/sci/ - Science & Math

What's /sci/'s favourite equation?

I wish I could help you, but I dont understand what you are saying. I am American (USA). I am not familar with the type of schooling structure you are talking about.

You said you did your BS in math, and want a MS in QFT or someshit. What do you mean by post-grad? Like you want to get another degree before you go into your Masters?

>>1171699
>>1171699
A complete TOE (thoery of everything), unifying all 4 fundemental forces? No, probably not, we are actuallly pretty far from it.

The current "plan" is as follows:

We "think" we have figured out a way to unify EM + Weak = Electroweak, but that still actually is dependent on the Higgs.
If we find the Higgs we have only unified 2/4. After that we need to "find" other werid partciles, so we get "supersymmetry" which will explain the unification with the additional strong force, 3/4. After that we need quantum gravity to get 4/4, the higgs should help with this alitte too hopefully.

Thats the plan at least, but its just a "plan". It probably will change, and alot of our understaning is probably still flawed.
I'm pretty sure physics will never be "complete" (thats my best guess).

>>1164128
wait? wft? you say treat the kinetic energy as the "independent parameter", and somehow get it to be "0", the it will float? uhh, I know you are trying to be a TROLL.

But that actually is a good idea. LIKE A REALLY FUCKING GOOD IDEA, FROM A THEROTICAL VIEWPOINT. Although, Im not sure how it could actually be done?

>>1060336
Thinka about this for a sec. The Integral is just a summation with abritray small steps.

Example:
Int(x^2 , x, 0,1) is just saying, I add up all the values of x^2, from x equal 0 to x equal 1. Its actually the "line integral". On the line x^2.

So why then do you say this is the areas under the curve? By defintion it is not. So anyone know why?