/sci/ - Science & Math

those are operators so you need to learn about quantum field theory and operator formulation of quantum mechanics. good luck, anon

>>15282598
>schizos think this is a complete model

>>15282598
No one really understands it, it just is what it is

>>15282598
>What do I need to know to understand pic related on at least a basic level?
The talmud, not even joking. Jewish circular logic math is explained therein. If you look at your notation you can even notice a strong resemblance to semitic written language

>>15282684
It is utterly phenomenal the seemingly bottomless amount of connections between science and religion, to the point where uncovering the most profound and esoteric ties between the two would render you seemingly schizophrenic to the average person. Love me some esoteric Jewish Circular Logic Math sourced from the eldest scrolls of Hebrew belief.

>>15282729
>the eldest scrolls of Hebrew belief.
I think the talmud is relatively recent compared other ancient jewish /lit/, the dead sea scrolls are the real old stuff and unfortunately israel keeps them mostly secret, so you've got to presume theres some good stuff in there. but maybe jewish math advanced without losing anything between when the dead sea scrolls were compiled and when the talmud was, that would make the dead sea scrolls pleb material. i prefer the hidden secrets version of that narrative, it has more potential. einstein and the gang never saw the dead sea scrolls so they couldn't have been influenced by them, they the contain ancient secrets, those secrets could be the key to fixing a lot of the mistakes in 20th century cosmological physics

>>15282744
Valid points, I appreciate such detailed feedback. I get that the Talmud is pretty new age compared to their oldest stuff, but they most certainly have some sacred math knowledge hidden away in those secluded scrolls.

>>15282598
i feel guilty myself for starting this meme years ago. it spread to twitter and it has persisted.

FOR THE RECORD:
that is not the Standard Model’s Lagrangian. in the bottom few lines there are “X” and “Y” fields and those are NOT standard model fields. those come from some debunked Grand Unified Theory.

in fact it is not known what the actual Standard Model lagrangian is, since for example there is no accepted way to adequately incorporate nonzero neutrino masses

>>15282773
>in fact it is not known what the actual Standard Model lagrangian is
This is a bit of an overstatement. A more honest way to say it is "we can't experimentally distinguish between different ways of extending the standard model to incorporate nonzero neutrino mass yet"

>>15282612
>and operator formulation of quantum mechanics
More like path integral formulation of quantum field theory. (Almost) no one does gauge theory from a Hilbert space perspective.

>>15282820
never learned gauge theory. what's a good reference

>>15282824
ditto

>>15282824
Peskin and Schroeder.

>>15282811
>we can't experimentally distinguish between different ways of extending the standard model to incorporate nonzero neutrino mass yet
no, it’s worse than that because if you give me some arbitrary SM extension with heavy neutrinos then in all likelihood it leads to problems in renormalizing the theory to very high energies. the fact is that there are very few if any ways of incorporating nonzero neutrino masses into the SM that have a nice UV completion.

>>15282832
Who needs a renormalizable theory in 2023? We know that the standard model isn't good to all energies, so what's the problem with an effective field theory?

Also I thought sterile neutrinos can be tacked on in a renormalizable way through the usual Higgs coupling

>>15282827
>Peskin and Schroeder.

>>15282684
>>15282729
> Jewish Circular Logic Math
What do you specifically mean by that? Where is circular reasoning reasonably used in math or science?

...he is winning, /sci/...are you?

>>15282845
Would. Dont care. Would.

B^l

>>15282773
>the bottom few lines there are “X” and “Y” fields and those are NOT standard model fields
apparently they're "Faddeev–Popov ghosts"
>This last part of the equation includes more ghosts. These ones are called Faddeev-Popov ghosts, and they cancel out redundancies that occur in interactions through the weak force
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev%E2%80%93Popov_ghost

>>15282619
>has no clue what side is the schizo side
>thinks hes smart enough to psychoanalyse people based on works
>LITERALLY CANT DIFFERENTIATE INSANE OR SANE

GET OUT, TOURIST.

>>15283135

Yep. Standard model equation is horsesht. Reminds me of the old geocentrism model where instead of modeling orbits as ovals they made them incoherent loopdeloops.

Midwits think the equation is smart BECAUSE it's incoherent. Gigabrains know that true intelligence is in efficiency, elegance and simplicity.

Cosmology and theoretical physics are containment fields for retrds, midwits, schizos, sociopaths and narcissists.

>>15282598

Imagine how pissed these rtards would be if someone simplified that incoherent mess down to 3 variables and a single operator. They would spend their careers denying it. Pigs enjoy their filth and get NO pearls.

>>15283234
>theoretical physics
>schizos
Who do you think made that picture?

A promising academic?

>>15283234
I know what you mean but at the same time that formula is just one way of expressing something. There's six or so main parts to that formula, so they could be replaced so that it's just A + B + C + D + E + F = Standard Model, you probably know that I guess. I think they've just expanded it out so you can see it all at once. Picrel is the commonly reduced version

>>15283560
>There's six or so main parts to that formula, so they could be replaced so that it's just A + B + C + D + E + F = Standard Model, you probably know that I guess.

Is that formula simulatable? Like could you plug that into a computer - as is - and get anything remotely resembling our physical reality? Because when I listen to theoretical physics it sounds like a bunch of jibberish that cannot even be modeled in any physical way. Meanwhile we've got guys on 0 budget, with virtually 0 attention or prestige who are saying, "fck it I'll do it myself" and simulating the 4 forces in fcking MS Excel from one equation.

