[ 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


View post   

File: 151 KB, 814x545, 1461582302169.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9571572 No.9571572 [Reply] [Original]

What are you researching, studying or working on lately?

>> No.9571575

ass

>> No.9571602
File: 11 KB, 625x375, TRINITY_+________jwt_53.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9571602

a novel

>> No.9571614

>>9571572
>physics
Not math or science.

>> No.9571617

>>9571572
is it bad that my uni doesnt offer relativity courses, only offers 1 semester of mechanics and thermo for undergrads?

Instead, we have extra solid state courses, low temperature courses, extra computational courses, a shitton of nanotech courses.

Just about every prof here is condensed matter research. But they said theyll teach any courses that students are interested in (we had a special topics course in particle physics last semester)

>> No.9571623

>>9571617
Are you studying physics?

>> No.9571624

>>9571617
No. Relativity is a meme. Einstein was a fool. Have you heard him speak? Haha... Fucking autistic jew

>> No.9571633

>>9571623
yes

i was studying chem (school is a top school for chem) but couldnt let go of math so i switched to physics

>> No.9571635

>>9571633
You don't have other theoretical subjects besides thermo and mechanics?

>> No.9571650

>>9571635
No no, other than that we have the standard curriculum. Im just saying only 1 semester of those courses are offered.

>> No.9571680

Learning the basic math to understand the models I am interested in. I want to understand particle pairs, local and global broken symmetry, and spooky motion.

>> No.9571685

>>9571624
This is an Ashkenazi Jew board you fucking low IQ plebeian

>> No.9571689

>>9571650
A, then it's not too bad. I don't agree that undergrads don't have the skills to learn basic GR, but it's not expected from you to become very knowledgable about the field.

>> No.9571730
File: 141 KB, 250x250, 1514539377243.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9571730

>>9571624
you have to go back to where you came

>> No.9571922

>>9571572
Entanglement stuff. My linear algebra sucks though so it's hard.

>> No.9572531

electromagnetism, I've had some problems with the math because of my calculus, but I'm finally getting it

>> No.9572738

Trying to come up with something for undergrad research

No idea where to start. Im only an undergrad so I dont understand half the shit I read on arxiv or elsewhere

i really wanted to do something statistical in condensed matter but i just have no idea. the professors here are obviously very intelligent and nice but are busy and dont have much time to talk

>> No.9572751

>>9572531
What are you currently learning?

>> No.9572757

>>9572738
Don't do undergrad research, please trust me on this. Just do your best to firmly grasp everything you're being taught and have patience.

>> No.9572761

>>9571572
>unified field theory
>E/M charge field
>reevaluation of relativity and quantum mechanics
>how 20th century physics since the Copenhagen interpretation is autistic screeching hiding behind fake math

http://milesmathis.com/

>> No.9572790

>>9572761
Jesus christ, the autism. He's also wrong, the extra terms comes from non uniform motion and you get them with a proler derivation if he used vectors as he should.

>> No.9572808

Been running some simulations to produce crystals and send some laser induced shocks through them.

>> No.9572813

>>9572757
1 semester of research is required although most undergrads do 3 semesters or 1 and an internship depending what they want to do

>> No.9572858

What are your views about the relation between math and physics? I understand they are not the same thing in many ways, but recentky I've seen a thrend of physicista that feel "pride" for no being "rigorous". I have no problem with skipping tedious proofs, but I do have problema when the objects don't make sense.

>> No.9572948

>>9571572
Plasma discharge tube that accesses zeropoint radiation. In other terms, free energy.

>> No.9572992

>>9571572

Newtonian Mechanics and Basic Electromagnetism . Solving IE Irodov problems.

>> No.9572996

>>9572757
>>9572813
Don't listen to that undergrad, do your undergrad research. It's good to expose yourself to things you don't understand to help prepare yourself and build breadth and intuition otherwise you will become bottlenecked too soon. If you feel like you're overwhelmed, it'll pass and it's good to get used to that feeling now while you're young. You will only go further away from the known and into the unknown and clinging to the "known" knowledge will prevent you from really branching out.

>> No.9573004

>>9571617
It's not that bad to only have 1 semester of thermo, but 1 of mechanics is weird. What level was it?

My undergrad had 3.5-4 semesters of it.
1. 1/2 - 2/3 of the first semester intro series are introductory mechanics using 6 ideas that shaped physics book,
2. sophomore 2 semester Intermediate mechanics using Morin (actually difficult)
3. Junior or Senior Theoretical mechanics which includes mostly lagrangians and chaos using Taylor (not hard)

>> No.9573232

Does anyone know a good place to start self teaching physics. I'm currently looking at the stuff offered on MIT open courseware, as well as Feynman's introductory course notes. Wondering if there was anything else out there that is worthwhile.

>> No.9573535

>>9572751
classical em, everything starting from the basics

>> No.9573601

>>9571572
I spent more than 1 hour trying to understand how to sum

[math]x_{1}=A_{1}\sin(\omega t+\phi_{1})[/math]
and
[math]x_{2}=A_{2}\sin(\omega t+\phi_{2})[/math]

and get something in the form of

[math]x=A\sin(\omega t+\phi)[/math]

again. I couldn't.

>> No.9573608

I'm struggling my way through the part of QFT that leads into the Feynman rules.

Doesn't help that the textbook is brutally honest about just straight up ignoring infinities sometimes, which I'm too much of a mathematician to just accept.

>> No.9573905
File: 45 KB, 800x450, 1518014740792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9573905

>>9571572
Currently reading university physics (freedman) and juggling lectures of Feynman and Walter lewis to prepare myself for going back to college this summer. Idk shits really interesting but its too late for me I'm 24 w/ shit high school GPA. Sucks when you have to pay your own way through college, I'll probably have to settle with some shit business degree

>> No.9573921
File: 106 KB, 601x601, 98778989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9573921

>/mg/ is making fun of us again

>> No.9574281

>>9572858
Hehe.

Can you define 'makes sense' rigorously though?

>> No.9574290

>>9572738
If you want to do any serious research you need to know some quantum mechanics and if you're really serious some quantum field theory as well. You can shoot for these types of projects or just go with standard undergrad stuff like data collection and lab work. Since research seems required for you though I'd shoot higher since it'll put you apart from your peers.
I recommend studying some quantum mechanics(or qft if you already know it) on your own. Then when you've learned a reasonable amount you should go to professors working in fields that interest you about research projects. Make sure you mention your current knowledge and what you're studying, it gives a good impression. I personally went around asking professors when I was done with Griffiths and halfway through Shankar. A particle theorist took me on and guided me into learning therest of quantum, some qft, then the relevant gauge theory and literature. By "guided" all I mean is that he recommended books and what to emphasize and skip in them, I did all the learning myself.
Now some recommendations on where to learn this stuff. Classical mechanics from chapters 1,2,8 of Goldstein are all you really need. Special relativity from the first 4 chapters of Schutz's general relativity book are important when you get to qft, and you'll need tensors at some point anyways. For quantum mechanics Shankar, Cohen-Tannoudji, and Sakurai are worth looking at. Griffiths might be helpful for the really basic stuff. For qft you really need to look at everything. Peskin and Schroeder is the standard, but I found Lahiri/Pal and Tong's notes very helpful when first starting. Mandl/Shaw is old but it might help things click and Srednicki is a bit more advanced. Try to at least know special relativity and quantum before asking professors as they are the bare minimum for most research. Don't be afraid to talk and tell them what you're interested in, helping out undergrads in research is part of a professor's job.

>> No.9574297

>>9571614
>physics not science

>> No.9574300

>>9573608

What textbook you using?

I'm going through Mark Srednicki's book, it seems to have good examples.

I hate the idea of just learning the Feynman rules without knowing how to derive them, but everyone who I talk to and knows this stuff thinks going through the detail like I am is a waste of time.

I just want to rigorously understand everything, gosh.

>> No.9574302

>>9574281
Tensors, curvilinear coordinates, virtual displacements. If you are already using abstrtact concepts, you can't just live with a shit interpretation.

>> No.9574354

>>9574302

True. Sometimes my professors think I'm dense if I keep asking them to make it make sense. They'll only respect my question if I prove I can do the calculations correctly, which is apparently the bar for saying you 'understand it'.

For example, when I ask 'what the hell is SU(2) and a spinor and why does this work?' I just get told,

"What you never heard of pauli matrices or quaternions? SU(2) is just a simply connected double cover of SO(3) and you have to go around 4pi to get back where you started."

Or more mathy people will say:

"Some Clifford algebra on some so-and-so space"

And I'll only have learned trivia and lingo within those fields without really knowing what the hell a spinor on SU(2) is.

If anyone does have a good intuition for this btw, let me know. I don't even have a specific question, it's just objects like these (and pretty much 90% of QM and QFT) where the more I think about it, the less goddamn sense it makes.

>> No.9574356

>>9574354
Learn manifolds bro. It all makea sense after that.

>> No.9574384

>>9574356

Thanks. I've been dabbling in some topology or more mathy physics texts recently, but I still think I'm at the point where it just seems like definitions and hasn't completely 'clicked'.

The only thing I've really appreciated so far is exterior product and integration of boundaries. That was pretty cool.

