/sci/ - Science & Math

[OP No.4336095]

Hi fellows. I'm looking for a tattoo design/formula in the area of mathematics, semantics (information theory for the most) or physics, as much alike this girl on the left and her Schroedinger's equation.

Any suggestions, ideas, favorites ?

[Anonymous No.4336104]

>>4336095
>tattoos

[Anonymous No.4336102]

kronecker delta

[Anonymous No.4336108]

>>4336102
fuck off with that mexifag Machinima queer.

[Anonymous No.4336153]

>>4336108
>>4336104
>>4336102

Since when /sci/ is acting like /b/ ?

[Anonymous No.4336162]

Don't use Schroedinger's equation, because it's wrong. The Dirac equation is not only correct, but much more elegant:

<span class="math">\mathrm{i}\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi = m\psi[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.4336167]

姦 <- I always thought moonrunes were superior for tattooing

[Anonymous No.4336175]

For trolling: <span class="math">E=\gamma m[/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.4336181]

<span class="math">R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}R + g_{\mu \nu}\Lambda = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.4336182]

∆+∇=0

[Anonymous No.4336183]

>>4336162
>much more elegant:
yes, if you dont write it lake a fucking retard
<div class="math"> \left( i\partial\!\!\!/ -m \right)\psi = 0</div>

[Anonymous No.4336192]

>>4336183
>Feynman slash notation
>confirmed for blind Feynman-worship

[Anonymous No.4336193]

>>4336183
Thanks for that, I was about to insult him for it, but then I remembered that /sci/ doesn't support the slashed package.

[Bruised No.4336200]

>>4336162
>Equation using Ricci flat space-time
>Correct
Pick one.

If you're going to get a tattoo then at least make it of a physical principle that won't be laughed at when we understand physics more.

Get the least action principle with the words "The universe is a lazy fuck" under it.

[Anonymous No.4336221]

g=10ms-2
π=3.2

[Anonymous No.4336223]

>>4336200
>least action principle
pfff.

get the path integral formulation equation of QFT, with the words, "The universe is not a lazy fuck, it does everything it posabily can" under it

<div class="math"> \int Dx\, e^{iS(x,\dot{x})}</div>

[Anonymous No.4336231]

>2012
>ruining your skin with tattoos
>ruining your skin with tattoos of equations that you memorized and probably only like because it looks cool but you have no idea what it actually means

[Anonymous No.4336238]

Drake equation bro

[Bruised No.4336243]

>>4336223
The path integral formulation is an application of the principle of least action...

[Anonymous No.4336245]

>>4336223

In that case the universe is highly inefficient.

[Anonymous No.4336256]

The Schrödinger equation would be an okay idea, unless you explicitly write down some Hamiltonian like the girl in the pic. And btw., why making it bigger than say 5 cm. That's crazy.

>>4336162
>correct
whatever that means.

I would suggest an entropy formula. It's a perfect deal if you search for information theory + physics. And statistical mechanics is most likely going to dominate the coming decades of physics.

[Anonymous No.4336258]

>>4336243
no the LAP is the classical limit if the PIF

[Anonymous No.4336266]

>>4336245
thats the price you pay to have stable atoms.

[Anonymous No.4336267]

>>4336243
no it isn't. the path integral reduces to the classical least-action principle in the limit of hbar going large, but it doesn't need least-action. in fact, that's the major point! That you have to take into account paths (or field configurations) which a far away from the classical path with the least action.

[Anonymous No.4336289]

that feel when hbar is going large

[Bruised No.4336377]

>>4336267
>>4336258

[Anonymous No.4336380]

>>4336377
it's okay, we all make mistakes

[Anonymous No.4336384]

>>4336181
Why write it like a tard? To make it look more complicated?

<div class="math">G_{\mu \nu}+g_{\mu \nu}\Lambda =8\pi T_{\mu \nu}</div>

[Anonymous No.4336404]

<div class="math">\delta \int \sqrt{-g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x^\mu} \dot{x^\nu}}=0</div>

[Anonymous No.4336411]

>>4336175
I'm not seeing the problem. Are you implying this is troll status because it's not elegant enough?

[Bruised No.4336430]

>>4336380
No.

The principle of least action is more fundamental and more important than path integrals. It's applied in every field of physics as the underlying truth of a systems dynamics. If there is ever a ToE, it's going to be some fucked up action and then you apply the least action principle to it.

