/sci/ - Science & Math

Let's also not forget how far away the moon is. Even if you can climb at a pretty fast 10mph without rest, it would take ~2.75 years. Even if you let go after the moon's gravity takes over, that's still well over a year. How do you plan to take a year's worth of food, water, and air with you?

People keep talking about amphetamines/adderall/etc, yet last I checked you can't randomly buy it at the local Walgreens. Are ppl just getting it illegally? Is it even that easy?

>>6696216
> They use a letter other than x. You can't just do that. What the hell is it supposed to mean?
kek

> What rules do you use for a different letter?
The same rules as you do for x. x is a placeholder; you can use a squiggly if you want... or a cat.

>>6664818
Scientists argued over the interpretation of QM for decades. They stopped caring (for the most part) because it was a pointless waste of time.

What physical meaning do you want from relativity? Do you not like Lorentzian manifolds?

>>6664814
They're not, and you're retarded, like 99% of the population

>>6641118
Kid, you can't get away with claiming you created something you didn't in math. I'm pretty sure it was him.

>>6641078
The fact that <span class="math">\tau[/spoiler] was invoked at all implies some hipster faggotry. That earlier post was just a reexpression of a well known identity. Fine, Barnett may have a new proof of this thing. However, the conclusions you're claiming he's making are crap:

> implications of this maths piece may indeed be followed by some unforeseen consequences.
maybe

> Perhaps, this equation will bring back the need in God into science?
lolwut - totally unrelated

> Or even disprove the fact, that c is maximal speed in vacuum?..
again, totally unrelated

>>6639588
You may be right, pedant, but you missed the point of the post you're responding to. The curvature that results from typical magnetic fields is trivial. Magnetic forces operate very differently from space time curvature (unless you're assuming some Kaluza Klein compactification).

The "rock hard" description (among others) suggested that your stool was sitting inside you for quite a while. During that time, your colon was desperately trying to get as much water out of the stool as possible. Result: hard, dry stool. Dry things tend not to stick as much. At least, that's my conjecture based on what I lrned from wiki

> Consider, if you will, periodic structured super fluid space. Now apply curvature to it. The lattice structure becomes relevant if it can successfully describe variance in QED...

I don't understand.

> This leads to a very interesting reemergence of a pilot wave

Like in Bohmian mechanics? How is that related?

> and suggests that if valid, fluid dynamic behavior is scale irrelevant.

sure

> Which is not only testable, it's already been tested and demonstrated that a droplet vibrating upon the surface of a fluid will replicate the path of an electron probability cloud.

So they're controlled by similar differential equations. Fine.

> More than that, it hints at entanglement as an emergent property of turbulence on the fluid surface linking two individual droplets together.

wat

> ... Such a description could then go on to imply that a particle in a vacuum is an excitation of a fundamental fields that has entrapped some quanta of space relative to the energy of the excitation. That would mean the Higgs is surface tension to overcome before a bubble forms from a field excitation and it would have discrete steps in values which would thus explain the fundamental massive particles.

And the massless particles? How does this predict discrete values?

> So much explained. All of it casual. All of it possible to describe from first principles. No arbitrary constants.

don't agree

> No information destruction paradox. No accelerating expansion of the universe. No virtual particles. No 'it just does that'. It also leaves room for a multi-verse (which would simultaneously exist in the same space).

Not related

> For all the possible directions beyond the standard model we can do, this is by far the most elegant and rational of solutions.

AdS/CFT in general? Yes, that's the bandwagon. What you're saying? Not so much.

>>6625542
Under the usual definition, the big bang _is_ the singularity. I guess it's not too much of a stretch to also include the period immediately after, but before inflation.

That guy's problem is not just a minor issue of "unsound logic"; he's throwing random nouns around. Not all singularities are the same. The simplest example is the tip of a cone. Surprise! Time does not end there. Schwarzschild with negative mass results in a naked, timelike singularity. It has both a past and a future. The singularity at the big bang and inside black holes are "space like" - they extend in the spatial directions, but do not have a past/future. It is in this sense that there is no "before" the big bang.

Let's consider the cone analogy again. An ant walks in a straight line towards the tip of the cone. What happens when it reaches the tip? It needs new rules for what to do next. It is in this sense that GR cannot tell us what comes before the big bang. Maybe the tip of another cone is attached there, and the ant can visit the other cone. In the absence of additional rules, nobody knows.

>>6624081
Are you referring to arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6586.pdf ?

Are you referring to >>6622204's wall of text? It talks about 2+1 superconductors, and their dual gravity theory. It talks about black holes with funny boundary conditions.

Among the things he says is "the lattice structure induces a periodic inhomogeneous electric potential". Sure, lattice structures can do interesting things. I don't see how this is related to the global structure of our world. Maybe I'll read again after a nap.

>>6624071
Classical GR posits that time started with the big bang, so there is no before. If you're asking about the time between the big bang and "very dense", then that's just the result of time evolving the initial conditions. How did the initial conditions become that way? derp

Realistically, classical GR will fail at some point, in which case we don't know what comes "before".

>>6624067
galactic rotation curves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>>6622512
I'm @ UCSB right now, and nobody said anything about the universe being provably holographic or anything of that nature.

AdS/CFT is indeed all the rage right now, and it does involve holography. This correspondence has been used to study QFTs that describe superconductors (eg the cuprates you speak of). If you mean some of these QFTs can be mapped to a higher dimensional gravity theory, sure. Maybe the holographic gravity theory predicted an interesting property that was difficult to calculate in the QFT.

However, none of this implies that our universe is holographic. Our universe is not asymptotically AdS, and our current understanding of the correspondence is insufficient for saying anything interesting about the global structure of our universe.

>>6622501
Confirmed for troll. This dr doe or impersonator has no idea what he's talking about.

>>6621287
There are at least 2 issues.
1) GR is not renormalizable, so the standard methods of doing QFT completely fail. Diff invariance is related to this.
2) Hawking radiation/loss of unitarity. When black holes evaporate, they do so in the same way regardless of what went in. This issue can also be investigated in the context of quantum entanglement entropy. At the very least, this indicates a failure of QFT on curved space, but no one knows where the approximation fails. The recent uproar about firewalls posits that the event horizon doesn't exist in the conventional sense - it is singular, and hence called a firewall.

>>6586223
>>6586274
It's useful if you _want_ email correspondence with ppl in a thread. Most of the time, it's used for sage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincare_recurrence

I speculate that genetic abnormalities, or ones that arise in the uterus cause things to well... not grow properly. Ugliness might just be one of the symptoms. Autism/ADHD/etc has some family correlation, so genetics has some involvement. However, it can't explain everything.

I recently heard that it was proven a few yrs ago that <span class="math">\lambda\phi^4[/spoiler] theories are consistent in 2+1 dimensions, but can't seem to find anything relevant on google/arxiv.
Any thoughts?

>>6421771
>>6423202
srsly, lol
I was hoping somebody would say more about what these B modes are, or how gravitational waves can alter the polarization of light, or any other detail. This sounds like a rather complicated setup, and everyone here is just derping about shit that doesn't matter.

>>6422329
> Published on Apr 1, 2012
-__-

1 1
-1 0
Its eigenvalues are <span class="math">\frac{1\pm i\sqrt{3}}{2}[/spoiler] - ie not rational or even real This is among the motivations for inventing the real and complex numbers - an algebraic completion of the rationals.