/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2524706
to me it seems that the brain is the place where quantum physics, computational sciences, network theory, signal processing and a lot of other cool stuff happens.
As soon as brain controlled electronic devices and computer interfaces become mainstream there will be even more research and there will be a lot of new physics going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVhggGSjXVg

the other branch mentioned is quantum computing, a branch which now seems to invade every university

>>2524662
I liked it in school and I did physics as a subject for my final exam. Looking back, I have no fucking clue what I thought it was going to be. I figured out what I like and what I'm good at while doing it.
And it also always changes. Lately I'm really into programming for some strange reason

>>2524652
I don't know. Naively, i.e. using the tools I got at hand, I would say no. For example in 2D you can, as I did, plot the countours as a seeminly continous function of p and the area obviously changes in a monotone way. You agree? Thus every value it taken only once, and the answer would be no.
BUT
on the other hand here I use a definition of "volume" by looking at the area in the picture which might be not such a good idea.

in a field which I consider to be extremely difficult, you might find a solution to your problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_theory

also:
>>2524652 saved
;)

>>2524612
it's funny how you use the term "change the future". As if the future is destined to be some way and we change it. "Influence" might be better suited here.

Regarding your question: It is difficult to imagine the amount of change in viewpoints that happended from 1900 to 1930 to ever happend again, especially when everything is so specialized today. But the change of viewpoints is not necessarily a factor when it comes to big changes. The world is moving faster today (figuratively) and so I think things change more and scientific discoveries made in the 60 will have a significant impact when computing powers get higher etc.
So I think things will change A LOT, but not necessarily due to scientific developements made in that time. But then again, who knows if the entanglement magic and the bio related sciences might change things significantly. Probably they will.

>>2524602
I'm not too interested in these popular hawking-like-speculations and I know little about it.
Bounding reduces energy (see atomic bomb) so maye that might be a contributing factor.
But I think these arguments go more into the "we are a quantum vaccum fluctuation" direction.

I love me some cycles (actually, I'm not really into Lp cycles except for the one where pi=sqrt(2)/2 as viewed from an euclidean point of view)

>>2524501
so did you go to sleep and came back? ^^
And is this a question?
Are related question to your thoughs, which is topic of immense current research, is why there is more matter than antimatter. Must have something to do with "the beginning".

>>2524508
If you have some specific question you can answer. But I tell you that I'm no mathematican, so I primarly know the stuff which is needed in theoretical physics.
For starters, I can product some nice plots for you, if you like em but can't do it yourself.

Sperical harmonics are the functions which make up a significant part of orbitals for example. It's something which chemist use, even they have no clue about any math.
Anyway, look them up on wikipedia and be aware that for every value of l, these are the finite representations of SO(3), i.e. they are like the 3-dim vecors you rotate, except for they do exist in every dimension of 2l=1, i.e. 1 3 5 7...

>>2524436
I plotted all the circles of different norms once.
Do you use Mathematica?
I'd like to develope some code you you if you like.

>SU(2) is isometric to 3D rotations, but operates on vectors of length 2. Where did the third dimension go?
>of length 2
^^

anyway, there are many many representations of SU(2), not just these two. Also you say "dimension 3 -> dimension 2", but it's rather the other direction since the funamential SU(2) representation you're talking about, i.e. matrices on spinor space, is complex! So these are 2 complex dimension, i.e. 4 degrees of freedom.
so you could also say "4 -> 3", not "3 -> 2".

Also, are we talking SU(2) now, or are you still concerned with SU(3)

The dimension didn't go anywhere. Are you familiar with sperical harmonics?

>>2524385
Sometimes I struggle with people who deny the relevance of things outside their spectrum, some are extremely shy, don't participate in standard social interactions. Some are too technical as well. But at the same time there are people which are extremely liberal, which I like. And you don't find people thinking critically about the perception of the world in the working district. The atmosphere between physicists, or natural sciences in general, seams to be much nicer than between law majors. There is not too much competition between sudents taking the same class.