>> No.9574430
File: 1.89 MB, 1450x2048, test (14).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9574430

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06527
>This produces a general formula for the group of Symmetry Protected Topological (SPT) phases in terms of Thom's bordism spectra; the only input is the dimension and symmetry group.
>>9571617
>is it bad that my uni specializes in something
No.
>>9571680
>particle pairs
Formation of for instance Cooper pairs is a physical fact, not a mathematical one. Though there are mathematical ways of classifying if a particle pairing can give you an exactly solvable system or not.
Tinkham has a good introduction to BSC superconductivity via Cooper/Peierls pairs.
>local and global broken symmetry
Vector bundles. Specifically principal complex/Hermitian [math]G[/math]-bundles. Gauge transformations arises naturally in this setting as fibre-preserving endomorphisms of the universal bundle.
>spooky motion
There's no such thing.
>>9572738
>No idea where to start.
It should be your advisor's job to tell you that.
>>9572790
Miles Mathis is a famous crank my dude.
>>9572858
>I understand they are not the same thing in many way
They are, and they should be treated as such. Theorists that do not value and maintain at least some level of rigor are nothing more than experimentalists.
>>9573608
Use Weinberg for QFT and supplement with Streater-Wightman.
Also renormalization by the cancellation of counterterms is a physical procedure, not a mathematical one. You being a mathematician or not has nothing to do with it, because there is no mathematical justification for why we do it, just why and how it works.

>> No.9574499

>>9573601
you absolute bumblefuck
It's literally sine addition formulas, it should take 5 minutes to identify what you need to do

>> No.9574508

>>9574430
>>>/mg/ you fucking weeb autist.

>> No.9574511

>>9574508
math is part of physics though

>> No.9574531

>>9571680
>local and global broken symmetry
>>9574430
I'd also recommend Forster's hydrodynamic fluctuations, broken symmetry, and correlation functions, we used it in the second part of the graduate stat mech course and it was pretty nice.
>>9571572
I'm working on developing some solvable models in qm that form good approximations to more widely studied models and then doing some corrections to see if these methods yield better results than other numerical methods. Not really that exciting but given that I'm not knowledgeable enough to do the type of research that I actually want to do, it acts as a good project to get my name on a paper and as something to do until I can build my knowledge/skill set.

>> No.9575388

>>9574384
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://people.math.ethz.ch/~salamon/PREPRINTS/diffgeo.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjPguPss-LZAhUFXa0KHclcAhwQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1KPRGdpYVoXQzIrsrfgcnX

>> No.9575474

>>9574499
I think it's not that easy because you have different amplitudes for each 'x'.

>> No.9575676

>>9574511
>math
Fuck that unphysical garbage!!!

>> No.9575695

>>9574354
You should study a little bit of representation theory. You want to represent some symmetry group, so you need a space in which to act. In some case you need a spinor space, which has to follow certain rules.

Try to make a parallelism with vectors in linear algebra: you just know that a vector is an element of a vector space, which in itself is just a bunch of rules.

If you want to have a classical analogue of a spinor, look at the belt trick. Penrose book "Road to Reality" explains it in some detail.

>> No.9575789

>>9574354
All it comes down to is representations of the Lorentz group, 3 rotations and 3 boosts that preserve the interval s^2=t^2-r^2. Fields are defined on spacetime. Knowing how spacetime transforms, we want to know how fields defined on it can transform. A scalar field is such that f(x)=f'(x'), clearly if x'=Lx, then f'(x)=f(L^-1x). A vector field is such that f'_u(x')=L^v_u f_v(x). A representation of a group is assigning a matrix to each element M(L) such that successive Lorentz transformations also have a matrix M(L'L)=M(L')M(L), there is an identity M(no transform)=Identity, and there is an inverse M(L^-1)=M(L)^-1. The scalar field is an example of something that transforms under a trivial representation M(L)=I for every L. The vector field transforms under the representation M(L)=(L), just Lorentz transform matrices. The question is, are there any other representations of the Lorentz group? As it turns out there is a non-trivial representation which is SU(2) and we call objects that transform under it spinors. Spinors in 3 dimensions should be familiar, they are just the spin of a spin 1/2 particle. The significance of the Pauli matrices is that i times them form a basis for the Lie algebra of SU(2), the tangent space at the identity of the Lie group SU(2) itself, and finite SU(2) elements can be obtained by exponentiation. I recommend reading the chapter in Peskin and Schroeder's qft for this whole procedure. The idea behind obtaining it is to generalize quantum angular momentum into 4 dimensions, then find it's commutation relations, then anything satisfying these commutators serves as a good representation. The actual mathematical way of doing this procedure in general is where complicated math like Clifford algebras come up which in a sense generalizes all of this to non physics situations.

>> No.9575802

>>9571617

Are by chance enrolled at the Technical university of Denmark?

>> No.9575836

>>95756954

I've read tons of stuff on representation theory and symmetry groups. There are a lot of totally intuitive examples and applications I understand, it's mostly just spinors and SU(N) symmetry groups I still find weird.

The closest intuitive explanation I've heard is that it's the 'square root' of a geometry, whatever that's supposed to mean.

I've also tried exploring taking Laplace spherical harmonics and putting in half-integer values, but then the raising and lowering operator trick that you do doesn't truncate, so there is something more going on.

>> No.9575839
File: 100 KB, 369x387, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9575839

Does anyone here know good courses on theoretical classical mechanics? I wanna prepare my first semester of theoretical physics.

>> No.9575853

>>9574430
>They are
Sounds like something a physishit with an inferiority complex would say.

>> No.9575861

>>9575789

Right, taking SO(1,3) into a SU(2)xSU(2) representation is mathematically straightforward, but it's the interpreting the results that makes me scratch my head.

If we have SO(1,3) with three generators of rotations (J) and three generators of boosts (K), the algebra is (maybe off by minus signs).

[math][J_i, J_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/math]

[math][K_i, K_j]=-\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/math]

[math][J_i, K_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}K_k[/math]

Then you introduce some operator, [math]S_i=\frac{1}{2}(J_i+iK_i)[/math] and it (along with it's conjugate) satisfy:

[math][S_i,S_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}S_k[/math]

And it's conjugate forms a disjoint group. So it's SU(2)xSU(2), great. But what the hell is this operator?!?

We take a state, and we are taking the superposition of a rotation and an IMAGINARY boost along the axis of rotation. What is that?! I'd like to hear an explanation for this, because at this point to me it seems like we're firmly in math-land, far away from attempting physical interpretation.

>> No.9575863

>>9575861

[math] S_i=\frac{1}{2}(J_i+iK_i) [/math]

[math] [S_i,S_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}S_k [/math]

>> No.9575978

>>9575836
By square root of geometry we mean that want write a "square root" of the d'Alembert operator in the Klein-Gordon equation. A Lorentz invariant quantity such that it multiplied by itself gives the d'Alembert, which is determined by the geometry of the system. You can postulate that these will be combinations of derivatives with gamma "objects" which turn out to be matrices. Assuming this square root of geometry thing about what the gamma matrices do you can get the standard definition as the clifford algebra with the anticommutator. First assume that the gammas work through the derivative, i.e. they work on internal space unrelated to spacetime components, then write the product of gammas as 1/2(commutator + anticommutator). Now contracting the two derivatives with the commutator gives 0 which leaves 1/2{gamma^u, gamma^v}D_u D_v which we want to be the box D^u D_u which is satisfied if the anticommutator is 2g. This viewpoint is much more helpful than the standard one you see. Essentially the idea is that given a vector you can represent it as a matrix with useful properties. I recommend Elie Cartan's book on spinors in which he takes this viewpoint. Here's a page about it being done in 3 dimensions http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/spinor.htm

>> No.9576042

>>9575978
I meant square root in a more general sense. In the context of taking the square root of Klein Gordan equation alone it seems like an ad-hoc trick that just happens to work, but I assume there is a lot deeper geometry going on.

My (somewhat) understanding is that in much the same way you need complex numbers when taking roots of reals in one dimension, you need more "complex numbers" for representing all the "complex axes" of higher dimensions, which are encoded in the Clifford algebras. Is this essentially correct?


>http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/spinor.htm

Woah, this is cool, how have I never seen this?

>> No.9576095

How important is chemistry for physics. I am getting by so far by, but every now and again i run into a term that i don't know. Just assume i don't know anything about chemistry.

>> No.9576206

>>9576095
Depends, what are you doing? What kind of terms?

>> No.9576234

>>9576206
Concrete TQFT and some deep string theory.

>> No.9576235

>>9576095

You are much better off than you are the other way around.

>t. direct phd in quantum dynamics with bsc in chemistry

I don't even know how my research group is in the Chemistry Department at my school.

>> No.9576239

>>9576234
Just curious, what are some examples of chemistry terms you run into in TQFT and string theory?

>> No.9576252

>>9576239
Organic concrete cobordism, locally-alkaline manifold, and so on.
With string theory there is usually some deeper stuff going on in the background which I can't quite grasp yet, but that's mainly due to my low knowledge of chemistry.

>> No.9576253

>>9571572
i'm studying computer architecture, reading the code book by petzold.

