I don’t hate philosophy but it needs to know it’s place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 11:38:19 2022 No.21006987 >>21006935 Not to mention Archimedes. Dude was doing calculus before anyone else to find volumes and surfaces of the sphere. Most people here look up to Aristotle because he was a brainlet humbug with nothing insightful to say; just like them.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 12:43:39 2022 No.21007114
File: 38 KB, 600x562, f6b8b99a3fd932329962accedfa3f9c6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21003457
>>21003670
>>21003719
>>21003721
>>21003753
>>21003769
>>21003797
>>21003821
>>21003872
>>21004247
>>21004977
>>21006564
>>21006592
>>21006935
>AAAAAAHHHHH I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCEEEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 12:50:33 2022 No.21007136 >>21007114 In the dark ages people had to rely on nonsense like superstition and philosophy. Then scientists invented the scientific method and suddenly humanity began to understand the universe.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 13:05:55 2022 No.21007176

>>21007136
> understand the universe.
Appearant universe, or even whatever just works in it.. more like an estimation.

Heard this story about humanity's quest for uNdErStAnFinG UnIvErse and how it went immediately to shit the second forces beyond perception were discovered.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 13:13:24 2022 No.21007195 >>21007176 Nigga u on a phone

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:27:23 2022 No.21007400 File: 69 KB, 600x555, IMG_20220918_162646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21007136 once more because you wanted it so badly. peak reddit post anon. bravo. read feyerabend

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:31:18 2022 No.21007414 >>21007114 Yes. I do hecking love science. But why do you take pride in ignorance and dogma >>21007136 Utterly based and truthpilled (even if its a b8)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:32:51 2022 No.21007419 >>21007414 >ignorance and dogma quite the opposite. science today is nothing if not dogmatic. i'll say again, read feyerabend

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:36:33 2022 No.21007435 >>21007419 Never claimed that you guys aren't deluded. No need to prove it again and again

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:41:11 2022 No.21007452 >>21007114 >>21007400 are you a teenager by any chance?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:43:26 2022 No.21007459 >>21007435 and you prove that you're peak reddit again and again. the big difference is we're right and you're a far more pathetic version of nigger degrasse tyson who is a retard already so this speaks volumes about your lack of intellect

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:51:37 2022 No.21007482

>>21007459
>you're peak reddit

What's "reddit" mean? Considering the context here if it means someone who isn't retarded enough to believe in bronze age fantasies in light of scientific understading... Then yes, guilty as charged.

>nigger degrasse tyson
Neil is nothing more than a globohomo shill blue voting idiot who hides his political agendas in the garb of teaching "science". He's also worth 5000 of delusional mystics and ignorant theologytards

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:54:07 2022 No.21007486

>>21007419
feyerabend is a retard who, like most philosophers, understood little to nothing about what he was talking about (which is why he's completely wrong)
Meaningful work has only been done by people who actually know what they're talking about. Take Norton, for instance. The guy knows physics. Feyerabend knows less than my hairy scrotum.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:55:45 2022 No.21007494 File: 50 KB, 576x438, a2c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >people itt literally coomed their pants when they saw a youtube video about QM for the first time.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:55:45 2022 No.21007495

>>21007400
I read against method several years ago and the only thing that stuck is how hard he was trying to be irreverent.
It has probably influenced my thoughts a little, I do think he's right to some extent that it's impossible to specify a scientific method or even to argue that grand historical narratives like scientific revolutions are a real process by which science progresses. But to the exact same extent that it's impossible to describe anything with a theory when you examine it closely enough and pull it apart. Popper's theory and Kuhn's theory are both attempts to describe a process of science or of the historical progression of science, but like any theory, they make abstractions and simplifications or approximations of reality. No theory, be it a philosophical or scientific one has an infinite range of applicability. We don't throw out deontology because it tells us not to lie to the Gestapo, nor do we throw out classical mechanics because it fails to describe quantum phenomena. All these ideas are useful in their own range of applicability.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 14:56:47 2022 No.21007498

Btw, I don't think Kuhn or Popper, or for that matter Feyerabend, "BTFO'd" the scientific method. Indeed, I would go further, and say that, far to the contrary, I'm more inclined to the view that David Stove BTFOs all three of those guys. I think that, at best, Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerabend make people who already don't like science feel good about not liking science, but they have spectacularly failed to inflict any real damage on science's reputation in the world at large or on its practical effectiveness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:00:49 2022 No.21007510 >>21007400 >Feyerabend Nobody mathematically incompetent should have any say in the matter of science or philosophy. I'm sure you believe the loud-mouth hack Galileo invented science too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:02:04 2022 No.21007512 >>21003556 This

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:04:48 2022 No.21007517 >>21007494 This unironically happened to me as a teenager. And I'm glad that I was exposed to those philosophical ideas from a scientific lense than some retarded mystic viewpoint

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:09:33 2022 No.21007525 >>21007517 What "mystic viewpoint" are you talking about?

