/sci/ - Science & Math

thoughts on Motl? i find him cringe in his political posts, but he posts some pretty good physics stuff sometimes. i feel embarrassed to go to his english blogspot because it is so filled with climate denial shit and alt-right crap.

there was that one time where after we were trashing some Bohm idiots who crapped up this board once, the next day he posted a super long post trashing Bohm. so if you lurk here, Luboš, i would suggest please separating your physics blog from your politics blog. two separate blogs would be better.

>>10887761

fuck off optitards, this is a string theory bread

so, the theory that describes a string worldsheet is conformally invariant. haha, that sounds like Weyl, right?

anyhow, let's talk string theory. you know, normal topics:
AdS/CFT
Swampland Conjecture
KKLT mechanism
BPS states

i'll start.
KKLT and the string multiverse are a Kachru/Kallosh/Linde/Trivedi/Susskind/Stanford clownsquad meme. stanford idiots need to be rejected by all the major journals from now on. lenny's club proven to be a bunch of publicity-craving shills. no more.

/sci/ is a Vafa board, fuck those stanford fucks
only harvard, IAS, MIT, Princeton, etc. can be trusted. west coasters like JH Schwarz can go eat a dick.

>>10528415

High-energy experiment requirements:
>Contribute to one of the large collaborations' experiments, this will probably take up at least half your time, involving lots of technical skills like building sensors and readout electronics, writing firmware, writing C++ code for big-data type environments
>do a physics analysis that takes at least 2 years of hard work, dozens of people from the collaboration nitpicking at every possible complaint
>write your thesis
>it must include:
> - an in-depth review of the Standard Model
> - a review of beyond-the-standard-model physics
> - a thorough treatment of a particular beyond-SM model or some SM prediction
> - an in-depth discussion of all parts of your giant experiment
> - your analysis you busted your ass on, but now you have to write even more since it needs to be readable by physicists-in-general
> - a few appendices on the experimental work you also busted your ass on
>defense committee can grill you on any of these topics, make vicious attempts to make you implode and cry in front of the entire department

High-energy theory requirements:
>99% probability your thesis topic is an obscure feature in some maybe highly-speculative but more likely completely unphysical theory that won't be relevant toward anything measurable for the foreseeable future
>80% probability the main thrust of your "research" is fumbling with getting Mathematica to do some ridiculous math you hardly understand
>get three or four articles published with your name on it, 95% probability you are single-author on none of them
>staple your handful of articles together, that's your thesis
>you want to write more? nope, your professor says you can't put in any unpublished work. just staple and don't do anything else
>committee goes "please elaborate on how you got eq. 67 from eq. 68", you bullshit about some operator product expansion, they go "okay, no more questions, you pass"

why are theorists even allowed to be called "physicists"? total bullshitters.

>>10349148
found a good one.
https://youtu.be/Ulwx1MTU5to
hahahhahahahahha

ITT containment for all topics that fall under the common "/sci/ bad threads" umbrella:

consciousness
>poorly defined scientifically, go to >>>/his/
IQ
>doesn't actually measure anything besides aptitude for brainteasers by innumerate psychologists
.999... = 1
>it's true by definition, there are a million proofs
flat earth and/or NASA is CGI
>>>/x/
race realism
>>>/pol/
philosophy
>>>/his/
i think i revolutionized physics and/or math so i post it here!
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
5G is bad, vaccines are bad, riemann hypothesis proof, CTMU, infinity doesn't exist, da jooz, evolution is fake, etc.etc.
>you get the drift. containment thread.

>>10080918
can i bump this thread?
nobody wants to talk about the bogdanov affair? the most epic physics shit in recent history? (750 GeV diphoton < Bogdanov affair)?

>New answer : The one we have already indicated previously. The spacetime we are considering is the 5-dimensional spacetime whose metric is of the form x,y,z real and t complex.A we said before, the superposition space of the metrics can be described by the separated quotient topological space R3,1 cross R4 diagonally quotiented by SO(3). So we are considering the orbits of the action of SO(3) on the total space R3,1 cross R4. The dimension 3 of this action gives the foliation (here our quotient topological space is "sliced" by a 3 spacelike surface. But note that the timelike parameter-which is out of the orbit of the action of SO(3)- is *complex* so that the slicing is giving an evolution in real or imaginary time).