🧵 Can you still learn physics
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:13:07 UTC No. 16431576
even if you are mathematically retarded?
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:30:52 UTC No. 16431598
>>16431576
Yeah, just open your eyes and observe what things are doing
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:34:21 UTC No. 16431603
>>16431576
Conceptual physics - sure
Mathematical/predictive physics - no
You can understand *why* something happens, but not enough to do anything useful or practical with that understanding.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:40:36 UTC No. 16431617
>>16431603
Absolutely untrue you can and fully create and utilise something without it being formalized mathematically see thermodynamics the steam engine for example. It's an AFTERthought for the most part.
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:40:40 UTC No. 16431618
>>16431603
But if I understand why then I have intuition to say if something will work or not right?
Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:59:15 UTC No. 16432013
>>16431576
Absolutely! Being mathematically retarded is a requisite for doing well in Physics.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:00:37 UTC No. 16432146
>>16432013
hm looks like the chain rule going from 1 to 2 that d/dt (x')^2 = 2 x' x"
but from 2 to 3 i have no fucking idea
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:35:16 UTC No. 16432521
>>16431576
No, please stay the fuck away. I’ve had to share enough space with retards (astrophysicists and experimentalists) in my department. You wouldn’t believe how many physics PhD students can’t do basic math these days.
t. was a grader for grad courses
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:36:03 UTC No. 16432522
>>16432521
>You wouldn’t believe how many physics PhD students can’t do basic math these days.
Why do you think that is? I am interested to learn more about this suffering.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:43:35 UTC No. 16432527
>>16432522
Many, many reasons
>from 1940s onwards, physics is less about theorizing frameworks and more about mindlessly calculating things
>soi reddit pop sci types who were never interested in math go into physics thinking it will be like their heckin’ youtube videos
>general propensity in America to associate science with quirky wacky reddit shit like muh volcanoes instead of proper experiments where you take data and do curve fits
>too many retards these days think their brain is too good to waste time on math when Mathematica exists
>ridiculous academia practice of inflating grades and passing students just because “they show effort”
>last, but not least. DEI hires.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:45:46 UTC No. 16432528
>>16432527
>where you take data and do curve fits
isnt that an example of mindlessly calculating things?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:49:00 UTC No. 16432530
>>16432528
You need an understanding of what curve to fit it too, so no. One of my high school experiments was measuring the dependence of the period of a pendulum on its length. That requires you to at least know the formula.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:51:12 UTC No. 16432532
>>16432528
>>16432527
Not trying to be trite, but it seems to me there just aren't any true phycists anywhere?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBI
Even the people who are good at math just produce endless schizobabble with no grounding in reality
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:52:22 UTC No. 16432534
>>16432532
It seems to you because your source of information is pop sci.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:55:37 UTC No. 16432537
>>16432534
So the woman in that video is objectively wrong? There is no truth to what she says? Everything is fine and physics is progressing along nicely?
Then why the fuck is she making this video?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:57:01 UTC No. 16432540
>>16432537
She isn’t “objectively wrong” (whatever that means). Academia today isn’t without its problems. What I’m saying is that you have a biased view because your source of information is a bunch of pop sci youtube videos. Not actual people you interact with in a given physics department.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:09:49 UTC No. 16432547
>>16432540
>whatever that means
it would mean she was demonstrably wrong by demonstration of the material world, as opposed to merely the theoretical world of ideas, axioms, and subjective experiences and so on.
>a bunch of pop sci youtube videos.
So first of all I was not informed of this apparent problem only by watching pop sci videos, but also by many talks and interviews and blogs from physicists who have worked or are working professionally as physicists. Secondly, what is your objection to pop sci in this context? Is it bias?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:12:52 UTC No. 16432552
>>16432547
>>16432540
Moreover why would "actual" people in the department which you just admitted is full of people who can't even do basic math be any better source of information or less biased?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:14:41 UTC No. 16432553
>>16432146
Just multiply both sides by dt. It's not hard.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:15:02 UTC No. 16432554
>>16432547
>it would mean she was demonstrably wrong by demonstration of the material world
Inductive reasoning is never conclusive
>but also by many talks and interviews and blogs from physicists who have worked or are working professionally as physicists
so more informal pop sci
>what is your objection to pop sci in this context?
It needs to sell. It’s like getting information about a company’s work climate by watching their promotional HR crap or angry youtube videos saying the company will collapse in two weeks. For someone who wants “demonstration of the material world” you sure love your secondary sources.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:18:06 UTC No. 16432556
>>16432530
>High school
You have to be 18+ to post here.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:19:40 UTC No. 16432559
>>16432556
Yeah, bro, I graded phd students as a high schooler. Amazing reading comprehension.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:24:49 UTC No. 16432564
>>16432554
>Inductive reasoning is never conclusive
Abandoning all of science and mathematics because we have to make assumptions is counterproductive.