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:10:05 2022 No.21007528

>>21007498
Because science works it's yielding results and It keeps on being applicable. When was the last time you used Aristotles metphysics for anything? Philosophers can critize scientists for being simpletons or lab monkeys all they want, but a good scientist will keep chugging about and the results will speak for themselves. Reddit-brains overestimate science and think it can solve everything. It can't. But it has been proven to be a powerful tool and the best method for understanding our reality so far.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:11:34 2022 No.21007531 >>21007498 David Stove didn't really comprehend half the stuff he read. He thought Berkeley denied the existence of objects for example.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:14:20 2022 No.21007538 >>21007528 What results specifically are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:20:21 2022 No.21007553 >>21007400 >feyerabend Lmao, the epitome of reddit pseud.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:21:51 2022 No.21007562

>>21007538
Applicable results. Its all around you, every day. I'm not claiming science is gonna solve any methaphysical questions concerning soul or afterlife, but that's the thing - science stays in its lane. Mathematically inadequate philosphers try to get in its way when they really should be concerned on what to do with its results.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:32:41 2022 No.21007610 >>21007195 Prefer to think of it as a hand computer, And were are you at faggot, and how is that a matter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:34:02 2022 No.21007618 >>21007195 Science =/= technology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:36:07 2022 No.21007623 >>21006564 No one thinks of science as an aesthetic pursuit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:51:59 2022 No.21007667 >>21007623 I do. Gaining objective knowledge about nature is aesthetically pleasing and morally satisfying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:55:33 2022 No.21007678 >>21006600 soifag

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 15:57:55 2022 No.21007685 >>21007618 true but they are interdependent we wouldn't have computers if not for computability theory, and we wouldn't have physics simulations if not for computers

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:11:12 2022 No.21007745
File: 211 KB, 772x785, 1663517134941.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I can only express my utmost contempt for the so called philosophers of science. Everything about them is quintessentially cringe. They describe a trivial and well-known process, yet the way they describe it shows how they failed to understand it. With unwarranted arrogance they proclaim to know more than scientists while their writing resembles the ramblings of a 5 year old child who "explains" the world to his father based on his very limited level of knowledge. Except that these philosophers are grown up adults and allegedly educated, so we'd expect more from them than only childish platitudes. Philosophy of science is trivial at best, cringeworthy and outright anti-intellectual at worst. A complete disgrace for the historical tradition of philosophy as a pursuit of deeper knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:15:30 2022 No.21007760 >>21007745 philosophy of science is philosophy enough

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:21:20 2022 No.21007783 >>21007745 Seethe

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:23:35 2022 No.21007792 >>21007745 Be careful, lots of homosexuals from /sci/ are leaking to other boards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:27:57 2022 No.21007818 >>21007792 >/sci/ >Oh no my echochamber worldview is getting challenged! Destroy all invaders! Nope. Just lit people who arent retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:36:08 2022 No.21007866 >>21007195 This is the same point life stock would make in a slaughter house. >t. hand computer gang

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 16:36:34 2022 No.21007870 >>21007494 As you should.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:15:43 2022 No.21008070
File: 107 KB, 1267x887, 1663337741875722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21007482
>What's "reddit" mean?

You. Want to see how he looks like, go look at the mirror. Want to know his tag? Look at your birth certificate. Want to know what he stands for? Ask anyone but your pathetic ego.

A leaf, designed to withstand winds of uncertainty but limited by its season and generation. Praying on the success of the shrub, hanging to the last breath if the core becomes rotten, only to realize so at the last moment.

A character who picks and chooses definitions and narratives to suit his limited capabilities.