>>2524368
you mean p=2 or p=1/2?

the case p=1/2 sounds very academic to me, regardless of the underlying manifold. but then again, I'm no mathematican.
But Why would you even want such a norm on that space. The matrix norm should be sufficient for all practical applications (thats the physicist talking inside me :D)

>>2524333
Not really. There is no theoretically convincing basis for it.

very weird capcha: "thaistic Kähler"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4hler_manifold

>>2524313
What I like is that you profit from learning something you're interested in. You don't always do exactly the same. When you work for a company there are things you have to do and dated where they have to be done but some jobs let you think relatively free.
What I don't like to much is that sometimes physicists (and other "nerds" in different fields) tend to be difficult people. In a clicheed kinda way. But probably people are different in general. Also "science" is extremely competitive. This is true for academia and for business oriented jobs equally. It's not like working in a store of in a social job where you just do your job and then it's done - it's more like trying to be a step ahead of others. Which is tiresome and many people get frustrated.

As I said you should do what you love. If you go in for the money and if you're good, you can still sell your soul to consulting cooperations. But I don't recommend that.

>>2524293
this is not my field, sorry.

>>2524285
What? Why would I? You're on /sci/ too much.

>>2524200
Without knowing you, how can I know if you'd like it. Also, I'm not an american, so I can't tell you about life style. I'd suggest you do what seems right to you.
>>2524209
as I said, I work at the university, you don't really make money there. Also, I wouldn't know how to translate it's worth to dollars and I'm not used to express money in years.

>>2524212
actually, I was implying that you are wrong. the light cone is invariant under lorentz transformation. the plane of present certainly changes but the light cone as a whole set of points doesn't change

>the spaceship is moving along at a constant velocity and gravity is pulling it towards the planet
1. stricly speaking this doesn't make sense. If the trajectory is bent, then the velocity vector is obviously not constant. It is not constant because gravity is accelerating the observer, the very definition of change of velocity.
2. As to your question: Yes, in general relativity you can compute ALL the geodesics (trajectory of free observers), i.e. it has been done, which is the situation you are describing here.

>>2524162
>For someone moving relative to you, their light cone looks like it's been tilted sideways.

elaborate.
Tell me where you are, where the other person is, who is accelerating and who has what velocity.
And then what happens to the light cone?

>>2524086
I think it's important and I enjoy it very much.

>>2524101
I don't really like that show. Not just because it uses cliches to gain viewers, also it's not very accurate. (physicists conversations are usually a lot nerdier. But it wouldn't work on tv if the cast would be talking about about linux all day)

>>2524065
you got a point that maybe most physicist don't have to do much C# for their physics problems. But especially when it comes to Astronomy, Solid State Physics, Meterology, ect. the corresponding jobs are "computer jobs" in many cases, Computational Physics is it's own branch and, as with math, many physicists are computer nerds from the start. I know toooo many. It's not too far fetched.

>>2524029
I'm not too familiar with the math but I would say that if you copy everything into the universe that the energy you can observe "befor the spilt" if of course the same as after the split.
On a quite different not: when it comes to cosmology, don't take "conservation of energy" too seriously. First of all the definition of a closed system is difficult if there are logical boundaries of observation "at the edge". Also in general relativity, it is a fucking difficult task to compute some conserved quantities (like a hamiltonian) in general. THIS is one of the main reasons Quantum Gravity doesn't really work. There is no Hamilton Operator/Time Evolution Operator and you can't compute (time) evolution of states.

>>2523962
That doesn't answer my qustion.
to be more direct:
You imply the existence of a hamiltonian system in some sense.

You were explicitly saying "general entropy". Okay, if you give my a deck of cards and throw it to the ground I can compute the entropy of the system. But there is no dynamics whatsoever. Nothing will change.
My point ways that the definition of entropy alone is prior to some tendency for a prefered state.
And I'm still talking physics here, don't get me stated on pure information theory

>>2523971
>average theoretical physicist not doing academics
economics, finance, solid state physics, programming
I guess

>>2523954
the way I understand it (but this is such a hypotethical topic, it seems kind of ridiculous sometimes) the multiverse interpretation is some clever trick to avoid the collaps of the wave function. The space (Hilbert space in an "easy" QFT for example) is seperated and the universes don't ever meet each other again. There is no observer which observes everything since every observer splits into the different universes as well.

But rather lets go to something more grabbable (is this a word?)