>more informal pop sci
can you give a definition of pop sci? for example is a lecture from mit put on youtube pop sci? is an article published in a journal less reputable than nature pop sci? is the objection a physicist makes to the janitor wanting to enter the x-ray lab while the machine is running pop sci?
>it needs to sell
Science needs to sell too. Publish or perish. Get funding or get fucked. Get cited or get fired. There is a well known "crisis" of reproducing experimental results.
>you sure love your secondary sources.
I can hardly think of any other way to learn: books, articles, recordings, and so on. Mathematics wasn't invented by one man alone, but by many, over a long time, spanning many generations.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:29:45 UTC No. 16432567
>>16432564
>and mathematics
mathematics isn’t inductive reasoning. It’s deductive. And never said anything about abandoning anything.
>can you give a definition of pop sci?
Intended for laymen. A lecture isn’t popsci. But you don’t see professors ranting about academia bad at lectures or seminars. That only happens when you have informal tete-a-tete conversations with them. And most of them don’t want to talk about it because everything is politisized to hell.
>nature
I can tell you’re a layman because nobody gives two shits about Nature in physics
>Science needs to sell too
That’s the primary reason it’s fucked today. The French revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race.
>I can hardly think of any other way to learn
go talk to people. That’s what constitutes a primary source
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:30:15 UTC No. 16432568
>>16432532
She's specifically calling out string theorists and loop quantum gravity dweebs. Basically most of theoretical physics. They've long ago branched off from phenomenologists, which is what original theorists used to be.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:44:25 UTC No. 16432572
>>16432567
Well if you wont abandon it your objection is meaningless. Mathematics uses axioms just as physics uses the axioms that the laws of nature do not change and therefore induction is unproblematic
>intended for laymen
thank you, and in fact I have seen professors ranting about the state of academia, even when I took classes in partial differential equations
>gives two shits about Nature in physics
It was just an example a journal held in high regard in general science
>go talk to people
>primary source
I actually have to talk to them? I can't read what they wrote? Hear what they said on a recording? Wouldn't you rather hold that a primary source is someone who performed the experiment / works in academia, independent of how the information itself is presented?
But it seems your general objection is that information intended for a layman demographic is biased towards the belief that science is full of untestable schizobabble and incestuous citation today because that sells. Maybe so. I can't disprove that.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:51:22 UTC No. 16432574
>>16432572
>physics uses the axioms that the laws of nature do not change
Wrong. Running coupling constants indicate laws do change. Or rather the scaling constant of said law changes. Your entire argument is nullified.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:52:22 UTC No. 16432575
>>16432572
>I actually have to talk to them? I can't read what they wrote? Hear what they said on a recording?
I've said numerous things to students in office hours regarding the state of physics that I never would put in writing or a recording with my name on it.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:53:02 UTC No. 16432576
>>16432574
What law was changed, precisely?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:54:05 UTC No. 16432577
>>16432575
because you are afraid of being wrong or afraid of recourse?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:55:15 UTC No. 16432578
>>16432576
What part of the post do you not understand? Too many words? Let me try again.
>Running coupling constants indicate laws do change.
Not precise enough for you? Fucking idiot lol
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:55:25 UTC No. 16432579
>>16432572
>Well if you wont abandon it your objection is meaningless.
No. Just because something is inconclusive doesn’t mean you have to abandon it.
>Mathematics uses axioms just as physics uses the axioms that the laws of nature do not change
You can postulate any axiom and math you want. You then deductively derive everything else, which is what math is about.
There are no axioms in physics. Postulates of physics can be disproven. See Newtonian mechanics. The main yardstick in physics is experiment, which is necessarily inductive.
>I have seen professors ranting about the state of academia
must be shitty professors not doing their jobs. I had one like that for my undergrad PDE course. The guy had had a stroke 2 years prior and was barely coherent. Would go on random unrelated rants mid-lecture. Suffice to say, I didn’t learn much from that course, but thankfully I took it in my senior year when I had already gone through linear PDEs in my physics classes.
>I can't read what they wrote?
There are two ways they can write something. Either they write some published work (like a pop sci book) which needs to sell or they write some a forum post in an environment full of crackpots. This board best exemplifies the latter. You really don’t know a person and a work environment until you interact with them firsthand.