An egoist, embracing and establishing fear as his moral, insight and retrospective. Using fears antagonistic mirror image - anger, to deal with any stimulus that isn't already part of his microverse.

A layman that follows and replicates or an expert who outexperted all his potential to become a scalpel; fragile, limited, expandable, sterile.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:17:16 2022 No.21008079 >>21008070 based and saved for future interactions with redditoids infesting my /lit/

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:22:32 2022 No.21008104

>>21008070
Bunch of vague 5deep6u nonsense. Being a "redditor" in this context means having a positive outlook on the sciences and not being a creationist, trad larping retard.

If it's your wish to live among tlarger. primitive and follow a different type of knowledge, I'm sure it's doable. But again you're just a larper.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:27:51 2022 No.21008140 >>21008070 t. pseud

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:27:55 2022 No.21008141 >>21007818 See? Here's one of those /sci/ssor sisters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:29:50 2022 No.21008147 File: 433 KB, 849x614, 3gq8rfai8tty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I HECKIN' LOVE SCIENCE!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:29:51 2022 No.21008148 >>21008141 nope. I only browse /lit/ and occasionally /tg/ Nice strawman tho.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:32:33 2022 No.21008164 File: 148 KB, 614x600, 9999999.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008148 >tho

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:36:31 2022 No.21008176 File: 55 KB, 640x729, flat,800x800,075,f.u2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008164

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:38:21 2022 No.21008181

>>21008147
>nooo but the pop culture it's so heckin silly!
Buddy this is no different than a bunch of pop media being created out of some guys philosophical treatise. It's just a way to communicate difficult subjects with average people. Most people can't read science articles that are full of official jargon, unless you're in the field it probably isn't going to be readable.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:48:31 2022 No.21008228

>>21008104
> Being a "redditor" in this context means...

Yeah, you tell me fag how you want to see it and guide me though your pathetic preset fantasy of how enlightened hero defeated the enemy of the crunch by circling around waiting for backup, because that's what you are, a frame, in body and essence.

And why the fuck you cock care about my living. This condescending pretentious "understanding" is another hallmark not only of you and sward you came from, but of that which embodied all that you projectively opposes. Though who would have guessed, again..

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 17:52:55 2022 No.21008257
File: 24 KB, 404x375, v9o4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21008228
>Yeah, you tell me fag how you want to see it and guide me though your pathetic preset fantasy of how enlightened hero defeated the enemy of the crunch by circling around waiting for backup, because that's what you are, a frame, in body and essence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:08:52 2022 No.21008316 >>21007562 But are these results good? The point is that philosophy will always steer science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:10:27 2022 No.21008323 >>21008070 Religiotard projection at its finest lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:12:20 2022 No.21008329 File: 9 KB, 225x225, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21007818 >Just lit people who arent retarded. PPAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA...UUUGhhh... What a joker, what a gagster

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:30:45 2022 No.21008418 Sciencesisters... http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:31:17 2022 No.21008421 File: 35 KB, 328x500, The Noble Quran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003457 Refuted by Theodore John Kaczynski (Peace be upon him)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:32:05 2022 No.21008424 >>21008323 Go back to r*ddit, tranny.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:33:05 2022 No.21008428 >>21008316 Could you remind me again of some of the objective results produced by philosophy? I can't remember a single philosophical problem ever being solved.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:42:19 2022 No.21008480 >>21008070 Based

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:45:55 2022 No.21008500 >>21008070 Perfect A+ post

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 18:52:17 2022 No.21008523

>>21008316
>philosophy will always steer science
You're delusional. Euclid didn't care for Aristotle. Neither did Archimedes. Pythagoras work is still applied every single day. Meanwhile retarded metaphysicists thought they could take a shortcut to understanding the universe.
>but Galileo invented science before him they were all philosophers.
Nope. He was mathematically illeterate and had to resort to a telescope before anyone would listen to him. You must be drenched in cultural relativism if you think Archimedes somehow didn't understand scientific method.
>But are these results good?
Up for debate. Knowledge is good, wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:00:13 2022 No.21008569

science is mostly about thing-thing relations.
it cant say much about human-thing or human-human relations, either because experiments are impossible without thousands of human clones with identical mind and experience or because it doesn't dare to evaluate statistics of aggregate behavior.
therefore science is still the bitch of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:01:57 2022 No.21008582 >>21008569 Everything philosophy ever said about "human-thing" or "human-human" relations turned out to be wrong. Science answered some questions, philosophy answers none.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:05:13 2022 No.21008601