[Anonymous No.4336436]

>>4336384
why not just write the leranian?
L=Rvol

[Anonymous No.4336438]

Gotta be Euler's Formula

[Anonymous No.4336451]

>>4336430
since when do you derive the most fundamental equation from the les fundamental equation?

[Bruised No.4336460]

>>4336451
What?

[Anonymous No.4336469]

>>4336430
Well, whatever you view on theories and their status as "fundamental" may be, you do realize that your earlier post:

>The path integral formulation is an application of the principle of least action...

was just plain wrong, do you?

[Bruised No.4336556]

>>4336469
No. It's not. You've got this straw man in front of you because you've never experienced actual theoretical physics.

You do realize that the least action principle is basically...
<span class="math"> \delta S = 0 [/spoiler]
where the <span class="math"> \delta [/spoiler] is given in context? There's nothing classical about it. It's used in string theory.

The analogue of magnitude of a real number (when doing classical physics), is integrals in function space (Do some functional analysis and measure theory and you will see this), so the Feynman path integral formulation is just minimizing a different kind of action.

[Anonymous No.4336580]

>>4336556
Well, at first, you're not minimizing the action, you're looking for a path (or field configuration) which is an extremum of the action. In Feynman's path integral formalism, yo DO NOT look for the path or field configuration that gets you an extremum, you integrate over ALL of them, weighted with a phase that is given by the action of the theory.

What is usually referred to as the classical solution is the path that actually gives you the extremum. In path integrals, you incorporate paths that do not extremize/minimize the action as well.

[Bruised No.4336617]

>>4336580
>Well, at first, you're not minimizing the action, you're looking for a path (or field configuration) which is an extremum of the action.
Very true, I stand corrected. By minimizing, I meant to say find stationary solution.

>you integrate over ALL of them, weighted with a phase that is given by the action of the theory.
This is exactly what finding the extremum is when we go from standard spaces to function spaces!

[Anonymous No.4336633]

>>4336617
What?

The least action principle is finding the configuration that extremizes (or whatever the fuck the english word is) the action. Period. Stationary action.

The path integral formulation does not restrict to stationary points.

[Anonymous No.4336650]

\int e^x = f{u^n}

Oh wait.

[Bruised No.4336659]

>>4336633
>The path integral formulation does not restrict to stationary points.
The fuck? Why would it. When going from classical to quantum the analogue of points are functions. The extremum is no longer a path through physical space, but a "path" through function space.

If you don't get it this time, I give up.

[Anonymous No.4336665]

\int {e^x} = f {u^n}

[Anonymous No.4336688]

>>4336659
... it is still not the principle of least action, bro. And you do not look for a stationary point in path-space either.

[Anonymous No.4336690]

<span class="math">t_A\pi\infty[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.4336704]

>>4336688
I'm not sure I follow you. What precisely is your point of contention with what Bruised has said?

[Anonymous No.4336733]

>>4336704
He posted that Feynman's path integral formalism is an application of the least action principle. I say, it is not, as the least action principle is defined as taking ONLY the path which gives you a stationary point in your action, while the Feynman formalism is a sum over an infinite amount of paths (or field configurations), with the least-action-path only being one of them.

[Anonymous No.4336752]

>>4336733
"as the least action principle is defined as taking ONLY the path which gives you a stationary point in your action"
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.4336759]

just have like 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 and then you can tell everybody that you got the biggest fucking number in the world on yo BO-DAY

shit will be very cash indeed

[Anonymous No.4336762]

>>4336095

Euler's Identity

[Anonymous No.4336766]

>>4336752
Here ya go.

ON A GENERAL METHOD IN DYNAMICS
By
William Rowan Hamilton
(Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, part II for 1834, pp. 247-308.)

[Anonymous No.4336782]

>>4336766
>ON A GENERAL METHOD IN DYNAMICS
>By William Rowan Hamilton
>Written by a man who lived 200 years ago

[Anonymous No.4336796]

ext and tor long exact sequence
It'd go nicely on someone's arm, like a bracelet (not a homo)

captcha: 65,843,302 tiwall

[Anonymous No.4336939]

Compressible Navier-Stokes equations. They will take your whole back.

[Anonymous No.4336948]

I'd let her equate my schroedinger, if you know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.4336970]

>>4336095
OP, are you academically or professionally involved in science or math? dont go walking around with a mathematical inscription on your skin that you dont even understand.

get an equation/expression tatoo'd that you personally enjoy/use often

[Anonymous No.4337046]

>>4336970

This said in words understandable by the majority.

"Don't be a poser."