/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4548860
You'll get it soon enough, just give it time.

>>3148714
That just tell us that time is fundamentally imaginary, if we attempt to view it as we do our other coordinates in configuration spaces.

Next, you try to define a time operator using our operator theory, QM and QFT, making sure it is hermitian (so we can get it to correspond to reality).

The only way to to this is through something analgous to a norm. There is no other way to map the imaginary space to the actual values we observe which is consistant with QFT, and approximates to QM is the approperate limits.

You still following? Need me to clarify something?

>>2712226
That's some wild postulation bro. And there is no evidence or science to behind what you say.

It is intersting to think about, but all you are doing is math and phil (not physics).

>>2686925
It is not currently thought possible (in the way you want).

>>2549684
>Why can't people just accept that everything is made up of Strings?

Cause we have no evidence validating string theory. No evidence whatsofucking ever.

A scientific theory needs validation as well as predictive power. Our leading theory is the standard model, which has literally a shit ton of supporting evidence and predictive power. It is the most sucessful scientific theory ever developed (as least most of it and the electromagnetic sector).

>>2372539
A type of mathematical object.

A Tensor is a multidimensionl object, filled with "slots". Each slot can contain more objects.

It is used as a generalization of the "scalar", "vector", and "matrix" to higher "dimensions" (or the same dimension).

If you know computer programming it is analagous to arrays (or nested arrays).

>>2337441
>Does mass bend space

Yes

>or bent space IS mass?

No. The closest analogy would be "Mass is very very very consentrated energy"

>>2264890
>>2264889
Well, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. You really can't quantify it to well.

I really like all the hidden sysmetery shit in the standard model, as well as the group theory, I always really enjoyed that type of math.

I do hate a ton of shit about it though. Supersymmetry is shit, as well as the electroweak unification. I mean wtf? You start with two properties, then you change basis, and you get two different properties? AND THAT IS CALLED A UNIFICATION? LMAO

I mean I get the justification, and the equivalence at certain energy ranges, but still, it always has seemed pretty weak to me (no pun intended).

And don't even get me started on the masses!!!!

>>2210004
It depends on how much you can handle (what level you are at).

Do you know Lagragian and Hamiltonian dynamics yet?

>>1732036
Yeah, that is bullshit.
See>>1732108

>>1325113
Actually Physics pays very very very good, and you have lots of free time. Plus you usually have alot of little guys (engineers) working for you. We need them for the grunt work.

Yes, metamaterials are very interesting. Tons of physics research in being done in this field.
Physicist Victor Veselago is actually the father of the subject (metamaterials). I would look up his work, for more info. I am a particle physicist, metamaterials is more optics or condensed matter (hence I cant give you more info).

>>1303030
>Trying to pray to every possible being would be a too time consuming endeavor

Yes, you are correct. So you should only pray to the dieties that seem more likly to exist then others. Aka (popular ones), At least then you have your bases covered. Go ahead and give satan a try. Scientifically speaking it is a good course of action.