>>21008582
"our" speculations about the unconscious mind were closer to reality, while descartes went batshit with his "mind as pure awareness and reason" hypothesis and the resulting mind-body dualism. its cartesian consequences have been a disaster for the western world btw.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:07:19 2022 No.21008611 >>21008601 Descartes was based. He singlehandedly created and resolved the philosophy of mind. Cartesian dualism remains unrefuted and is the only rational stance without obvious counterarguments.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:14:13 2022 No.21008633
File: 19 KB, 474x266, bigbrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21008611
pure awareness is a spook and a sign of sickness and decay.
the greatest health and power is usually a condition of least consciousness. the top scientists like poincaré and that indian prodigy nigga found solutions in their sleep, because the unconscious mind is more powerful than everything else.
t. continental

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:17:52 2022 No.21008646 >>21008633 Dreams are just a cuck version of schizophrenia. Lower telors need to sleep to experience a glimpse of what a truly based schizo can experience while awake.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:20:23 2022 No.21008660 >>21008646 but wouldn't descartes view schizophrenia as noise from the body, an impure irrational mind? he would certainly underrate schizo mode.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:37:06 2022 No.21008733 >>21008424 Go back to stone age and get killed by small pox faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:39:14 2022 No.21008745 File: 49 KB, 550x543, 1662567898472300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008079 >>21008147 >>21008329 >>21008480 >>21008500 t.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 19:39:53 2022 No.21008748 File: 21 KB, 307x157, Bronies, this is your mindset.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21003457 FUCKING DIE

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:18:02 2022 No.21008908 >>21008070 >limited, expandable lol retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:19:47 2022 No.21008917 >>21008748 i've been waiting for you

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:21:18 2022 No.21008925 File: 118 KB, 800x789, aa0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008745 >>21008733 t.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:25:05 2022 No.21008939 >This is le science aesthetic that redditors and soulless bugmen love so much kek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:28:08 2022 No.21008951 This entire "redditor" adhominem is funny. Its like the retards are literally venerating literal redditors by ascribing a superior worldview to them compared to their own fantastical drivel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:30:12 2022 No.21008960 File: 6 KB, 190x192, images (82).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008925 >t.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:30:48 2022 No.21008964 It's always funny to me how obvious redditors are offended when you call them redditors. As if scientism was not the the most cringe, soulless worldview imaginable these days.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:32:13 2022 No.21008973 File: 123 KB, 1000x1000, You____.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:58:05 2022 No.21009096 It has be philosophically proven that 100% of science worshipers suffer from a severe case of homosexuality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 20:59:44 2022 No.21009099 It has been philosophically proven that 100% of science worshipers suffer from a severe case of homosexuality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 21:06:06 2022 No.21009125 >>21009099 You're saying that as if it was a bad thing. Philosophy has established though that homophobia is objectively morally wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 21:12:04 2022 No.21009164 File: 30 KB, 623x492, images (83).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21008964 >>21008973 >>21009099

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 21:13:10 2022 No.21009168 Imagine admitting that a redditor is intellectually superior to you. Can't be me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 21:42:34 2022 No.21009289 >>21003457 Hi OP, just wanted to let you know I agree 100 percent with your take. It's always nice when people care more about truth than being profound. A rarity these days. Cheers

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 21:53:04 2022 No.21009338

>>21003670
You're scaring the humbugs, but I agree. Maths is objectively the most creative field. When seeing a piece of visual art, I am not dumbfounded as to how the artist came up with such an idea. Similarly for music, I don't hear a melody and go "wow I'd never be able to come up with such a thing". I can normally read a story and appreciate a writer's creativity, but it's still natural enough that I can understand how the author came up with his idea. Certain proofs in maths still stump me - understanding them is fine, but understanding what possessed the mathematician to make certain leaps in faith, I cannot. It is a fanfiction of the universe, just as the painter captures his understanding in canvas, the mathematician captures his understanding in axioms and definitions. He prods at it for inconsistencies, and when he finds none, he knows he has discovered some fundamental truth. Many artists have written that the creative process is really a process of discovery; maths and science are no different.