>> No.9576324

>>9576253
This doesn't belong in this thread faggot

>> No.9576360
File: 174 KB, 1224x1445, 1513740187549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9576360

>>9576252

>> No.9576446

>>9571572
I'm a brainlet only getting my MS since I bombed my qual, but i'm working on developing a CNT-AAO scaffold for assisted nerve growth in severed spinal column. I plan on trying to go back for my PhD in maybe bio/neurological physics or trying to get back into CMT

>> No.9576455

>>9576239
There are novel monoidal Turaev polymerization reactions involving ribbon catenanes.

>> No.9576458

>>9576360
Suit yourself.

>> No.9576488

>>9575839
susskind lecture on youtube

>> No.9576898
File: 48 KB, 271x292, IMG_2560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9576898

Hey guys!

Just letting you know that this is the Science & Math board, please take this thread to >>>toy as it does not belong here.

Warmest regards,
/mg/

>> No.9576902

>>9576898
why are you so salty about physics

>> No.9576904
File: 27 KB, 240x320, susskind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9576904

>>9576488
>susskind lectures on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyX8kQ-JzHI&list=PL6i60qoDQhQGaGbbg-4aSwXJvxOqO6o5e

>> No.9576908

>>9576898
>>9576902

>>>/toy/6833953

>> No.9576913
File: 195 KB, 720x456, newton 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9576913

>>9576908 >>9576898
Reminder that Calculus was invented by a Physicist: Isaac Newton.

>> No.9576914

>>9576913
Reminder that Archimedes was doing integrals two millennia before either Newton or Leibniz.

>> No.9576915

>>9576914
Reminder that Archimedes was a physicist, engineer, inventor, astronomer and mathematician at same time.
And not a pure mathematician.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

>> No.9576916

>>9576908
Are you the same anime poster who was upset about being dumped by a physicist?

>> No.9576924
File: 39 KB, 711x620, 1504004394798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9576924

>>9576916
He already has a new girlfriend :c

>> No.9576936

>>9576915
Well physicists are the best mathematicians anyway, because they're all but pure.

>> No.9576945

>>9576924
thats rough

>> No.9577023

>>9576915
>And not a pure mathematician.
There is no other kind. So in other words he wasn't a mathematician?

>> No.9577029

>>9577023
Archimedes, just as John von Neumann was a Applied mathematician.

John von Neumann applied math to economics, computer science and physics.

Archimedes applied math to physics, engineering and astronomy.

>> No.9577034
File: 1.12 MB, 758x1010, 4a356642a30eb276dbb798636ae3a497.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577034

>>9575861
>What is that?! I'd like to hear an explanation for this
>using incorrect intuition to understand something yields "spooky" results
Wow who would've thunk??
>>9576914
Integrals are pretty deep stuff as can be seen in the recent proof of the Cobordism Theorem. They can be used everywhere instead of Grothendieck-Deligne-May spectra to obtain a greater level of physical intuitions in our highly rigorous proofs, this is a meta-theorem.
>>9576936
>Well physicists are the best mathematicians anyway
Literally this.... The cobordism hypothesis can be (and has been) proved (by Mathematical Physicists), so where are the proofs of this homotopy "hypothesis"? Answer: there are none, because cobordism hypothesis is the cornerstone of something concrete (i.e. TQFT, string theory) while this homotopy hypothesis is the cornerstone of absolute algebraic wank.
And while we're at it, I would like to add that those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

>> No.9577038

>>9577029
>Applied mathematician
No such thing.
>John von Neumann applied math to economics, computer science and physics.
So what you're saying is that he was an economist, computer scientist and physicist? That's pretty cool.

>> No.9577041

>>9576913
Yes, an engineer invented a branch of engineering. Your point being?

>> No.9577045
File: 18 KB, 220x286, Euler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577045

>>9577041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler
Leonhard Euler
>was a Swiss mathematician, physicist, astronomer, logician and engineer
> He is also known for his work in mechanics, fluid dynamics, optics, astronomy, and music theory.
>Euler was one of the most eminent mathematicians of the 18th century and is held to be one of the greatest in history.
>He is also widely considered to be the most prolific mathematician of all time.

t. Greatest mathematician is also a Physicist and a Engineer.
Explain this.

>> No.9577048

>>9577045
>mathematicians of the 18th century
Mathematics didn't even exist in the 18th century yet. This is false information.
>Greatest mathematician
How does someone become the "greatest mathematician" without being a mathematician?

>> No.9577052 [DELETED] 

>>9577041
Euler, Von Newman, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, John Von Neumann applied math to Physics

Even David Hilbert applied his math to Physics
>the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries
> Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action).
>Additionally, Hilbert's work anticipated and assisted several advances in the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert#Physics

>> No.9577053
File: 17 KB, 220x298, David Hilbert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577053

>>9577048
>Mathematics didn't even exist in the 18th century yet

David Hilbert
>the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries
>did the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics
>worked alongside Einstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action

>> No.9577059

>>9577048 >>9577053
David Hilbert
the greatest mathematician of 19th and early 20th centuries.
Did work in Theoretical Physics.

Explain that Pure math-fag.

>> No.9577060

>>9577052
>Euler, Von Newman, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, John Von Neumann applied math to Physics
Engineers applying math to physics is common practice.
>>9577053
Mathematicians can also do other less important stuff on the side. What is your point?

>> No.9577063
File: 15 KB, 235x211, 1491888239261s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577063

what does pure-math nerds can even do in life except high school teacher??

poor guys, just let them screech

>> No.9577065

>>9577052
>Von Newman
It's John Von Neumann, or Neumann János

>> No.9577068

>>9577052
>>9577065
Wait, was there someone named Von Newman? Google doesn't bring up anything on that name.

>> No.9577069

>>9577068
only few of us know his name

>> No.9577070

>>9577065 >>9577068
Euler, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, John Von Neumann applied math to Physics

Even David Hilbert applied his math to Physics
>the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries
> Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action).
>Additionally, Hilbert's work anticipated and assisted several advances in the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert#Physics

Redact: my point stands

>> No.9577075

>>9577070
>Euler, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, John Von Neumann applied math to Physics
Engineers applying math to physics is common practice.

>> No.9577076

>>9577063
Literally this. All they can do is hide behind their walls of notation and abstractions since they lack the proper physical intuitions to understand our world and the empirical mathematical objects they deal with. I bet they can't even draw a picture of a cofibration.

>> No.9577079

Is "Rigorous Topology for Mathematical Physicists: An intuitive approach" by Von Newman any good? I'm just beginning to learn.

>> No.9577081
File: 5 KB, 225x225, Cauchy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577081

>>9577065 >>9577068
If you remove all Mathematicians who also done work in Theoretical Physics.

You will have left basically only Grothendieck and a few people.

Even Augustin-Louis Cauchy, the founder of complex analysis, known by his sheer emphasis on rigor, did works in Theoretical Physics.

In Wave theory, mechanics, elasticity. Contributed to Physics by his Cauchy stress tensor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_stress_tensor

While Pure mathfags on /sci/ avoid pratical applications in such stubborn way.

>> No.9577083

>>9577081
>Augustin-Louis Cauchy, the founder of complex analysis, known by his sheer emphasis on rigor
How can be be known for his emphasis on deep rigor if he accepts statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH? We as mathematical physicists should hold "mathematicians" to a high standard and I'm not seeing that with Cauchy.

>> No.9577084

>>9577081
>did works in Theoretical Physics.
Mathematicians can do other less important stuff of the side. What is your point?

>> No.9577088
File: 32 KB, 400x382, Smug Ed Witten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577088

>>9577081
Even Grothendieck's works can be applied to Physics.
In the String Theory. Although Grothendieck didn't applied himself.

It was applied by /our/ big brained Physicist colleagues such as Edward Witten (Physicist, Fields Medal Winner), Leonard Susskind, Yoichiro Nambu, Holger Bech Nielsen and Murray Gell-Mann.

>> No.9577092

>>9577088
Literally fuck Grothendieck and Serre and every French "mathematician" and their "work", even if it can be applied to physics by great Mathematical Physicists like Witten. They openly denounce physics and empiricsm. They openly claim that mathematics should somehow be detached from empiricism and empirical experiments.
Most of their "work" can be done instead by using basic insights from basic geometric topology anyway. See the proof of the cobordism hypothesis for details.

>> No.9577130
File: 1.97 MB, 500x280, spot me.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9577130

>>9576936
>physicists
are the niggers of science

>> No.9577148

>>9571572
im trying to go throught the jackson (classical electrodynamics). however, i find it really hard to even understand the chapters. is there hope for me ?

>> No.9577157

>>9577148
If you want to be a physicist, no.

>> No.9577164

>>9577157
why do you think so ? maybe i just need more background knowledge...

i mean hope to do the problems... i will try anyways till failure. You know, i need more mathematical skill and i am learning that as well right now. But its so time and energy consuming.

>> No.9577225

>>9577164
>i need more mathematical skill
No. Why would you want knowledge about useless abstractions? Learn to hone your physical intuitions instead to gain some deep insights into our empirical universe.

>> No.9577232

>>9577225
not useless abstractions, tools to understand physics. for example i didnt know what solid angle is yesterday.

