/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8308361]

>"it can be easily shown that..."

[Anonymous No.8308366]

HURRR DUURR ITS SO LONG IT MUST BE HARD AND ONLY FOR GENIUSES

Go back to twatter you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8308367]

>>8308361
>"...particle physicists have vomit for brains."

[Anonymous No.8308375]

>"we will not insult the intelligence of our reader by providing a proof"

[Anonymous No.8308901]

>>8308361
the use of this particular turn of phrase is also known as "proof by intimidation".

[Anonymous No.8308910]

>>8308361
How do people work with this all day every day and not get crazy from boredom?

[Anonymous No.8308938]

>>8308910
They don't actually work all day

[Anonymous No.8308943]

>>8308910
They love doing it as it is their passion.

[Anonymous No.8308952]

>>8308943
How can you have passion for tedious mathematic formula?

[Anonymous No.8309035]

Delet this thread

[chemfag from this thread No.8309343]

>>8308361

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.8309367]

>>8308375

Where has anyone ever said that?

[Anonymous No.8309398]

>>8309367
D. Gale - The Game of Hex and the Brouwer Fixed-Point Theorem
(in all fairness, the result in question is indeed rather easy, but still)

[Anonymous No.8309435]

>>8309398
Legit kek

[Anonymous No.8310143]

math guy here
is it possible that because the standard model isn't complete, that some undiscovered sector would simplify that monstrous equation?

i understand that in ~some models~ the lagrangian is significantly smaller, but i don't really care about those

[Anonymous No.8310151]

>>8309398
My diffy q book was full of this shit.

Nagle, Saff, Snider 8th

[Anonymous No.8310153]

>>8310143
750 GeV test says no deviation so far

[Anonymous No.8310155]

>>8309398
I can just imagine that sentence in the middle of a whole page of dense logic notation.

[Anonymous No.8310164]

>>8310153
that's hardly a proof that the standard model is complete, if that's what you're >implyign

this raises another question though
is it possible to determine whether the standard model is complete?

[Anonymous No.8310298]

>>8309343
What particular books or studies do you need to follow to be able to understand this?

[Anonymous No.8310444]

>>8310298
Stewart Calculus

[Anonymous No.8310457]

>>8310298
You would probably need an entire graduate physics curriculum. Think QFT, GR, grad EM, and a grad level particle physics class

[Careers No.8310460]

>>8308361
Math is awesome. I'm really new to it so sorry if I sound like a newb but is this one whole problem? What is this exactly? This looks really advanced.

[Anonymous No.8310472]

>>8310460
It's #6 on the AP Calc BC FRQs this year

[Anonymous No.8310479]

>>8310460
it's the standard model of particle physics.

lrn2lrn

(use the built in image search next time)

[Anonymous No.8310491]

>>8310143
The entire standard model Lagrangian can be condensed down to [math]\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}\mathcal{D}\psi + \frac{1}{4}\int_{M}\operatorname{tr}\mathcal{F}^2[/math] plus some Higgs terms, where [math]\psi[/math] is the spinor containing all matter, [math]\mathcal{D}[/math] is the covariant derivative along the Lie algebra-valued connection one form [math]\mathcal{A} \in \Lambda^1(M) \otimes \operatorname{Lie}SU(5)[/math] and [math]\mathcal{F} = d\mathcal{A}[/math]. The reason why the usual expression for the standard model Lagrangian is so complicated is because physicists explicitly write down the components of the gauge fields and the spinors and do some weird ass Bogolyubov trasnformations that rotates the Hilbert space.

[Anonymous No.8310629]

>>8308361
I unironically love it when textbooks insult readers