/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5665282
Yep

>>5665253
In general "a charge" is analogous to the generator of a symmetry. For any physics, fundmentally you have all the Quantum Fields, obeying very specific relationships to one another.

All these relationships/interactions are reducible to groups. Futhermore, if you started from that group and tried to generate a "physics", you would get your orginal physics (what we actually observe). This is why we say QED is U(1) or QCD is SU(3), etc.

They are literally the simplest fundmental respresentation of the universe.

>>5643155
Multiverse theory is not accepted or taught as part of the standard physics degree programs. It is a very niche thing, with no evidence to suport it.

"Newtonian Gravity" is a scientific theory, taught to all physicists, and used in the field. "Multiverse theory" is not a scientific theory, it is not testable and has no applications.

\thread

>>4814776
>implying the "Cauchy's differentiation formula" is cooler then the "Euler product formula for the Riemann zeta function"

>>4574643
>energy conserved

This is a fault assumption. Why the fuck do you assume energy is conserved?

Energy conservation is not some "first principle" or "universal law". Energy conservation is in fact a "derived" property, from more fundemnetal properties. Energy conservation only applies to certain types of systems, with certain unique properties.

Laws they we take for granted, like energy conservation, actually do not apply to alot of shit.