I think my thesis advisor wants to kill me

[Anonymous No.15486853]

>be me, phys major
>hate QM with all my heart so I pour my soul into relativity and stat mech
>thesis advisor notices this and starts handpicking my electives
>brainwashes me into believing I'll be the next pepe hawking
>calculate Christoffel symbols for curved benis daily and solve geodesics a thousand ways
>pick an econ elective behind his back for shits and giggles
>he finds out
>very calmly says maybe I wasn't as smart as he thought I was
>tells me to come back only after I've had my brain checked

When did (you) specialize, anon?
t. two semesters away from graduating

[Anonymous No.15486881]

At least QM and stat mech can be linked to consciousness. But GR is so boring. It's just diff geo but in a cucked way.

[Anonymous No.15486895]

>>15486881
No, you can still do diff geo in curved space time. You can use all the formalism in the Hamiltonian suited for symplectic geometry with the added mind fuck that is the hamiltonian constraint.
It's not cucked, everything is still there with the bonus that now doing transformations between generalized coordinates for K-miltonians feel like god is trying to crawl up your ass

[Anonymous No.15486902]

Well maybe you weren’t as smart as he thought you were.

[Anonymous No.15486908]

>>15486853
>I hate QM with passion
You are just not cut to be a physicist, you clearly dont give a shit about understanding nature. Take a sabbatical and rethink your life.

[Anonymous No.15486920]

>>15486908
Both qm and relativity are wrong, the problem is that people who like qm will never admit it and would rather put the blame on relativity. If you have to invoke SO(3) to talk about "intrinsic" angular momentum because you can't do it intuitively there's something very wrong with your theory.
That said, spinors are useful when non retards use them
>>15486902
I flew too close to the sun and it's too late to change tracks, I think he knows that

[Anonymous No.15486923]

>>15486853
>Are ya calculating son?

[Anonymous No.15486936]

>>15486920
You are just arrogant and think you know everything but no one else does. Your advisor hates for good reason.
Drop out if you think physics is wrong
>flew too close to the sun
Theres that arrogance again

[Anonymous No.15486957]

>>15486920
for me, it's SU(2)

[Anonymous No.15486967]

>>15486853
You don't need to ever calculate Christoffel symbols, not even in GR really.

Anyway your advisor is right, stop being an eternal student and start doing something actually productive.

[Anonymous No.15486990]

>>15486853
>very calmly says maybe I wasn't as smart as he thought I was

This is very based coming from your teacher. Any IQ above 100 can just mentally derive all of economics if asked about it. When I notice that a particular result did not auto-generate in my brain I realize it is because that paper must have been p-hacked to hell and is a fake result.

[Anonymous No.15487067]

>>15486853
why do you hate qm do?

is it because of the intrinsic assumption that we can't measure in a more accurate way the spin of an electron without resulting into cucked-superposition probability theory rather than improving experimental procedures?

[Anonymous No.15487068]

>>15487067
we can't deterministically say how the electron gets its spin or whatever the fuck way it chooses to moves unless of course wave-particle duality leads to superposition

[Anonymous No.15487076]

>>15487068
What do you even mean by that? Of course we can deterministically align spins in matrials. I think you are unsatisfied that spin is a fundamental property.

[Anonymous No.15487078]

>>15487076
did you even go under a quantum mechanics course??

the first things they teach you is that spin is in a superposition unless you observe it first

[Anonymous No.15487079]

>>15487078
you observe via stern-gerlach appartus but before that there is no way of deterministically determining what spin an electron is so fundamentally we have to use probability theory to say that it is in a superposition of spin up and spin down. basically we don't got the experimental data to see electrons in superposition

[Victor No.15487085]

>>15486853
Chemistry has residual effects of physics right now the field will pick up in a few years because of easy bio and element printing.

[Anonymous No.15487103]

>>15487078
So what? This makes complete intuitive sense unless you fall for the retarded pop-sci head fantasy interpretations of QM.

If I'm blind and there's a bunch of spinning billiards on the table in front of me then I can only determine their classical spin by measuring it with physical touch, before that I can say something about the probability of the spin states only if I know the total energy of the system.

The same is true of quantum domain particles, the only difference is that you can only measure it with other fundamental quantities at that scale. There is no hidden variable because the quantities are fundamental, but that doesn't exclude determinism at all.

>>15487079
>you observe via stern-gerlach appartus but before that there is no way of deterministically determining what spin an electron is so fundamentally we have to use probability theory to say that it is in a superposition of spin up and spin down.
Add a polarizer, bam you can "predict" which measurements you will get with Stern-Gerlach. You can do the same with phenomological materials too, otherwise MRIs wouldn't work.