It is a great shame that modern education has pitted humanities and science against each other; they used to be the noblest fields. Business and law have worked in tandem to divide us and drive out any creativity from universities; they have assembled into a great monolith that now towers over us and commands us at its whim. Where is art for arts' sake? Where is science for science's sake? Art has been reduced to the creation of consumer-friendly designs, science has been reduced to a search for the best toilet cleaner. Only a rare minority do anything worthwhile anymore.

>>21003652
>Beethoven
Beethoven marked the beginning of the end of music as a respectable art-form.
>the Copernican system has not yet dislodged dear God from heaven
19th century cope. QM has revealed an underlying beauty of the universe that Wagner never had the privilege of knowing. By understanding the very large and the very small, we come closer to an understanding of God's universal design. If we ever needed a demonstration of the true extent of God's omniscience, it would surely be found in the underlying properties of the universe's fundamental particles.

>>21004099
>it's reductionist
So is art, ameritard. Also it's "maths", since it is short for mathematics (you wouldn't write mathematic).

>>21003834
Abstract algebra, linear algebra, and group theory is a must. Real analysis isn't necessary if you're willing to accept Taylor series expansions at face value.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 18 22:47:20 2022 No.21009572 >>21003457 I don't care about bugman science it's literally worthless >muh mars >muh nuclear farts >muh gay particles Useless, soulles, and pathetic

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:13:09 2022 No.21009701

>>21009338
Most based post here. Most of this thread is people coping about the fact they aren't polymaths, I have far more respect for people with an intimate understanding of quantum mechanics and Shakespeare then some pseud using words like "wordcel" "mathcel" "STEMchad" "scicel" or whatever else.

I do find art as awe-inspiring as mathematics. I can understand how they formulated there Creation as much as I can a mathematical proof. however the ethereal pool that they seemed to have pulled from for such inspiration dumbfounds me. Sure, I can pull from the same pool per say, but never from the same spot they did, that spot is forever there's and there's alone. i can only ever understand what it produced not the inspiration, not the qualia it came from, that will forever allude me for both the artist and the mathematician.

Anonymous Sun Sep 18 23:20:15 2022 No.21009735

>>21009338
>Certain proofs in maths still stump me - understanding them is fine, but understanding what possessed the mathematician to make certain leaps in faith, I cannot.

Words cannot describe what is felt in those moments. Even very rudimentary problem solving can hide profound insights. I mean just look at how Fourier came up with the idea of representing discontinuous functions as sums of infinite circular ones.

>Abstract algebra, linear algebra, and group theory is a must. Real analysis isn't necessary if you're willing to accept Taylor series expansions at face value

Good place to start with those? Don't want to get too deep into proofs. Just need the necessary tools for QM

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 03:07:54 2022 No.21010540

>>21009735
If you know absolutely nothing, then I would suggest you first develop your understanding of linear algebra (i.e. vectors). Any elementary linear algebra textbook will put you in significantly better stead to tackle QM - I know you don't want to delve too far into proofs, but going through the 'easier' proofs now will make future work easier. You should be able to find pdfs of linear algebra books somewhere, maybe browse a bit on sci because they'd be more up to date than I.

If your lin alg. is decent, then I'd recommend a good youtube channel called "XylyXylyX" I found several years ago. He has, among other videos, a handful of video lectures on the mathematical foundations of QM. The channel isn't as proof heavy, and he has a lot of videos to help any keen beginner quickly build their skills. He does occasionally recommend textbooks, but they're not necessary to follow along (you may need to search certain things to catch-up is all). I like his videos, and he does sometimes stop one series to start another to help build up your skills (e.g. he stopped the 'what is a tensor' series part way [aside: this is a good series if you don't know linear algebra, but it may get hard quickly] to start another series on 'what is a manifold').

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 06:32:21 2022 No.21011036 >>21003457 where do I start anon, as someone with an extremely basic mathematic education? I was unironically interested in physics but studied philosophy instead. Don't regret it, but if there's any way to know more, I'm open

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 07:40:18 2022 No.21011210

>>21009338
>Abstract algebra, linear algebra, and group theory is a must. Real analysis isn't necessary if you're willing to accept Taylor series expansions at face value.
Why are you talking about things you obviously haven't studied? Firstly, group theory is contained in abstract algebra, hence doesn't need to be mentioned separately. Secondly, linear algebra deserves no mention at all as it is the most basic prerequisite for literally every other maths or physics class. Thirdly, real analysis is definitely necessary since you need functional and complex analysis which rely on real analysis. Fourthly, you don't even need deeper knowledge of group theory unless you go into hardcore TQFT. Basic representation theory of Lie groups will be more than enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 08:16:37 2022 No.21011299 >>21011210 btw, i know functional analysis is obviously very important in QM, but what complex analysis is really needed beyond the rudimentary properties of complex numbers (that are obviously necessary)?