>> No.9577378

I'm going back to college to do a physics undergrad.
First year is basically just mechanics, thermodynamics, linear algebra and calculus/real analysis. Mechanics and linear algebra shouldn't be a problem so I wanted to focus on thermodynamics and calculus which, given the recommended literature and topics, sounds much more like real analysis than your average intro calc class. Second year looks like hell though, EM, classical mechanics, optics, nuclear and some gigantic math course thats basically a mix of every single math topic which carries like a 1/3rd of whole year's credits.

Any tips on how to proceed? I'm basically worried about their "go balls deep with no lube" math approach.

>> No.9577409

>>9577378
>tips how to proceed

read newport "deep ..(something)..." or "how to become an A student in science and engineering" by Rainer Storn for tips how to proceed

>> No.9577451

physics undergrad here

there is a physics club in my state that meets in my city. my uni physics club goes to their meetings every few months.

what am i in for? what tips do you have for talking to other physicists?

im absolutely terrified of sounding like a moron and by being bored by others work. the meeting is mostly experimental condensed matter/materials researchers but im into theoretical work in other fields

>> No.9578193

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761

What backwards kind of logic is this? I doubt people overlooked leibniz rule for surface integrals over a century. Yes, the point is that you get extra terms in maxwell equations when you try to apply a galilean boost, which shows there is a violation of the principle of relativity. Or I'm being dense and it's even more subtle? Maybe you don't start with the wave equation and apply a loretz transformation, but the equations of maxwell are still not invariant.

>> No.9578215

>>9577451
Don't talk about popsci except it's a legit question, but chill out.

>> No.9578356

>>9578193
btw, I know I should't lose time on poor or shit arguments, but I like to see the flaws in all the supposed "physics debunked", because I feel can learn the details by understanding "paradoxes".

>> No.9578810

>>9576898
physics is the most important of sciences and, together with engineering, the actual reason governments and rich people care to give money to mathematicians do their work

>> No.9578843

>>9572757
>t. undergrad trying to reduce competition for grad school
don't listen to this fag

>> No.9578845

>>9571572
Cancer research. It's why I'm on this thread right now.

>> No.9578907

>>9578845
got a cure for /sci/ doc

>> No.9578918

>>9578907
Nope. It's terminal.

>> No.9578979

>>9571572
im working on going to work because i dont have time to post science on memechan all day like some people.

no, i jest. I really am going to work. but im taking my notebooks so i can write poems, and think of how to continue a story im writing, and also refreshing my brain on some science. I think i get a half hour break, so im going to study the effects of powders, in human nostrils, derived from coca plants in the bathroom to give me a good boost in productivity.
dont worry, thats my schtick.

>> No.9579498

I desperately need to raise my GPA for next year if I want to have a hope in hell for going to grad school. I'm also doing some independent research into computational physics. It's probably not going to be anything major, but it's nice to work on.

>> No.9579511

>>9573905
Build your math foundation up. You’re going to be in for a hell of a ride

>> No.9579518

Learning how to use a brand-new Transmission Electron Microscope right now, very impressive machine

>> No.9579548
File: 32 KB, 192x203, proud_cuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9579548

Can we let this threat die already? This is a math and science board, physishits dont belong here.

>> No.9579550

>>9579548
Epic 4 the win

>> No.9579609

>>9579548
Please learn how to draw a picture of a weak equivalence before posting such abstractions.

>> No.9581092

heres a question. If I have a magnet, a disc hanging from a pendulum and it is swinging just mms above another magnet/detector/metal. How would I create an equation to track the force? I made one but its probably 100% wrong and very ugly.

>> No.9581160

>>9581092
>How would I create an equation to track the force?
Try drawing a picture of the associated cofibration. Then interpret the deep geometry you see.

>> No.9581315

>>9581160
I did, but hardly anything canceled out and its really ugly. The falloff also seems to be really strong and more than 30 degrees and the magnetism seems negligible.

>> No.9581337

>>9581315
Hm... That's weird. Did you try drawing the weak equivalence induced by the magnet? That geometric picture should help you see that the magnetism here actually makes a difference.

>> No.9581384

any uk physics man in?
where is best from manchester and durham to study an mphys?
got offers from both, struggling to decide

>> No.9581607

>>9581384
I'm Canadian, but you should choose the school which has a more extensive TQFT program. That's what deep physics is really about these days. It's the most empirical and concrete field with the cobordism hypothesis being its cornerstone.

>> No.9581726

>>9581337
>Did you try drawing the weak equivalence induced by the magnet?
You lost me. Its been a few years since Ive taken an e&m class.

>> No.9581789

>>9577034
>>using incorrect intuition to understand something yields "spooky" results

Tell me enlightened one, what is the 'correct' intuition then?

>> No.9581833

help a brainlet on suicide watch
>>9581782
>>9581826

>> No.9581852

>>9581726
I mean the cofibrations and weak equivalences of the relativistic model structure on magnets embedded in a locally-classical electric field, which is (up to equivalence) every magnet.
Every disc swinging above a magnet induces a weak equivalence of the (non-classical) weak force with the usual one if and only if the distance is less than 1cm, which is the case in your setup. So it suffices to create an equation to track the much easier to compute weak force. This is explained in any basic mathematical EM class. I recommend reading Sakurai - "Modern QM for Experimental Physicists" as an introduction to these profound ideas.

>> No.9581863

I've been researching some fluid dynamics and loads of 1d flow equations for rockets and the like

>> No.9581868
File: 40 KB, 320x320, IMG_20171217_163744_813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9581868

>>9581789
Use proper mathematical rigour to understand the deeper physics of what you're doing. That's something we Mathematical Physicists practice in TQFT and related empirical fields. What you're saying sounds like what people would gather from skimming Griffith. Go read an actual QM book like Townsend, Sakurai or Landau-Lifshitz to obtain the physical intuitions you clearly lack at this point in your education.
I bet you're one of those people who think that what is essentially happening in TQFT is that we have an oversimplified toy model of an interaction on a small scale, but get all these interesting phenomena after re-normalizing to a larger scale. That's not really the case.
>>9581863
That's pretty cool. I've been doing similar stuff in TQFT lately, although it's obviously a lot more rigorous.

>> No.9581887

Yea the 1d stuff is pretty cool. Teaching myself calc and some intense geometry as I'm a sophomore in high school. QM is intresting as fuck but I understand fluid dynamics far better than QM

>> No.9581889

>>9573601
[math]x_1 = Im \left{ A_1 \exp(i (\omega t +\phi_1)) \right}[/math]
[math]x_2 = Im \left { A_2 \exp(i (\omega t +\phi_2)) \right}[/math]
[math]x = Im \left{(A_1 e^{i\phi_1} + A_2 e^{i\phi_2}) e^{i \omega t} \right}[/math]
A and phi are respectively the magnitude and the phase of the sum of the phasors.

>> No.9581946

>>9581868

>Go read an actual QM book like Townsend, Sakurai or Landau-Lifshitz to obtain the physical intuitions you clearly lack at this point in your education.

Well forgive me for trying to understand what I've learned and been taught by my professors. If I can't trust in my own knowledge and intuition, then there is no foundation for me to learn new things. Unless you want everyone to shut up until they know everything, like you apparently.

>> No.9581968
File: 161 KB, 747x1120, 1514885248253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9581968

>>9577088
PHENOTYPE

>> No.9582026

>>9581852
I took EM2, its more so your wording thats losing me. Im guessing your class was more math based.
Ive been staring at the setup though and even without magnets, the equations arent looking pretty though. Since the pendulum is swinging at a distance above, it complicates things.

>> No.9582048

>>9571624
Jews rock

>> No.9582105

>>9581946
Are your professors doing research in TQFT? If not, you can safely ignore most of what they have to say regarding physics. You just need to learn TQFT to hone your physical intuitions. It gives you great insight into the empirical side of things, which is to say it gives you great insight into physics itself since we in TQFT and string theory are staunch empiricists.

>> No.9582194

>>9571572
Well /sci/, today we learned that momentum is equal to mass multiplied by velocity!

And in maths, we learned how to simplify surds!

>> No.9582306
File: 27 KB, 355x395, 1513717541040.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9582306

I have a question for the people here, I hope you'll have an answer for me:

I recently finished my first semester as a physics and math double major. While I really enjoyed my math courses, I couldn't relate to my course in mechanics at all. Even though we derived all of the formulas ourselves and everything, I still felt like nothing was rigorous enough and that we lacked the proper tools to really understand the formalism of what we're doing. I don't know, maybe the math classes just spoiled me and made used to everything being well defined and understood.
But my question is - does physics get better? Do things become more rigorous? Or is this just the general attitude all throughout the degree? (My uni is considered pretty good in physics so I don't think it's a problem with the university itself, maybe I'm wrong.)
I know that it's just a first class in mechanics, and that things will be more precise once we get to analytical mechanics, but I'm still afraid that I'll spend my whole degree waiting for some real rigor to happen, but it'll never happen.
Did anybody else go through something like this?

>> No.9582355
File: 299 KB, 798x787, Ed Witten Head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9582355

>>9581968
The [math]PHENOTYPE[/math]

>> No.9582362
File: 19 KB, 279x290, Feynman 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9582362

>>9582355 >>9581968 >>9577088

Richard Feynman also had a pretty large head / brain
[eqn]\mathcal{PHENOTYPE}[/eqn]

>> No.9582816

>>9582105

>If not, you can safely ignore most of what they have to say regarding physics.