>>15283560
>>15283626

Take Ed Witten, has the guy ever even SIMULATED anything, or does he just try and impress with big words and obtuse and esoteric math?

>>15283560
>>15283626
>>15283631

Or galaxy simulations... one of the most interesting parts about galaxy simulators is how they basically throw away all the equations of theoretical physics and use fluid dynamic equations instead.

>>15283635
>and use fluid dynamic equations

The the most basic, elegant fluid equation is a simple two variable differential, basically just X/Y=Z and WHAT DO YOU KNOW when you plug that into every point of a matrix and let it run simultaneously & massively parallel you can physically SEE the 4 forces emerge in the simulation.

>>15283560
>>15283626
>>15283631
>>15283635
>>15283643

And the *saddest* part is that even though physics is now unified and the equation is absurdly elegant and simple THERE IS STILL INFINITE WORK TO DO... what these "academic types" are doing doesn't even seem to be work... it seems as if their real job is to be an impediment.

>>15282840
> Introduction.
> One of the most difficult physics textbooks.
> Math MSc required at a minimum.

>>15283120
i think that Symmetry magazine article is wrong. the guy who supposedly wrote that section and their sources all seem dubious. reason being: Fadeev-Popov Ghosts are basically just a computational aid you stick into perturbative calculations and then get rid of in the end. they don’t actually exist in the nonperturbative (i.e. the actual) theory.

maybe what they say is true—that they got this as a printout from some old software package that you can’t find any more. maybe that’s why it includes nonphysical ghosts as well—just because for that obscure software package it includes computationally relevant terms for perturbative numerical calculations ? for sure those things are not present in an actual nonperturbative SM lagrangian

anyhow X and Y bosons exist in the old SU(5) and SO(10) GUTs so that’s why i assumed those fields got those “names”. you can look up the “X boson” on wiki

>>15283560
Thats better, I admit this. Now, what I judge is how often it repeats symbols/sign, and in which ways they do.
>As...there is only One gravity, so if youre giving multiple measures of it, they its not The One.

Still...thats way better.

>>15284953
one day you need to make a dedicated thread here to defend why you deserve to post here and to refute the obvious argument that you clearly don’t know anything about physics beyond a high school level plus some woo-woo antiphysics you maybe regurgitate from Dancing Wu-Li Masters or Tao of Physics (barf). don’t respond to this; just make that thread and we can continue there

>>15284974
>why you deserve to post here
POST THESIS, RETARD.

Didnt read the rest, dragons dont take shit from sparrows.

>>15284978
this is the second time you asked that to me and i’m astounded that you fail to grasp that anons don’t want to doxx themselves

do you want to post your full name and a publication that links you to your colleagues and family here?

okay maybe you do if you’re a Tooker-level schizo but please bear in mind that your average Physics PhD is not even remotely going to consider doing that. do you see my point?

>>15284983
>wont read
Then I saw Tooker. Yes, he cracked a problem thats literally been rolling around in my head for years and YEARS. I got what I estimate to be about 1/4th the way, which is rare...I either crack it or never start to, so a partial crack is RARE.

VERY RARE. Heckin impressed because he crack something I couldnt and legitimately tried to...shamed me.

SHAME!

>>15284987
fuck. i’m talking to tooker (again). you fooled me. shame on me for not lurking here as often as i used to

>>15284988
>i’m talking to tooker
Wrong, dumbass. Know your schizos or you know nothing. Im a serial sexual assaulter.

B^l

>>15284993
the “i post somebody else’s” hand schtick is way below you, Jon. that’s like a Ken Wheeler thing. you’re not a lowlife grifter like that. have some dignity. i thought you used to have principles—remember when you did Occupy? sad that you are sinking so low

>>15284998
>"Is the schizo in all rooms, Anon?"
>Yes.

THIS IS ME...youre not very scientific, very "every who doesnt agree with me is a liar".

>>15285006
let’s play along with your LARP.

okay Mr Passion, tell me more about your admiration for Jon Tooker. when did you start following him? what is your take on his participation in Occupy? what do you think about infinity-hat and the higgs boson spin? is his mother evil?

>>15285012
>play along
No, be a scientist or GTFO of this board, tourist.

"Grey would be the color.....*if* I had a heart..."

>>15285024
i am actually curious about Helene

>>15282684
only based answer

>>15285027
Literally the ONLY thing I know about him is his work on this;

THAT ALL.

>>15285034
the R-S angle was planted by Helene right? i forgot the details jon posted about that when he used to be active…

>>15285046
No clue what youre talking about...I already told you...

Youre talking to a spook in your head at this point.......

>>15285046
>R-S angle
Ah, the picture.

Yeah, I didnt look up ANYTHING about it. I try to crack equations without looking up ANYTHING about it.

Its a geometrically logical representation...so....LOGICALLY reverse engineer it.

Thats what I do. Reverse engineer. Not look up and be told. EVER.

>>15285052
goddamn they got you on some good meds this time.

good, i support that. you sound like you have your wits about you much better than any time in the past

i was trolling you and bringing up your past triggers and you managed to stay on course like a champ. let your psych doctor know that your troll on 4channel is impressed

>>15285060
>psych doctor
I *am* a Doctor, I teach them their profession, not the other way around.

>touch stone...the flesh has failed you...