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 08:19:31 2022 No.21011304

>>21009338
good post in general, i especially agree with mathematics being the most creative discipline, which is something humanities types are terribly afraid of hearing
neveretheless, w.r.t.
>When seeing a piece of visual art, I am not dumbfounded as to how the artist came up with such an idea. Similarly for music, I don't hear a melody and go "wow I'd never be able to come up with such a thing". I can normally read a story and appreciate a writer's creativity, but it's still natural enough that I can understand how the author came up with his idea. Certain proofs in maths still stump me - understanding them is fine, but understanding what possessed the mathematician to make certain leaps in faith, I cannot.
i can guarantee you that if you were a musician yourself, you would be more dumfounded with how the greatest composers came up with certain things, and likewise if you were a writer or a painter etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 08:23:05 2022 No.21011314 https://girard.perso.math.cnrs.fr/trsy1.pdf

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 09:47:30 2022 No.21011515
File: 656 KB, 1600x1310, 1647087545212.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21011036
pic rel gives a good start but is more math-focused overall. Then again, most undergrad physics is just math (and virtually every part of math finds its use in physics somewhere).
Here are some math books good for physicists. They are very pedagogically sound. Tons of interesting examples and geometric intuition. I don't think you need any knowledge of physics to read these.
>Hori et al. Mirror Symmetry.
Just chapter 1 is an amazing exposition on differential geometry.
>Baez. Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity
Probably the best starting place for differential geometry I've read.
>Bertlmann. Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory
Chapter 1 is a good summary.
>Isham. Modern Differential Geometry for physicists
Not that careful since these are lecture notes but it covers plenty
>Hermann. Lie Groups for Physicists.
Hidden gem from the 60s.
>Schlichenmaier. Riemann Surfaces, Algebraic Curves, and Moduli Spaces
Just an amazing intro to complex algebraic geometry with excellent references.
>Rubakov. Classical Theory of Gauge Fields
Covers some gauge theory without needing quantum mechanics knowledge.
>Cahn. Semi-simple Lie Algebras and their Representations
Covers the basics of representation theory for the gauge groups that physicists mostly care about, U(1), SU(2), SU(3). For context. Yang-Mills gauge theory over the gauge groups U(1)xSU(2) describe the electroweak (electric and weak) force and over SU(3) desribes the strong force (called chromodynamics for the "colors" of particles).
>Geroch. Mathematical Physics
Despite its name, this is really a book on category theory.
Here are some math books that I found especially easy to read.
>Smith et al. Invitation to Algebraic Geometry.
Very clean and short book on classical varieties.
>Artin. Algebra.
Motivating book on algebra for geometers, emphasizes linear algebra, representation theory, and geometry instead of number theory.
>Guillemin and Pollack. Differential Topology
Physicists I know love this one. It's just an expanded version of Milnor's book. Milnor's book is also good but it's too concise for beginners.
>Rosenlicht. Intro to Analysis
Good intro to Analysis. There's also Zorich's excellent series that is specifically focused on physics.
>Lieb and Loss. Analysis
Makes grad analysis easy to understand.
>Eisenbud. Geometry of Schemes
Gives geometric intuition for schemes.
>Hatcher. Algebraic Topology
Very complete book on classical algebraic topology that's easy to read.
>Griffiths and Harris. Principles of Algebraic Geometry
This is on complex algebraic geometry. The more expanded Schlichenmaier.

The /sci/ wiki has a good article for just physics books (since I just mentioned math books): https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations
I'd personally add Nair's and Zinn-Justin's books on QFT. For string theory, there's Deligne et al.'s series that's excellent but very math-focused.
Also see this: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/books+and+reviews+in+mathematical+physics

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 10:23:07 2022 No.21011614

The ressentiment that is teeming off these posts makes me highly doubt the wisdom of taking counsel from any of the corrosive argumentors in this thread. Notwithstanding what would presumably be the dreary conditions of your everyday life. What compels you to act with such seething vitriol in anonymity? It can not reflect on you anything good, someone who is well would not act like this.