So all physicists should study TQFT, or else they don't understand physics? How far up your own ass can you be?

>It gives you great insight into the empirical side of things, which is to say it gives you great insight into physics itself since we in TQFT and string theory are staunch empiricists.

Perhaps, but you seem to be incapable of sharing that insight in a relevant and constructive way. Reverting to "hur, dur, I know more physics than you" is what I see insecure grad students do when a student catches them off guard with a question they don't know the answer to.

>> No.9582931
File: 39 KB, 280x396, you cannot defeat me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9582931

>>9582362

>> No.9582997

>>9571572

I am thinking of going to physics instead of engineering because:
1) I like it more.
2) It’s easier and less stressfull
3) I live near the physics campus
The question is though that are physics employable, and will I earn much? It seems like phys BaSci offers great opportunities for masters.

>> No.9583016
File: 70 KB, 879x1008, carl jocobi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583016

>>9581968
>>9582355
>>9582362
Serious question. Do only Jews poses the [math]\mathbb{PHENOTYPE ?}[/math]

>> No.9583017

Why do physics and math students worship a handful of physicists as gods? You people seem to focus more on autistic geniuses than the work they've done.

>> No.9583038
File: 573 KB, 900x900, Brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583038

>you seem to focus on autistic geniuses than the work they've done.

>> No.9583039

>>9583038
>quoting with le funny picture
So this is the power of physics students, truly genius.

>> No.9583045
File: 71 KB, 781x246, 1518629523104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583045

>>9583039
>responding to a joke with a serious reply

>> No.9583063
File: 204 KB, 999x798, physics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583063

>>9571572
What is your alignment /phg/?

>> No.9583072

What are physics labs like at university? I do biochem and our labs are typically 4-6 hours long and are worth about 20-25% of our yearly overall grade.

I think physics labs are a lot shorter, maybe 1-2 hours and are worth a lot less for your overall grade each year. What do you even do in labs?

>> No.9583110

>>9583072
assuming all equipment is functional

freshman labs last under an hour. its simple concepts like simple pendulums. maybe at the very end you do the double slit experiment.

then most physics curriculums have 2 more levels of labs, each level constitutes a full academic year. these labs can last up to 3 hours but usually under 2. youll a lot of electromag experiments like frank-hertz & spectroscopy and observe various principles. youll probably work with light as well to get a feel for quantization. youll measure some fundamental constants that you can find in your physics book.

then the advanced level labs can again gor for up to 3 hours and covers a variety of topics. hall effect, nmr, zeeman effect, photoelectric, particle scattering for example. youll use lasers and electron microscopes and spectroscopy techniques. probably a little chaos too.

The freshman lab grades are a part of the lecture grade. the intermediate and advanced labs are their own 3 credit courses

>> No.9583131

>>9583063
this is all wrong

newton and einstein should be switched. einstein was whimsical, newton was rigorous.

feynman should be true neutral bc he didnt give a fuck about credentials or wankery, he just sought truth. planck is chaotic evil for 2 reason a) he flip flopped and completely reversed his stances and sold out einstein b) his phd thesis was last second scribbles and plagiarism that happened to turn out correct

phillip lennard is lawful evil for heading the nazi physicists. fritz haber is neutral evil for creating gas used in war to murder millions but wasnt full on nazi

heisenberg stays neutral good for his objectivity on the manhatten project and keeping nuclear warfare from breaking out

idk who your chaotic evil and lawful neutral are

>> No.9583155

>>9583110
Thanks, so it seems like labs are a lot less important in physics education than in biology and chemistry. I imagine physics labs are a lot more straight forward than bio and chem labs.

I don't mean that in an insulting way. I'd assume that the complexity of physics is in the math involved and labs would be little more than demonstrations.

>> No.9583162

>>9575978
I looked at that page. First of all, how can you guarantee that a rotation of an isotropic vector is also an isotropic vector? It seems this can only be true for all rotations when x_3 is zero, and if that is the case, why are we speaking of C^3? Also only x_1 and x_2 show up in the definitions of z_0 and z_1

>> No.9583182

>>9583155
The labs are extremely important for 95%+ of students. Anyone who wants a career in physics needs lab experience and needs to get a feel for it. The last 5%- are the theory autists but its hard to find work in that.

The same goes for understanding the material. Most students need lab intuition.

I took freshman chem and ochem labs. I would say ochem labs are less useful than physics. You learn a few new techniques but they could be learned later and a lot of it is rehashed from freshman chem, just with new chemicals whose reactions can be learned from a book. I dont think chem labs give that much intuition. ie I would be more comfortable working in a chem lab without taking college labs than in a physics lab without college physics labs. That could just be me though.

>> No.9583189

Just starting some work on hyaluronic acid in the vitreous

>> No.9583226

>>9578193
the whole point of relativity is that you maxwell's equations AREN'T conserved when you apply a galilean boost. Whoever wrote that is literally retarded, as are you probably

>> No.9583253

>>9582306
math-rigor
physics-vigor

you're looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. might be you just don't belong.

>> No.9583436

>>9582306
The reason why physicists don't do this stuff rigorously is that too much math is needed to do it properly. Quantum mechanics needs functional analysis, so you would need to learn basic analysis, some grad real analysis, then functional analysis before you could do anything in quantum mechanics. Most math students don't even learn this much in undergrad. It's not really feasible to have physics students learn all this and then also study the physics as well. Another reason is that physicists care about math for different reasons than mathematicians. A group theory course for mathematicians mainly focuses on finite group theory, because that's very useful for math, but physicists would get far more from studying infinite and continuous groups and representation theory, which isn't that useful in math until differential geometry.

>> No.9583760

>>9583436
>Most math students don't even learn this much in undergrad.
You mean most retarded math students don't.
>It's not really feasible to have physics students learn all this
True, they have special needs after all.

>> No.9583777
File: 2.87 MB, 352x198, 1515804861562.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583777

>>9583436
>representation theory
>isn't that useful in math until differential geometry

>> No.9583816
File: 117 KB, 1090x1200, 1510111541216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583816

> https://youtu.be/sJKW9VNo2BU
> https://etherealmatters.org/sam

neutron was a mistake, we have to go back. SAM is best model of elements just werkz senpai.

>> No.9583830

>>9583760
Mathfags are brainlets who suck at Physics.

Most Mathfags are unable to do the most baby tier Quantum Mechanics exercises, let alone Graduate Level Physics.

>> No.9583844

Can we please stop with the baiting/trolling and discuss physics

What fields are you guys working in?

>> No.9583848

>>9583830
It's retarded to expect "mathfags" to be able to do exercises in music or biology, same with physics. It has basically no value for mathematics so it's no surprise that most mathematicians don't know anything about it.

>> No.9583897
File: 114 KB, 1000x1100, 9efb5d19e80920da47928d8f19546d3d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9583897

>>9582816
>So all physicists should study TQFT
They "shouldn't", but they do by definition of physics. There's also string theory of course, but conjecturally it's just a degenerate case of AQFT over exotic space-times.
>you seem to be incapable of sharing that insight in a relevant and constructive way
It's relevant to any physicist. Maybe you should try actually studying some physics instead of hiding behind walls of notation and abstractions? Try reading some mathematically rigorous books before you make such remarks. And how is my post non-constructive? TQFT may be developed in the external language of any generalized physical space, so it's a constructive theory.
>>9583844
This. I'm working in TQFT. Currently trying to find an elementary proof of the cobordism hypothesis without using absolute algebraic wank like globally-étale Grothendieck-Serre "stacks" (which I despise, as they are non-empirical). I and many Mathematical Physicists want the cobordism hypothesis to be the cornerstone of something concrete (i.e. TQFT).
>>9583162
>how can you guarantee that a rotation of an isotropic vector is also an isotropic vector?
Just use the Whitehead-May-Leibniz conjecture applied to the special case when the rotation can be computed using the crystalline cohomotopy rings of the underlying field. It's not mathematically valid, but it matches our current physical intuitions.

>> No.9583934

>>9583897
I can't tell if you're joking or not about this emphasis on physical intuition and empiricism.

>> No.9583955

>>9583934
Empiricism is at the core of physics and even mathematics. This much is obvious. You seem to be a "mathematician" who disregards physical intuitions regarding the objects you study in favor of "abstractions" and "rigour".

>> No.9583957

>>9583226
I agree with you retard, I just don't understand why is published.

>> No.9583963

>>9583777
Could you expand on the common use of representation theory? I know it's used in number theory from what I've seen in Serre. Also would you recommend Fulton-Harris? I don't like going through huge books, but I've heard some good things about it.

>> No.9583975

In the UK, a lot of university lecturers are striking. The guy teaching us statistical mechanics has been on strike for like 3 weeks now and we've literally learned nothing apart from what a density matrix is.
God I'm pissed

>> No.9584019

>>9583897
>It's relevant to any physicist. Maybe you should try actually studying some physics instead of hiding behind walls of notation and abstractions? Try reading some mathematically rigorous books before you make such remarks. And how is my post non-constructive? TQFT may be developed in the external language of any generalized physical space, so it's a constructive theory.

I obviously meant your comments are not relevant or constructive. Your answer to every question is "this makes sense if you know TQFT" without even attempting to explain how or why.

>> No.9584749
File: 667 KB, 600x1500, c2613bee97bded0df4aa9b403c43cb3b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9584749

>>9584019
How so? They're relevant to the deeper problem you were mentioning, i.e. the problem of being able to correctly and physically interpret the math you see, or rather the physics you see, since math is basically a facet of Mathematical Physics. This may be seen by noticing that any category of objects and morphisms studied by "mathematicians" is ultimately empirical, even if Grothendieck and Serre claim otherwise.
>>9583975
>In the UK
Why are you in the UK? Canada is much better for TQFT and string theory lmao

>> No.9585322

>>9571617
>is it bad that my uni doesnt offer relativity courses, only offers 1 semester of mechanics and thermo for undergrads?

A little, but not really. Special relativity is so simple it's not worth a full semester, and general relativity is grad school level shit.

>> No.9585390

>>9582306
sounds like you'll never be satisfied with physics. stick with mathematics.

the dark secret of physics is that we don't really know "why" anything, we're just going with what we observe.

>> No.9586107

F

>> No.9586210

T

>> No.9586352

>>9579511
Will do, currently reading Simmons precal as well the for encouragement

Also bump due to Hawkins flood
F

>> No.9586359

>>9586352
Thx not the

tablet autcorrect

>> No.9587307

What's the best resource for learning about the Fermi theory of beta decay, forbidden decays, etc? Basically an undergrad knowledge of beta decay.

>> No.9587416
File: 92 KB, 811x1040, makismoke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9587416

Those following my funeral-posting series will know that recently, for the second time in my life, I've been having a spate of people close to me dying. Sadly this run shows little sign of letting up with today's death of my good friend Stephen Hawking. I'll never forget the joy of teaching him to walk as a small child, or giving him patient hints as to the physical mechanism of Hawking radiation until finally I saw it click in his little machine mind. Sadly Stephen suffered an advanced form of memory loss later in life, first forgetting how to walk, and then even how to talk, as he regressed further and further to the condition of an infant. Today he completed his cycle, being welcomed back into the womb of the cosmological sky-mother to rest and gestate, before he begins anew in some fresh body one day in the future. I for one will miss him, and am saddened at his departing when there was still so much for me to teach him, but gladdened by the thought that I was able to brighten his short life with my weekly rankings of physicists. Rest well, sweet Stephen.

>> No.9587625

>>9582105
>we in TQFT and string theory are staunch empiricists.
Oh so you're just trolling

>> No.9587690

>>9587625
There are some people in TQFT and string theory who disagree, but they are merely a vocal minority. I and many other people in TQFT fully support empirical experiments.

>> No.9588647

>>9571617
GR is great but mostly it's given at master level.

The problem is, you need a prof really proficient in this stuff for the lecture to be good. The older the prof the better the lecture on GR

>> No.9589561

Bump for the Hawkins flood

>> No.9590965

>>9583975
Do you know why they are striking? Seems a little strange for university lecturers to do.

>> No.9591290
File: 49 KB, 775x837, 1496295471327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9591290

>>9572761
>A reader has pointed out to me that the dimensions appear to be off in that final equation. What causes it is that I am multiplying a distance by a distance, which appears to give us a distance squared. Go back two steps and you will see what I mean. But a distance times a distance is not a distance squared, if they are in line. A distance times a distance is a distance squared only in the case that the two distances are orthogonal, so that we have a square or something. A distance times a distance in line cannot be a distance squared anymore than a distance plus a distance can be a distance squared. This is another mainstream misunderstanding.

>I have used algebra here to solve, but notice that if we use integration, we get the same problem: ∫(2x + y)dx = x(x + y). We integrate a sum but get meters squared.

>This problem ties into the historical problem of velocity squared versus acceleration. Physics has never been clear about the mechanical difference. One has meters squared in the numerator and one does not, but are they really different? No. A square velocity IS an acceleration, by definition, so if we are getting different dimensions it is by ignoring some mechanics. We see that in this problem very clearly: if we multiply a velocity times a velocity in a field, we should get an acceleration. Therefore the extra length in the numerator is just that: extra. [You can now read more about this in a separate paper.]
This is the best thing I've ever read

>> No.9591334

>>9591290

What if the rest of humanity simply can't comprehend his infinite wisdom?

>> No.9591562
File: 94 KB, 960x960, stephanhawking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9591562

>>9572761
>http://milesmathis.com

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

>> No.9591587

>>9571572
How to model brain syncing with itself and the environment

>> No.9591594

>>9571617
Hey bro you /ucf/?

>> No.9591669

>>9591594
>ucf
I've heard they have a shit TQFT program. Why would anyone study there?

>> No.9591692
File: 51 KB, 1024x576, a-man-of-culture-as-well.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9591692

>>9571685
Fucking tell him Moishe

>> No.9592915

>>9571572
>What are you working on lately?

Dilution fridges

>> No.9592941

>>9582997

I need an answer reeee.

>> No.9592949

>>9584749

Physicists have more opportunities, higher wage and higher iq than mathematicians so no wonder they’re so salty! I love them still...

>> No.9593119

>>9572761
>The standard model is the one making the money and getting the attention and taking all the jobs, so they are the ones that should be answering questions, not you.
Is he really blaming his unemployment on the standard model of particle physics?

>> No.9593176

>>9572761
>3) We are told that atmospheric muons are experiencing time dilation in order to reach sea level detection. But special relativity tells us that all objects in relative motion experience both time dilation and length contraction. The length contraction in SR is derived from the x or distance contraction, and they are proportional. Meaning, the whole x-dimension must be contracting, not just the “length” of the muon. Which means that a time-dilated particle must seem to be going a shorter distance than expected, not a longer distance. How can current theory ignore the length contraction?

The man is a idiot: an out-and-out retard.

>> No.9593640
File: 119 KB, 1242x1231, 1518911578428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9593640

Fellow physicists, i want to supplements my program with math. I already had Analysis (multivariable, will have complex next semester) and a semester of linear algebra. Should i pick measure theory, differential geometry or functional analysis as a supplement? Maybe something else entirely? I dont know in what direction i want to go yet, but theoretical physics seems comfy af.

>> No.9593657

>>9593640
I'd probably do differential geometry first. It shows up (almost) literally everywhere in mathematical physics.
Functional analysis is also important to doing QM properly.

Measure theory is like set theory, honestly. It's very important that it works but only autists really care why or how.

>> No.9593768

>>9571602
>(((gershon)))
this shit right here is a better "weathervane" than that tripe and lasts not even two minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IWykPlo93U

>> No.9594358

s=position
s'=velocity
s''=acceleration
s"'=jerk

what comes after?

>> No.9594362

>>9571572
i hav question for all of you sweaty nerds: what do you think the average /pol/ user knows about physics and do you think any of them have even the smallest ground to stand on when they say that Jews are bad at physics? that is my question, i am sorry for invading your stinky board but I have no one else to ask. please answer, you will prove your worth to me if you do

>> No.9594373

>>9594358
at some point you just have to stop coming up with names for things.

>> No.9594401

>>9594358
snap, crackle, pop

>> No.9595649

>>9594362
Rick and Morty popsci (not necessarily a bad thing) and no. I doubt the average /pol/ user "understands" basic geometry, let alone calculus based physics

>> No.9595653

>>9593640
Just replying to say your image is the cutest picture of a dog I've ever seen.

Is linear algebra as hard as /sci/ makes it sound?

>> No.9595720

I feel like a lot of physicists here are more into theory. And, as per the best 4chan traditions, total dicks about it. But even at university I see the theorists have a very dismissive attitude towards anything experimental or applied. Not that their opinions have any impact on my life or work, but I'd expect them to be above it.

I'm just doing some experimental stuff with OLEDs and eventually maybe solar cells as well. Just got a PhD position confirmed in the same. I almost did Materials Science anyway, so this sort of thing is just what I wanted. The practical applications are clear but there's still physics to explore, and there's a clear link between developing the physical understanding and furthering the technology.

I feel like I'll end up unemployed all the same,

>> No.9595745
File: 68 KB, 1280x720, kneecoleslaw-QjraYj1m2b5xNdO5dtrkTw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9595745

>>9595720
Materials/solid state is the most employable field of physics. You can work for a university or govt lab researching or in industry. The tech industry is fucking huge.

Same cant be said for particle physicists or astrophysicists or most other fields.

PhD physicists should be just fine finding work. Its the undergrads that dont get into grad school who cant

here, have some boobs

>> No.9595819

>>9577148
Jackson is not really made for reading through the whole book.

>> No.9596401

>>9594358
there is no need for anything below jerk, even jerk is not so important unless you need to be very precise

>> No.9596461

>>9596401
I think I've heard it said that things like drones and shit use the higher order terms but it's not like I would know first hand.

>> No.9596472

>>9571572
didn't read this gay thread, physics is so fucking easy, i literally got a perfect on all my mechanics and E&M tests without studying.
I switched to Computer Science after my first year, now on the verge of graduating, and unlike physics majors, I have job offers.

>> No.9596476

>>9574297

>nothing importance since 1950s

>> No.9596851

>>9595745
You can always go to finance if you went astrophysics/particle

>> No.9598062

Ur not a physicist unless you drink colloids erryday while pondering them.

>> No.9599058
File: 162 KB, 1024x857, 1513093026827.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9599058

How many of you did physics over other sciences because it has a reputation for being difficult?

>> No.9599065

>>9599058
I did. Got my BSc and now I work in IT.
Physics was fun, but not a good career move.

>> No.9599073

Question: Is the universe known to be simply connected? Why or why not?

>> No.9599095
File: 393 KB, 1920x1080, Curved SpaceTime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9599095

>>9595745
That girl has some nice Space-Time curvatures.

I'd love to study her black holes.

>> No.9599723

>>9599073

Get out >>9594173

>> No.9599746

>>9599723
Nigger, that question is actually interesting. Lorentz group is composed of two disconected parts which are for faster than light shit and non faster than light shit.

>> No.9599781

It stinks to me of conflating mathematical formalisms with things that are physically meaningful.


And I thought it was four distinct parts.

Every combination of parity +- and time forward or reversed.

>> No.9599786

>>9599746
>>9599781

Meant to reply

>> No.9599806

>>9599781
Conected spaces aren't physically intuitive to you?

>> No.9599817
File: 139 KB, 589x446, 1519936380522.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9599817

>>9582997
I believe physicists are employable but it would have to be working with semiconductors/superconductors. I am an undergrad at UC San Diego and I am going to take the 3 cource sequence in E&M, and the 2 undergrad solid state physics classes if I can even learn this stuff. Hopefully with these classes I can get a job in the semiconductor businesses in the SD area. Otherwise its a nuclear submarine for me.

>> No.9599832

>>9599806

Tbh in the context of physics, no.

I've seen the math definition of continuously contracting a loop to a point, but I don't see how it relates to physical quantities.

>> No.9599866

>>9599832
First of all, conected is not the same as simply connected, without a lot of mathematical workaround, thwo sopaces are disconected if they are literally separated in the sense that even the edge of your space( which you could consider out of your space like the light cone) does not ibtersect the other space. Simply connected spaces mean that you have no holes, ie the loopdaloop thingy. It may not relate directly to physical quantities, but it comes when you are solving problems in a particular configuration of space. Math autista can feel pride all they want about how unintuitive and useless their work is, but those are just faggots who can't appreciate the best of both world, but for some reason physicist are starting to adopt the same fucking smugness. Just look at the mess teaching tensors is because you guys don't compromise.

>> No.9599902

>>9599866

Well I think tensors CAN be taught in an intuitive way that uses minimal math buzz-words as a stand-in for deeper understanding.

I could hold up a coffee cup and say something like: "Does this coffee cup come with it's own set of coordinates? Do you see grid-lines on this cup? No, I devise my own system for describing each point, which might be different from someone else's. However, if I want to know something about the system like the size of the handle, then it shouldn't matter what the grid-lines I impose look like. I should be able to change them in a way that leaves physically meaningful quantities invariant."

I'm not trying to be smug in the simply connected case (though I was), I just honestly don't get what physically meaningful information you can extract from this concept.

>> No.9600083

>>9599866
>>9599902
Keep writing

>> No.9600109

>>9571572
if you know the density
E=h*[(G*d)^1/2]
you know the energy

>> No.9600245
File: 89 KB, 480x377, Cheddar Man Frogs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600245

So profound only Cheddar Man Frogs can understand it.

E=hf
E=mc^2
E=h[(G*d)^1/2]

Willy

>> No.9600287

What areas does grad level physics cover that undergrad doesn't?

>> No.9600314

same roboticized theories

>> No.9600367
File: 190 KB, 631x595, Physics grad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600367

>>9600287
Burger flipping techniques.

>> No.9600434
File: 81 KB, 848x575, rdrds_fpcp2017.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600434

A new measurement of lepton flavour universality in B decays. One of the hottest topics in particle physics right now.

>> No.9600439
File: 70 KB, 338x545, physics_phd_suicide.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9600439

>>9571572

Pic related is going to be me soon. AMA

>> No.9600655

>>9600434
Wanna be more explicit about what I'm seeing in the figure and why it's significant?

>> No.9600744

>>9600655
R(D) and R(D*) are ratios of branching fractions (decay probabilities) of a [math]B^0[/math] meson to final states which differ only by the generation of lepton, in this case [math]\tau[/math] and [math]\mu[/math].
[eqn]R(D^{(*)}) = \frac{\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D^{(*)-} \tau^+ \nu_\tau)}{\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D^{(*)-} \mu^+ \nu_\mu}[/eqn]
The Standard Model says that the different generations of leptons only differ by their mass. This is called "lepton universality". These ratios are calculable with good precision.
The plot shows measurements by various experiments (4 vertical lines + black and blue ellipse). The global average (red ellipse) is >4σ away from the Standard Model prediction (small blue ellipse).
This is currently the most convincing evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, and current experiments (particularly Belle II and LHCb) are working to make more precise measurements. LHCb is unfortunately hindered by uncertainties on their large backgrounds, whereas Belle II should eventually reach precision similar to the theory predictions.
There are similar anomalies in related decays not shown on this plot, all pointing in the same direction.

>> No.9600825

>>9600744
Interesting. Thank you. I have done a particle physics course but it's been a while and I went in another direction so I've forgotten much of it.

>> No.9600980

>>9571572

How’s geophysics coonts?

>> No.9600984

>>9599817

It think it has all to do with where do you specialize. Astronomy and theoretical physics are likely a very bad idea, but condensed matter and geo seem like smart decisions. It also pays very well!

>> No.9601063
File: 34 KB, 540x646, squirt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9601063

im a physics major, I liked mechanics but now that I'm in an intro e&m course I wanna fucking neck myself. How does I into e&m

>> No.9601074

>>9601063
Literally just maxwell's equations, boundary conditions, stokes' theorem and that's about it.

>> No.9601098

How hard would be studying physics without knowing AP level math beforehand?
Here in germany physics is one the easiest majors to get into due to it being one of the hardest with a drop out rate of easily >25%.

>> No.9601119

>>9601098
>How hard would be studying physics without knowing AP level math beforehand?

At a proper, honors level? Very very hard. You can get by without knowing linear algebra and differential equations at first, but you need basic calculus.

>> No.9601147
File: 79 KB, 2423x1275, ATLAS-Logo-Ref-RGB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9601147

Anyone else here working with CERN as part of a research group?

>> No.9601158

>>9601063
why does everyone hate E&M? is this a meme? i really enjoyed it

make sure you're good at cal 2 or cal 3 whichever one is surface/volume integrals.

>> No.9601229
File: 8 KB, 180x120, lhcb_logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9601229

>>9601147
Yep

>> No.9601837

>>9601098
>Is learning how to run before I can walk a good idea?

>> No.9601853

>>9601229
What does ГHCP stand for?

>> No.9602813

>>9601853
[math]\Gamma_H[/math] is the natural width of the "heavy" mass eigenstate of either the [math]B^0[/math] or [math]B_s^0[/math].
CP with a strike-through stands for CP violation.
Both of these are things that LHCb measures

>> No.9602830

>>9601853
>>9602813
Plus the combination of mirror reflection and colour inversion is itself representative of CP conjugation. The small asymmetry again represents CP violation.

>> No.9603251

>>9601098
>>9601119
It's not like anyone can't learn at least the basics of calculus and linear algebra in a month or two over the summer. Not enough to be rigorous, but enough to easily follow a calculus based mechanics and thermodynamics course or whatever you have in the first year before you git gud at calculus.

>> No.9603612

what does |a> mean in statistical mechanics?

>> No.9603655

>>9603612
Some state a

>> No.9604126
File: 40 KB, 300x424, 3527623205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9604126

should i specialize in solid state or is it full of pajeets?

>> No.9604207

>>9604126
Solid state is a very broad field in itself.

I will say that my optoelectronics groups is like 75% Chinese.

>> No.9604441
File: 42 KB, 480x647, 5ca86f9d61179fe2b4d68c3341140cd6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9604441

>>9583063
I side with the true champion

>> No.9604506
File: 8 KB, 275x183, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9604506

i love that my uni buys off scientists in private industry to come research for them bc they are absolutely clueless at teaching, cant solve any problem outside their specialty and are retarded when you try to research with them

my advisor is the nicest chinese man youve ever met but he basically abandoned me, did the research himself then slapped my name on at the end. fuck.

>> No.9604598

Preparing my bachelor thesis about a part of thethe extended linear sigma model using the functional renormalization group, i.e. getting raped

>> No.9604736

Ive been in the service for 4 years and am about to get out and use the GI bill to study physics, because ive been out of school for a while im just looking for some general recommendations of what to read and brush up on before classes start.

>> No.9604805

Guys do i choose electrical engineering or cs?
I would rather kill myself than be average so im thinking EE (as its considered the 2nd most difficult program you can choose in my country).
And it feels like CS is one of the easier engineering disciplines.
Just want to enter a room and know that i know more advanced stuff than everyone else. But CS seems like more money and a better career

>> No.9604809

>>9604805
>Just want to enter a room and know that i know more advanced stuff than everyone else.

That's not a good attitude to have and just doing a degree in anything doesn't give you a right to assume superiority over anyone.

Further, you're in a physics thread asking about EE and CS, so I'd say you're shit out of luck as far as appearing like an intellectual goes.

>> No.9604986

>>9604805
>>9604809

Seriously. Trying to show off how 'advanced' you are is a leading cause of bullshit in academia.

The true intellectuals can explain what they understand so clearly that you'll feel like you could of came up with it on your own (within reason though, you still can't skip to string theory after learning pre-calc, but still don't underestimate how far one GOOD explanation can go).

>> No.9604987

>>9604805

>Just want to enter a room and know that i know more advanced stuff than everyone else

Then you should be a high school teacher, not an academic.

>> No.9605018
File: 172 KB, 1200x800, intro-retina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9605018

undergrad here

is there going to be a time where i learn to write up labs and create experiments? ive taken int lab bit all we did was basically copy paste a packet the professor gave us for a lab report

id really like to work in physics after i graduate so id like to know where i can learn shit like this.

also grant writing.

like where am i supposed to learn this stuff? i feel ill fail miserably after school if i dont learn this

>> No.9605026

>>9601853
>is there going to be a time where i learn to write up labs and create experiments? ive taken int lab bit all we did was basically copy paste a packet the professor gave us for a lab report
>
>id really like to work in physics after i graduate so id like to know where i can learn shit like this.

Lab courses. Most physics major programs require specialized lab courses in junior or senior year. You have to write more formal lab reports there.

>also grant writing.

lol don't worry about that shit until after you defend your thesis, kid

>> No.9605564

>>9571617
That's honestly pretty fuxking good

>> No.9605698

>>9605018
Undergrad lab practicals (though the standard of these probably varies quite a bit by institution) give you a cursory glance into performing and writing up experiments. However, in many ways these are usually quite different from the work experimentalists do, and don't count as "real" research experience.

What you want to do is try and work in research groups over the summer/when you have time. Ask professors who do research you'd be interested in, it is common practice for undergrads to get research experience this way. You probably won't be writing papers or making your own experiments, but you're likely to get some insight into how these processes work. However, the actual work given to undergrads is often quite simple to perform (once someone else set it up).

Where you will mostly learn how to design and perform experiments and write papers is grad school. However, you want to have some idea of how to handle yourself before you start that. Further, having research experience makes your application much better, especially if it's directly related to the group you're applying to. This is why the undergrad research involvement is useful. Still, it is not likely that you'll have written a paper or fully conducted (thought up, set up, performed, analyzed) any "real" experiments by yourself before you start.

TL;DR: undergrad programs should give you a basic idea, summer research projects give a better idea, if you want to actually do research grad school is the place

>> No.9605922
File: 10 KB, 220x255, Richard_Feynman_Los_Alamos_ID_badge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9605922

This guy walks up to your girlfriend, smacks her ass and tells her to meet him behind the particle accelerator so she can get her atoms smashed

wat u doin?

>> No.9606006

>>9601147
>>9601229

More like who doesn't in HEP

lmao

>> No.9606015

>>9571572
I want to work in a research lab research RF and full duplex wireless.

what should I know as an undergrad that the researchers would find useful?

>> No.9606017

Anybody doing quantum optics in here?

>> No.9606041

>>9605698
I have never been to /sci/, but I came here to ask about just this. It was even on the front page. Last summer I got a placement in my physics department, it wasn't research related, but it was a great summer project that was nice to be able to tell people about, and should grow my recognition in the department over the coming 18 months as we show off the results.

However this summer I am very stuck for placement related stuff. I have looked around, various research councils here in the UK offer stuff but none of it interests, they are either highly specific or just dull coding/outreach assignments. Meanwhile my department offers, what I believe are unpaid internships, attached to the research groups, I may go and petition the head of department for funding if I go this route as he is very approachable.

So I could potentially latch on to the ATLAS group here, or one of the other groups doing low temperature physics, atomic physics, etc.

I would just have to support myself financially, which is feasible.

Worth doing? As in, when it comes to post grad admissions, will it be a nice addition to my CV?

Research is what I have always wanted.

>> No.9606076

>>9606041
Sometimes universities can pay you a maintenance bursary/grant/whatever contribution for summer projects, so it's worth asking. Of course I wouldn't know about your specific case.

If you really want to do research (apply to PhD programs) then yes, research experience is very useful and is something that will make a difference in applications. It is a direct way of showing that you are interested in and capable of doing research. If it is directly related to the type of research you'd be doing during your PhD then it's even more valuable.

Most of my interviews for PhD programs were spent talking about research I'd done before. Nobody really even bothered to ask me about exams or courses or even grill me about the physics. Of course, this will also vary a lot between departments and interviewers.

Having said that, there is something to be said for also getting some work experience in the private sector. It wouldn't be a bad idea to get a feel for how that works and maybe get some contacts there, given that academic job security is an unfunny joke. Your own plans may change in time as well. Just having some research involvement beyond what's required by your degree is good, but not every summer has to be devoted to it.

>> No.9606083

>>9594362
Most of them have masters+ at physics . They don't deny Jews are good, they mainly hate goyim these days.

>> No.9607139

Let's not die yet.

I accepted a PhD offer at the institution I did my undergrad in. I did this because the project and group are ones that really interest me, the PhD was fully funded, the institution is top 5 worldwide and the group is also world-class. The supervisor himself is somewhat young (relative to the greybeards in academia) so not a huge name at least yet.

I've done a project for this group before. Me getting the offer was largely due to doing this project with them and doing it well.

I had a miserable time during undergrad and was really looking forward to not being at the same place for my PhD. I have no friends or family here, it's expensive (so I live in a shitty place) and I've seen all there is here.

I somewhat fucked up my post-christmas exams so my grades this year will probably be mediocre though 66% of the total is still not determined. I also didn't apply to many places this year because I was stressed and busy.

So basically I accepted because I had shit else, I would have had to wait a year for the next round and I'm not sure I'll get a similar offer from institutions of this quality with my grades from this year.

I haven't formally accepted anything, but I have said I'd take the place in an email and in person, about a week ago. I'm starting to really feel shit about having to spend another 3-4 years here. I think that might just be cold feet from making a big decision that will pass. At the same time, if the next 4 years are like the last 4 years I'm actually worried about my well-being.

My questions are:
>would I be a complete idiot to turn down a PhD just because I'm fed up with the city and, to some extent, the university and the whole damn country?
>how bad would the fallout be from me bailing out of this?

I mostly wrote this to vent.

>> No.9607204

>>9607139
>the institution is top 5 worldwide
>shit place to live
Likely LARPER detected
what uni? mit? harvard? stanford? oxford?


>would I be a complete idiot to turn down a PhD just because I'm fed up with the city and, to some extent, the university and the whole damn country?

complete idiot, no. idiot? yes

if youre actually at a t5 uni, youll be able to get into phd programs anywhere. but do it now. many phd programs dont accept transfers after a year or 2.

fwiw i go to a mediocre school in terms of physics. ranked in the 200s globally. its a small city with lots of crime and poverty. no parks or activities around. its mostly dreary skyscrapers surrounded by poor housing. i got a full ride for my undergrad so thats why i initially joined. then theyre giving me a nice stipend (twice the typical amount) to do my masters here and ill have to finish a phd elsewhere. im just grateful to be in grad school at this point

>> No.9607286

>>9607204
I was hoping to not get too recognizable but whatever, nobody knows me anyway. It's Cambridge. Private renting is expensive as hell, college rooms are affordable but have no/limited cooking options, shared everything, and are generally old so have shit for soundproofing and insulation. The town is made better by the old buildings but it's a overall claustrophobic and small so after 4 years there isn't much new here.

>if youre actually at a t5 uni, youll be able to get into phd programs anywhere
Based on my experiences and those of other people doing the course, this does not seem to be the case. People generally apply to pretty high-class institutions so it's not unexpected that rejections happen, but getting into these places isn't just a matter of waltzing in. Especially with a 2:1 (britbong grade) which seems to be the most likely outcome of this year (which really sucks because everything before was a 1st but we don't do any averaging in this uni).

>> No.9607299

>>9601229
Whats ur analysis?

>>9602813
>ΓH is the natural width of the "heavy" mass eigenstate
well shit, I did not know this

>> No.9607369

>>9571689
Wait seriously? I'm minoring in physics and I had to take that shit right after finishing my intro course sequence at my uni.

>> No.9607396

>>9607369
Are you sure you're not mixing special relativity with general relativity?

>> No.9607589

>>9605018
My Pchem professor taught us grant writing and research proposal writing, but it wasn't necessarily a part of the curriculum.

>> No.9607715

>>9607396
Nope. Although we also have a 100 level class that covers both. My uni has like four different tracks due to how big it is.

>> No.9607735

I'm doing some mathematical analysis on the neuron models, and some fun stuff with saturated transformers.

>> No.9608186

>>9594401
position
velocity
acceleration
jerk
snap
crackle
pop
lock
drop

>> No.9608188

>>9608186
>Names in other markets:ピッチー、パッチー、プッチー (Romanized as Pitchi, Patchi, Putchi

>> No.9608248

>>9607299
One of the [math]b \to c l \nu[/math] ratios, but I'm also doing a pentaquark search as a side-project with my old boss

>> No.9609508

not yet

>> No.9609525

>>9606015
someone plz

>> No.9609621

>>9600109
>>9600245
Finished. Yay