[ 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: 748 KB, 1990x1332, yukari-poster.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10520155 No.10520155 [Reply] [Original]

ITT share super high-level /sci/ posts

>> No.10520158

Why did you delete the thread and post it again?

>> No.10520173

>>10520158
because on archived.moe it didn't render the first equation of the lagrangian density, and i tried to fix it, but i screwed up the equation. so i fixed it and remade the image with the right equation
here's what it looks like on archived.moe: https://archived.moe/sci/thread/10115395

>> No.10521256

Ebin bump.

>> No.10522941

this was an intelligent thread:
https://archived.moe/sci/thread/10118147

>> No.10524373
File: 659 KB, 1600x1310, 1492907922881.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10524373

>>10520155

>> No.10524877
File: 417 KB, 1846x867, 45.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10524877

>> No.10524956

>>10520155
Bad argument imo.
Solid state theories describe reality at low energies, meaning you get a mixture of lots of microscopic effects (think about an ideal free falling body; nicely described by x=x_0+v_0t-0.5gt^2 but just wrong in reality due to external effects like friction)
The underlying microscopic theory should (and so far has been-> standard model) be in a way mathematically beautiful. Just think about how *all* of special relativity comes about due to transformation behaviour under SO^+(1,3)
Not defending string theory that much here, but solid state and high energy physics just have different standards (effective vs. "True" theory)

>> No.10525631
File: 6 KB, 461x108, muh iq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10525631

>> No.10525653

My posts are generally more big-brained than most of /sci/

>> No.10525818

>>10525653
t. everyone on /sci/