Also the /sci/bro samefagging is glaringly obvious. My recommendation: self-reflection x failure.

>>21008908
He means limited in the sense of limited use, not limited supply. Hence, your greentexting of expendable as though it were a contradiction is frankly embarrassing, although not unexpected from one who is so evidently not seeking constructive discourse but argumentative "victory".

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 10:23:31 2022 No.21011615

>>21011515
Prime example of a reddit LARPer. This is a meme list of books from /sci/ and you definitely never read any of them. They are about advanced quantum field theory and algebraic geometry. Perhaps interesting to a PhD in the field but definitely nothing you'd recommend to a beginner who asks for a soft intro to babby's first QM.

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 10:35:12 2022 No.21011638

>>21011210
> Firstly, group theory is contained in abstract algebra
Ok, and I specified it in particular for the same reason you specified Lie groups.
>Secondly, linear algebra deserves no mention at all as it is the most basic prerequisite for literally every other maths or physics class
I have no idea what anon's background is, I'm assuming he probably has a stronger calculus background since highschool focuses more on that.
>Thirdly, real analysis is definitely necessary since you need functional and complex analysis which rely on real analysis
Barely. Functional analysis deals with topologies, the reals are a special case. Compared to groups, analysis is fairly easy to catch up on. Besides, a lot of the magic from QM comes from the group (anti)symmetries and their implications, not from epsilon balls, hence why I said it's not necessary [i.e. not necessary in order to 'experience' QM]. Again I'm probably biased in what I think is more important/interesting about the field.

>>21011304
>i can guarantee you that if you were a musician yourself, you would be more dumfounded with how the greatest composers came up with certain things
As far as technical aspects go, sure. I don't wish to say that I'm literally Liszt and could write and play piano like a genius. What I mean is that there's clearly some intention (e.g. the key of the piece, chord progressions, key changes) driving the piece, and then the technical aspects are a matter of filling in certain blanks to personal preference. Sometimes things deviate from the plan, but ultimately there are no twists and turns that leave me as baffled the same way an elegant proof does. You are probably correct though, I was trying to land on why I find true maths to be so much further from my reach than the other arts. Maybe I'm just biased afterall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 11:51:46 2022 No.21011809 >science needs to be like art >art needs to influence science >art needs to be influenced by science >art needs to be science fuck off and read Husserl. You are beating a dead horse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 16:07:09 2022 No.21012610 File: 1017 KB, 840x1030, Husserl.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21011809 >Failed mathematician turns to philisophy. many such cases

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 16:38:35 2022 No.21012754 nice leebait

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 17:25:07 2022 No.21013012 >>21012610 he had a PhD in Mathematics in the 19th century. lol

Anonymous Mon Sep 19 17:42:16 2022 No.21013111

>>21013012
>...he took his PhD in mathematics in Vienna (January 1883), with a thesis on the theory of variations (Variationstheorie). After that he returned to Berlin, to become Weierstrass’ assistant. When Weierstrass got seriously ill, Masaryk suggested that Husserl go back to Vienna, to study philosophy with Franz Brentano.
He made no lasting contributon to mathematics.
Math didn't want him

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 17:46:21 2022 No.21013136 >>21013111 >He made no lasting contributon to mathematics. >Math didn't want him Thats 99% of Mathematic PhDs though lol Want something lasting go into Chemistry or Biology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 18:15:29 2022 No.21013306 >>21011615 Not really. I've linked the /sci/ wiki for physics books for a reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 18:43:09 2022 No.21013433 >>21003457 I want to beat the shit out of OP so bad it’s unreal

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 18:55:24 2022 No.21013485 >>21010540 Thx anon. I have a good grasp on vectors but may have to brush up my vector calculus. I remember never getting tensors in Uni. I'll try the material you mentioned and the youtube channel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 21:26:30 2022 No.21014228 >>21007553 >reddit pseud That would be Bertrand Russell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 19 22:04:35 2022 No.21014383 >>21013433 And yet you never will! This is the beauty of science and technology, it lets the sophisticated intelligentsia piss off troglodytes like yourself with zero (0) repercussions.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature