[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.4794287 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, 1285935948095.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4794287

>>4794266
>>4794266
QFT = science, used by actual physicist when studying shit in the field

String theory = hypothesis, nice idea, but still unconfirmed, not used by physicists in the field.

>> No.4368599 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, 1285935948095.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4368599

>>4368503
>>4368503
>Ising model

Good luck finding anyone who wants to explain that shit in terms of the shitty Ising model.

Renormilization isn't that hard.
1) We only observe "select" finite quantities

2) According to the fucking math/physics "actual" things end up being infinite.

3) The "select" things we observe, are made of complicated combinations the "actual" things.

4) The infinities in the "actual" things must cancel to form a "select" thing.

5) The cancellation process is not unique in any sense. In fact there are usually an infinite way to get the "select" things from the "actual" things.

6) So selecting the renomilzation then depends on some other "external" parameters. We can physically assocaite the parameters with energyscales, reference frame, etc. We do this by matching what is equivalently "boundary conditions" or "intial conditions" to what we know some "select" values to be.

7) We then have our formulas to generate "select" things that correspond to combinations of "actual" things, such that we get consistant results to already established values of certain "select" things.

Make sense? It has been awhile since i did any real QFT.

>> No.4329650 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, 1285935948095.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4329650

>>4329583
>you know you are a single conscious
>i know i'm a single consciousness
>you know its just ONE inside your head

Without an actual definition of conscious, YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS SHIT. You are assuming shit, based of your "idea" of what consciousness is. But your "idea" is unique to you, and since there is no ACTUAL fucking definition, your "idea" is pretty much WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT IT TO BE. No ones "idea" of consciousness being more right or wrong then others. It is then just an opinion.

Other have different ideas of consciousness, that are totally unrelated to your idea. And according to there personal definitions, maybe they aren't a single conscious, maybe your aren't. Maybe you aren't even conscious at all. Or maybe to them consciousness = being a Chinese-Australian. So, unless you are a Chinese-Australian YOU ARENT FUCKING CONSCIOUS!

DEFINITIONS MATTER DUMBFUCK! You can't do science without definitions for shit, else you are just talking about nonsense.

>> No.2589317 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, 1285935948095.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2589317

>>2588981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

End of First Paragraph:
"The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science."

\thread

>> No.2564264 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, 1285935948095.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2564264

>>2563425
Objective as fuck!
I need that objectivism!
I feind for that shit!

>> No.1831488 [View]
File: 1.24 MB, 312x176, youspinmerightround.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1831488

>>1831447

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]