>basically we don't got the experimental data to see electrons in superposition
I think you are confusing the probability function for a physical object which it is not, only the collapsed energy state is physically meaningful and measurable.

[Anonymous No.15487467]

>>15486936
>you're just arrogant
yes
>drop out if you think physics is wrong
isn't the whole point of physics realizing theory doesn't fit with experiment so that you can come up with better stuff
>>15486967
Yes you do, for some stuff. It's easier with puter, but things don't get too complicated if you only check up to second order perturbations to the metric
>stop being an eternal student and start doing something actually productive
What's a good place to start?
>>15486990
Pretty based, I just thought maybe it would be a nice way out if academia didn't work out. Financial advisors and quants get paid well.
>>15487067
I hate it because I believe probabilities are emergent and instead of building a theory that aims to explain qm that way we just settle for muh indeterminism.
I do think there's many useful tools that have been developed by quantum mechanics, but trying to quantize gravity is a pipe dream.
There's many interesting things in nature which need to be studied first, we can't make a TOE if we don't have the answers to all the questions (for example that thing about how birds can detect the earth's magnetic field to migrate, or the increasing input of peer reviewed papers in parapsychology), only then can we even begin to consider coming up with something that explains all of them.
>>15487085
Chemistry is decent too, but I don't think it's for me.
>>15487103
That's not me

[Anonymous No.15487494]

>>15487467
>Financial advisors and quants get paid well
Yeah, this is what I do (coming from maths background). But see, you can just fuck econ/fin topics in college. The only related course I took while in college was mathematical finance which is really just stochastic calculus by another name and then everything I've learned has been on the job. Economics and finance are pretty simple and companies that provide these kinds of services already have the best people in the field with 100+ guides written for the simpler topics.

[Anonymous No.15487497]

>>15487467
>isn't the whole point of physics realizing theory doesn't fit with experiment so that you can come up with better stuff
You are not coming off with better stuff, you are just a contrarian

[Anonymous No.15487897]

>>15487467
>What's a good place to start?
Research projects in a field you like.

[Anonymous No.15487909]

>>15486853
He's right. You should get your brain checked

[Anonymous No.15487997]

>>15486853
>very calmly says maybe I wasn't as smart as he thought I was
Got me right in the feels.
Science moves forward with the deaths of the previous generations.
It's the only h-way.

[Anonymous No.15488423]

>>15486920
you sound like a delusional retard
just because you think QM is "wrong" doesn't mean it will be irrelevant to whatever is right
classical mechanics remains extremely important to QM and a huge variety of calculations
new physical theories always arise from a deep understanding of the existing theory, not a rejection of it

[Anonymous No.15488624]

>>15487494
So I can just pick up a book on finance, study for two months and apply?
>>15487497
I'm not a contrarian, if I were a contrarian I would be doing einstein cartan theory
>>15487897
Noted
>>15487997
>deaths of the previous generations
There's a long line of people on the verge of death who've yet to get tenured
>>15488423
I honestly don't know of you're memeing or some shit because you sound like an insufferable faggot. I'm not saying QM isn't important, and I love classical mechanics, it's not just for me and you asked why I hated it.
>new physical theories always arise from a deep understanding of the existing theory, not a rejection of it
No, new physical theories come from models that can accurately match experimental evidence and fit the newtonian limit. You can't "deeply understand" a theory to come up woth a new one, you gain physical intuition and see where it leads you whilst checking if the newtonian limit holds up and what additional predictions your theory makes.
I dislike QM because of two very important reasons
>There eventually has to be a shift where we realize the probabilities are not intrinsic, as has been the case with every branch of physics beside quantum fagganics.
>faggots like you who live and die by preaching how it's good at shitting out verifiable results and don't bother thinking ahead or taking a close enough look at the theory to realize it's a pimped up car made up of spare parts
It's mainly a philosophical issue, i don't like the handwavyness needed to introduce new topics and tools. Even if the theory is good at coming up with predictions, it's the only odd duck in mainstream physics and the sole responsible that we have had to come up with deranged shit like branes to try and pair it up with GR.
I'm sure not even a fourth of the people who do qm for a living can explain spin accurately because they haven't bothered to study spinors. And not even a sixth can do relativistic qm without invoking shit they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.15488825]

>>15488624
Probability is not intrinsic and QM does not actually imply that it is, it's just a way to isolate the field -as laws derived on measurable experiments- from all the schizo pop metaphysics shit as well other more reasonable "fundamental" theoretical models.

In that sense you would probablu like QM more if you chose a better textbook.

As for predictive power DFT has about 30% error where deriving force distance curves. Not great, but at least it's the only 1 order off at most.

[Anonymous No.15488861]

>>15486853
>When did (you) specialize, anon?
Shortly before finding someone to chair my thesis committee.