>information intended for a layman demographic is biased towards the belief that science is full of untestable schizobabble and incestuous citation
Not necessarily. It’s basically two extremes. The first one is what you have stated. The second one is reddit soience where everything is presented as infallible and cool and the next step to technological utopia where everyone will be sniffing flowers and looking at rainbows all day. As you might guess, the mundane truth is somewhere in the middle. But that mundane middle doesn’t sell.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:56:23 UTC No. 16432582
>>16432577
It's the recourse. Once I get tenure I'll have more gall. Even then I don't have much faith that tenure protects you from going against the status quo.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:58:37 UTC No. 16432583
>>16432574
Running coupling constants obey a certain law that doesn’t change. The renormalization group is just a part of a single framework. The framework itself doesn’t change. If someone provides evidence that the coupling constants do not change according to the beta functions derived in QFT, then and only then “the laws of nature” would need to be revised.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:59:50 UTC No. 16432587
>>16432578
What laws were changed?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:00:00 UTC No. 16432588
>>16432583
>Framework = law
Retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:02:32 UTC No. 16432590
>>16432588
Yes. QFT is a framework with postulates aka laws. I can derive running couplings from those postulates. The couplings can change, but the underlying math doesn’t.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:02:51 UTC No. 16432591
>>16432587
My God. First you can't read two sentences. So I direct your attention to the first one. Now you forget the second one.
>Running coupling constants indicate laws do change. Or rather the scaling constant of said law changes.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:03:36 UTC No. 16432592
>>16432579
>There are no axioms in physics
Interesting. What would you call the belief that if I do an experiment again I can expect the same result therefore I need not do, I can merely assume the result for the foreseeable future and continue my work using that result?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:04:16 UTC No. 16432593
>>16432590
Postulates aren't laws. Allow me to demonstrate.
>Law of gravity: all mass attracts all mass
>Postulates of general relativity: blah blah blah
When you introduce a postulate you're talking about a model to describe the observed law.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:04:37 UTC No. 16432594
>>16432591
What said law? Name it.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:05:01 UTC No. 16432595
>>16432592
I would call it bad faith, because the actual scientific method clearly states that theories can only be discarded but never proven. That’s why we call it falsifiability and not verifiability.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:05:40 UTC No. 16432597
>>16432594
You really don't know what law the fine structure constant applies to?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:06:05 UTC No. 16432598
>>16432593
>states two mathematical models
>one is a law the other one isn’t
ok, crackpot
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:08:11 UTC No. 16432600
>>16432598
You're not understanding. There's an observation that mass attracts mass. This isn't Newtons model, nor is it Einsteins model. The law of gravity was understood long before Newtons inverse square model.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:08:55 UTC No. 16432601
>>16432595
How is it bad faith? Is reliance on induction really done in bad faith?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:21 UTC No. 16432602
>>16432600
>There's an observation that mass attracts mass
Really? What is mass? Say I’m some Amazon tribesman and I don’t know English. Point me to an object called “mass” around me.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:09:55 UTC No. 16432603
>>16432597
Humor me. What is the name of this law of nature that was shown to change?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:10:22 UTC No. 16432604
>>16432601
I literally told you how it’s bad faith. Inductive reasoning isn’t conclusive by the very nature of it. Claiming the opposite is bad faith.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:13:41 UTC No. 16432606
>>16432602
Rock. You. Me. Tree.
Are you fucking kidding me? Literally point to anything and everything that's large and solid. Yes fluids have mass but no, in your contrived example with a language barrier and education barrier I cannot explain why fluids have mass, nor would they understand why mass is inertia.
>>16432603
If you want to sit at the grown-ups table you'll need to understand the words we use. Children are humored. Adults understand.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:16:16 UTC No. 16432609
>>16432604
So you act in bad faith when you do science?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:17:16 UTC No. 16432610
>>16432606
>Rock. You. Me. Tree.
I am different from a rock or a tree. Are you schizophrenic? Why are you pointing to three different things and say they're the same. Must be a very weird language of yours.
>that's large and solid
What's large? Is a grain of sand large? What's solid? Is glass solid?
>nor would they understand why mass is inertia
Interesting. Why wouldn't they? Isn't it just an observation? For such a simple empirical truth you claim it to be, you sure have a lot of trouble pointing to it without abstractions and generalizations.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:17:17 UTC No. 16432611
>>16432606
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:18:16 UTC No. 16432613
>>16432609
You're retarded. No more (You)s for you. Bad crackpot. Sit.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:18:56 UTC No. 16432614
>>16432613
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:21:43 UTC No. 16432615
>>16432610
Mass isn't an observation. Gravity is. Id tell you not to play coy but I don't think you're doing it on purpose. Even children can understand gravity. Drop a rock. Drop a pen. Fall down. It's all the same.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:24:16 UTC No. 16432617
>>16432615
Ok, nigger. Point me to an object called gravity.
>Even children can understand gravity
Is that why it took someone like Newton to actually tell us about it?
>Drop a rock. Drop a pen. Fall down. It's all the same.
Why Moon no fall down?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:30:44 UTC No. 16432626
>>16432617
Obviously the moon doesn't apply to this simple observation. It doesn't need to. There's a reason newtons model is called UNIVERSAL gravitation. The law of gravity observed is exclusive to earth because, surprise surprise, we exist on earth. The moon isn't on earth hence doesn't obey the simple observations. In equation form it's F = mg. Even Galileo observed objects of different masses and sizes fell at the same rate. Again, the moon is irrelevant.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:33:53 UTC No. 16432629
>>16432626
>Obviously the moon doesn't apply to this simple observation. It doesn't need to.
Really? So the Moon doesn't have mass. Interesting. The Moon isn't made of the same material then? Must be aether cheese.
>In equation form it's F = mg.
hahahahah. Fuck, man, you really need to look up the actual law and not just the uniform field case. You're embarrassing yourself.
>Again, the moon is irrelevant.
Yeah, why would it be? It's not a part of the Universe, so why would it obey the UNIVERSAL law? It's just the demiurge playing tricks on you.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:38:15 UTC No. 16432633
>>16432629
Newtons model of the observed law of gravity is universal. Obviously we've only observed (before Newtons time) objects on earth. You're conflating laws with models. Bad.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:39:22 UTC No. 16432635
>>16432633
>Newtons model of the observed law of gravity is universal.
But the moon doesn't obey this law according to you. You don't see an obvious contradiction?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:43:02 UTC No. 16432641
>>16432635
Laws change. And thus we've come full circle. I accept your concessions.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:44:41 UTC No. 16432644
>>16432641
>the law is universal
>but it changes from place to place
based retard
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:03:19 UTC No. 16432653
>>16432644
I meant temporally, dummy.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:14:48 UTC No. 16432658
>>16431576
No, unless you consider learning just watching pop-sci youtube videos.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:24:53 UTC No. 16432666
>ur dumb!
>no u!!1
Are your egos really so fragile that you act like children on an anonymous board?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:27:46 UTC No. 16432670
>>16432666
Shut up retard lol
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:35:15 UTC No. 16432679
>>16432670
Yes yes how clever of you
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:19:43 UTC No. 16432715
>>16432644
>Quarks obey the same laws of physics as galaxy collisions
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:36:09 UTC No. 16432725
Physics is studying study of models and studying models.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:34:55 UTC No. 16432798
>>16432653
So how can you be sure his law still holds after 300 years?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:52:28 UTC No. 16432813
>>16432715
Different forces, same underlying principles
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:05:29 UTC No. 16432935
>>16432798
You can't. Welcome to science, pseud.
>>16432813
LMAO. You're an idiot.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:08:20 UTC No. 16432938
>>16431603
If you can't understand the logic behind math then why will you be able to understand the logic behind physics?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:10:08 UTC No. 16432940
>>16432938
>Implying you understand math
>Implying math isn't a infinitely flexible tool to aid in understanding things
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:12:00 UTC No. 16432942
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:14:30 UTC No. 16432944
>>16432942
>>16432940
Samefag
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:31:13 UTC No. 16432966
>>16431576
You need to be good at pattern matching and having a feel for maths, rather than be good at maths.
A lot of physics is figuring out what a good model is for a specific phenomenon, and come up with all kinds if vaguely justified bullshit math tricks to make it fit together.
Because ultimately, its the end goal that matters, and the validation through experiments.
This is why physics grad have a higher iq than math grads. Theyre not just turbo autists that just know the rules by heart and refuse to accept a result with a formal rigorous process. They have that extra level of mental abstraction that goes beyond formalism and filters the essence of the maths they want to use to solve the problem at hand, they just know it works, they have a feeling for it, and often, a couple decades later, a math phd student will prove them right.
Shit like delta or heaviside functions are hard to justify from a mathematical standpoint yet make so much intuitive sense and just fit perfectly the world around us, physicists are good at maths but not enough to let the formalism consume them and thats how they come up with results faster than mathematicans can.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:53:14 UTC No. 16432989
>>16432935
Yeah, I’m an idiot because I realize both are gauge theories wrt to different groups. Cope lel.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:55:28 UTC No. 16433082
>>16432989
Galaxy cluster collisions are NOT describes by a gauge theory, schizo
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:20:22 UTC No. 16433120
>>16433082
It is. The gauge theory of the diffeomorphism group of Minkowski space aka general relativity.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:03:34 UTC No. 16433174
>>16432966
Yeah they treat everything as a ball on a spring with damping
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:49:31 UTC No. 16433230
>ITT: math monkey makes broad sweeping statements about the fabric reality because of some esoteric algebra
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:30:58 UTC No. 16433361
>>16431617
Without any math to guide your process, it's just raw trial and error. The first tinkerers to mess with steam power may not have known the laws of thermodynamics, but they still understood enough mathematics to recognize and quantify the correlations between physical observables. In fact the earliest known steam device was invented by an Alexandrian mathematician.
Mathematics is the armory with which problems in physics and engineering can be attacked. Without math you can recognize the important aspects of the battle, you may even have some intuition about how the battle could be fought - but you aren't equipped to fight it.
>>16432522
Lowering of rigor and standards across the board. Starts in the grade schools and just cascades forward. Each level has to lower standards just to drag a majority of their students across the fucking finish line, and that forces the next level to lower their standards even farther. It all comes to a head in college, when there's no longer really any room for students to fail upwards.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:36:10 UTC No. 16433370
>>16433361
>>16433361
Can't I just hire a chinese math monkey to do the calculations for me while I dicdate to him deep fundamental truths about the universe from my boundless intuition? I mean doing calculations is like ew, total peasantry.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:38:08 UTC No. 16433371
>>16433120
General relativity isn't a gauge theory. You're confusing string theory faggotry with GR
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:59:58 UTC No. 16433384
>>16433371
>this thing is invariant under certain local transformations (circle group or the special unitary group)
>the derivative terms don’t obey the transformations rules
>let’s introduce an additional term so that the covariant derivative that respects the symmetry in question (EM or Yang-Mills potential)
>let’s build the field strength tensor using the covariant derivative commutator (Faraday tensor)
>let’s justify this using affine connections (Wilson loops)
certified gauge theory
>this thing is invariant under certain local transformations (diffeomorphism group of R^(1,3)
>the derivative terms don’t obey the transformations rules
>let’s introduce an additional term so that the covariant derivative that respects the symmetry in question (Christoffel symbols)
>let’s build the field strength tensor using the covariant derivative commutator (Riemann tensor)
>let’s justify this using affine connections (parallel transport)
totally something completely unrelated to gauge theory because I spent my entire career doing particle physics and can’t be fucked to look into GR
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:03:26 UTC No. 16433385
>>16433384
You have no idea what GR is. Your description is the particle schizo reinterpretation akin to the stringfags. You BEGIN calculations in GR with the metric tensor and the field equation. Not that stupid shit you said
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:06:58 UTC No. 16433388
>>16433385
>I have no GR is
>let me express my opinion on a topic I have no expertise in
I recommend Ramond’s Field Theory: A Modern Primer. He builds the Einstein-Hilbert action using the principles behind gauge theory in a dedicated chapter. Very interesting read.
>you begin calculations with the metric tensor
where did that tensor emerge from? Couldn’t be the equivalence principle… And the equivalence principle certainly couldn’t be a statement on invariance of physics under coordinate transformations…
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:10:38 UTC No. 16433390
>>16433388
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie
>String theory
I fucking knew it. Maybe instead of getting your understanding of GR from stringfags, try getting it from people who actually fucking study GR? What the fuck is your problem dude
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:13:48 UTC No. 16433393
>>16433390
>le stringfags
please point to me any line inv>>16433392 which mentions strings, you fucking faggot. If you weren’t a dumb pigeonholed faggot like you are, you would have dabbled into the vielbein formalism of GR, which had emerged way before string theory.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:17:58 UTC No. 16433398
>>16433392
Read the very first few words of the very first sentence in that section you cock sucking fucking retard cultist. It's implied quite clearly that gravity does NOT obey those invariance properties and that he's going out of his way to recast GR from a particle perspective. The same shit stringfags do. You're citing a book from a literal fucking string theorist on what GR is, and even then you shat the bed so hard since he DISAGREES WITH YOU in his very first sentence. Here let me distill the argument down for you
>Gravity doesn't obey gauge invariance
>But let's pretend it does
>[Derivation]
In other words he's acknowledging the model isn't gauge invariant, says he doesn't give a fuck, makes his own schizo interpretation of it (which btw is NOT backed by evidence) and then you come along and spew the BS that GR is a gauge theory because you don't know how to read your own fucking citation. Seriously dude fuck you and all your stringy ilk
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:22:32 UTC No. 16433402
>>16433398
>Gravity doesn't obey gauge invariance
It does. The gauge group is the diffeomorphism group. Zero mention of strings btw. I sense seethe from a pheno retard who thinks gravity is le geometry and has nothing to do with the SM. Look at picrel. Same fucking principles, except we are now looking at a non-compact group.
N.B. literally none of that book mentions string theory ONCE
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:23:40 UTC No. 16433404
>>16433402
>le gauge invariance is this specific thing I was taught at my grad course and I can’t extend it to generic groups that may or may not be compact
cope and fucking seethe, brainlet
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:24:54 UTC No. 16433407
>>16433402
You are one dumb, illiterate mother fucker.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:25:22 UTC No. 16433409
>>16433392
interesting skin color
spanish?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:25:49 UTC No. 16433411
I also direct you to the non-linear sigma model, which has the exact same metric-like interpretation, but is considered particle physics, while gravity is something entirely different! Because those gravity people work in a different field than me means they can’t possibly be working on something conceptually equivalent!
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:27:10 UTC No. 16433413
>>16433407
What about this is dumb? Tell me. Genuinely curious.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:28:54 UTC No. 16433415
>>16433411
does your gay theory predict dark matter?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:31:43 UTC No. 16433419
>>16433415
the non-linear sigma model tells you nothing about the gauge group or the representations of that group. It’s just a statement that the configuration space has curvature, which leads to non-linear behavior under symmetry breaking. It’s not my theory btw. Well known since the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-l
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:32:25 UTC No. 16433420
>>16433419
does your gayge theory predict darkie matter
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:33:29 UTC No. 16433422
>>16433420
No or yes depending on the underlying assumptions. It’s about behavior of matter and not its content. More questions?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:35:11 UTC No. 16433425
>>16433422
>no or yes
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:36:04 UTC No. 16433426
>>16433425
>ask an irrelevant question
>get a generic answer
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:41:54 UTC No. 16433432
>>16433398
>>16433407
oh, wait, I get it now. Your dumb pigeonholed brain tells you
>my smart professor told me QFT = SM + QM
>this guy says SR is no longer valid when we talk about GR (even though it literally says it’s still locally valid)
>my brain says gauge theory is QFT
>and my professor says gauge theory is QFT = QM + SM
>so we can’t have gauge theory if SM is no longer valid (even though GR implicitly includes SR as a local theory)
no wonder you call me a stringfag (I hate string theory btw). Can’t even think about the definitions themselves beyond associating them with shit you were taught by authority
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:55:50 UTC No. 16433441
>>16433413
Nothing in the screenshot is dumb. The dumb part is the poster of the screenshot not understanding the sentence.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:57:41 UTC No. 16433443
>>16433432
>I hate string theory
>Cites book from string theorist
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:03:19 UTC No. 16433446
>>16433441
>in the absence of gravity, the laws of physics obey SR
>with gravity, SR is only obeyed locally
Where in any of this is U(1) or Yang-Mills theory mentioned? Please, go ahead. The chapter literally spends a good page incorporating those so that they are diffeonorphism-invariant (aka formulating them in curved spacetime). Or do you really think the central tenet of gauge theory is special relativity? What prevents me from building a U(1) covariant derivative in a Euclidean space?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:05:58 UTC No. 16433448
>>16433443
>book on field theory with no mention of string theoty
>the author coincidentally did string theory
>YOU MUST LOVE STRINGS BECAUSE YOU CITED A STRING THEORIST
by that logic I am literally Hitler because I also breathe air. No need to actually consider what’s written in the chapter, of course. It must be string nonsense by association.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:25:58 UTC No. 16433456
Let me rant a bit more. Gauge theory is the statement
>fields are invariant under local transformations of a given group
>semisimple groups such as SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) fit this definition
>non-compact groups such as Diff(R^(1,3)) don’t because uhhh… you’re a dumb string theorist, that’s why. Besides, GR is about the metric. Can we couple the metric to fermions? Fuck if I know, man, this is all schizo ramblings. Vielbeins? Sounds like some dumb math.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:43:32 UTC No. 16433473
>>16433456
yeah we all remeber einsteins famous equation
gayge """theory"" = lagayrange * lie group therapy^2
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:44:14 UTC No. 16433474
>>16431603
Aunt Minnie is in the hospital. Why?
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:28:18 UTC No. 16433535
>>16433474
because she lied about going to group theory, gauge the truth
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:32:51 UTC No. 16433863
>>16433446
You're talking like a cultist. GR is not a gauge theory dude lmao. Just say point blank you're talking about a gravity particle.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:35:18 UTC No. 16435140
Gauge deez nutz nigga.
You need all the masses and shit to build the standard model. Those cannot be derived from your schizo math.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:45:56 UTC No. 16435270
Hold up. Are there actually physicists in this thread claiming that gravity is simultaneously a gauge theory while also not being a particle? Really?
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 22:00:50 UTC No. 16435295
>>16433863
>GR is not a gauge theory dude lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancz
>>16435270
If you’re referring to my posts, then never have I ever claimed that gravitons don’t exist.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:52:41 UTC No. 16435491
>>16435295
>gauge theory came before GR
your meds saar
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:04:59 UTC No. 16435510
>>16431576
>We made it up
Actually not far from the truth OP...
The anti-intelligentsia, the anti-social formalist schizophrenic mathematician will never admit to this, but true creation comes from intuition and common sense.
>James Prescott Joule's discovery of the conservation of energy i's especially noteworthy because he was an experimentalist, not a theorist, and didn't have a very strong background in math, or even a connection to any academic institution. His expertise was in brewing, and his experimental setups used brewing equipment. Even more interesting because he believed in energy conservation largely due to his religious faith, because he believed only God can create something from nothing.
Anti-social and anti-intellegensia
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:05:55 UTC No. 16435514
>>16431576
I don't know but I failed calc 1, retook it and got an A, failed calc 2, retook it and got a B, took calc 3, failed it and got a B.
I'm finna be the world's most deadly mechanical engineer
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:16:19 UTC No. 16435525
>>16435514
>calc 1 2 3
real math doesn't start before you begin with cauchy sequences, cauchy-scwhartz inequality, open balls in function spaces, sigma algebras, compactness, weak star comvergence and so on down the schizo formalist hole.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:18:31 UTC No. 16435531
>>16435295
>then never have I ever claimed that gravitons don’t exist.
Reading comprehension, ESL tard. I'm accusing you of the opposite. Namely that you believe gravitons MUST exist, since that's what the gauge theory you claim GR is represented by produces.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:48:45 UTC No. 16435568
>>16435525
I don't got time for that faggot shit, I've got free body diagrams to write!
raphael at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:22:11 UTC No. 16435671
>>16435568
kek
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:17:22 UTC No. 16436045
>>16435531
Classical gauge theory doesn’t imply particles. Quantized gauge theory does.
>>16435491
once again, claiming something I didn’t say
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:43:34 UTC No. 16436065
>>16436045
>GR is described by classical gauge theory
>Classical
>Gauge theory
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:45:38 UTC No. 16436066
>>16436065
I farted
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:55:18 UTC No. 16436073
>>16436065
What a massive retard you are. You write the classical action under the assumption of local gauge invariance. Then you qunatize it. Maxwellian electrodynamics is a classical gauge theory for example, while QED is the quantized version.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:07:37 UTC No. 16436084
>>16436073
Every cosmologist I've ever spoken to says gravity is geometric.
The only people who have told me it's a gauge theory are theoretical physicists, who when probed admit they have an expertise in particle physics.
Why is that, I wonder
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:09:37 UTC No. 16436087
>>16436084
>implying gauge theory isn’t geometric
Gauge theory surely doesn’t use differential geometry notions of covariant differentiation and parallel transport (Wilson loops). You are a massive retard who can’t think for himself.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:13:55 UTC No. 16436092
>>16436073
GR is neither classical not a gauge theory.
>>16436087
And yet, textbooks on GR (as written by cosmologists) do not call it a gauge theory. Why?
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:22:58 UTC No. 16436097
>>16436092
>GR is neither classical
It is done, bros. Quantum gravity is actually just GR. When people say “classical” they mean “not quantum” and not “not relativistic”.
>And yet, textbooks on GR (as written by cosmologists) do not call it a gauge theory. Why?
Because those textbooks are only concerned with gravity without mentioning other forces. There’s no need to introduce the vector potential of EM to talk about Christoffel symbols. When you actually use your own brain and study both, you realize that the only difference between gravity and vector forces is spin. I suggest you do that next time instead of going
>uhh you say X but le smart people in my subfield’s textbooks don’t call it X. Haha cringe bro
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:26:17 UTC No. 16436102
>>16436097
>When people say “classical” they mean “not quantum” and not “not relativistic”.
Maybe to schizos like you. GR is most definitely NOT a classical theory, you dipshit.
>Because those textbooks are only concerned with gravity without mentioning other forces.
>without mentioning other forces.
Here it is. Finally you admit that you're not talking about gravity or GR. You're talking about a theory of everything. That is you're using the language of particle physics (gauge theories) to describe gravity (which as you just admitted, is NOT describes by a gauge theory UNLESS you're combining it with particle physics).
Check, and mate. I accept your concession, schizo.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:27:50 UTC No. 16436103
>>16436102
>Maybe to schizos like you. GR is most definitely NOT a classical theory, you dipshit.
So it's a quantum theory? You deserve the Nobel prize.
>You're talking about a theory of everything.
You are absolutely retarded. I have never mentioned unification.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:30:08 UTC No. 16436111
>>16436103
>have never mentioned unification.
Meanwhile in reality
>textbooks are only concerned with gravity without mentioning other forces
So which is it? Are you unifying it with other forces, or are you describing it on its own? You can't have both.
You really, really need to refresh your understanding of what classical physics is. Perhaps recalling the definition of classical might help.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:32:19 UTC No. 16436114
>>16436111
You can describe forces using the same underlying principles without unifying them, you know.
>hey, bro, I noticed that insects and birds all fly according to the same principle. It's called aerodynamics.
>Wtf? Are you a schizo? Birds and insects are NOT the same. Cringe, dude.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:32:50 UTC No. 16436115
>>16436114
>You can describe forces using the same underlying principles without unifying them, you know.
Why would you want to do that? Pray tell.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:37:23 UTC No. 16436118
>>16436115
>Why would you want to do that?
Because why not? Scientists are curious. It's interesting and fascinating to realize that many things can be described that the same math. Like how different elements can be described by atoms having a different number of protons. Basic stuff. Oh, here's another one
>Hey, bro, I just found out that you can group elements together in a neat table, so the elements in a column have similar properties. Isn't that neat?
>Wtf are you on about, Mendeleyev? Hydrogen and iron are NOT the same. Fucking cringe schizo.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:41:35 UTC No. 16436126
>>16436118
So you don't have an actual reason? You're not a scientist. You don't understand modeling or motivations behind modeling. Either you're a blind idiot doing random shit for no reason, or you're someone talking about unifying forces via describing gravity using the same framework used for particles and are lying when you say you're not. Once again, TOEfags (usually stringfags) prove they're dishonest.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:43:08 UTC No. 16436129
>>16436126
>So you don't have an actual reason?
I'm curious.
>You don't understand modeling or motivations behind modeling.
Curiosity.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:45:31 UTC No. 16436131
>>16436129
Let me be more direct. The periodic table wasn't some faggot tinkering around with organization for shits and giggles like what you're pretending. You'd know this if you understood what you were talking about about. I'm inclined to think you're not stupid, and are actively lying because you know if you admit you have training as a stringfag, everything your said regarding GR being described by a gauge theory loses any imaginary weight you thought it carried. Try talking to an actual cosmologist. You know, the real experts on GR. Dumb fuck.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:48:45 UTC No. 16436133
>>16436131
>if you admit you have training as a stringfag
Nope. Never touched strings. I did pheno in grad school.
>The periodic table wasn't some faggot tinkering around with organization for shits and giggles like what you're pretending.
What was it then?
>Try talking to an actual cosmologist. You know, the real experts on GR. Dumb fuck.
Try using your own words to argue why I'm wrong without le string ad hominems or "trust the experts" reddit shit. It helps.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:49:43 UTC No. 16436134
>>16436133
How about you introspect and ask yourself how I know you have zero experience with cosmology?
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:52:51 UTC No. 16436137
>>16436134
I do have zero experience in cosmology. GR is a field theory that cosmology uses as a starting point. I don't need to know cosmology to argue about GR. Cosmology is literally just a study of EFE BVPs. Cosmology says nothing about where EFEs come from because that's not its goal. I once again implore you to use actual arguments instead of le expert shit. You're embarrassing yourself.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:10:50 UTC No. 16436215
>>16436137
>I do have zero experience in cosmology.
We can tell
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:13:35 UTC No. 16436220
>>16436137
>>16436215
>I don't need to know cosmology to argue about GR
Btw this is how we can tell you don't know what you're talking about. You're no different than the schizos who talk about how they're not formal experts, yet they're right and the experts are all wrong for they, the non-expert are qualified to discuss the topic, rebuke all the common (expert) knowledge, and if you disagree then you're just appealing to authority because you're not deboonking their bs. Just know when I call you a schizo, it's not a hollow insult. You're acting just like them.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:16:43 UTC No. 16436224
>>16436133
>Try using your own words to argue why I'm wrong
I already did, you're just too ignorant to realize how. For example, GR is not classical physics. It's modern physics. You, for reasons that are beyond me, believe that anything that isn't particle physics is classical physics which reveals blind spots in your understanding of fundamental physics concepts. And when you try to argue what is a fundamental concept regarding gravity, you reveal your ignorance. And this isn't even touching on your misunderstanding of what gauge theory is, why it's used, and how it doesn't apply to GR (once again, the only people who describe gravity via gauge theories are NOT cosmologists).
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:22:20 UTC No. 16436236
>>16436220
How is me knowing a particular BVP to a diffeq relevant to understanding that diffeq? I don’t need to know the solution to the wave equation in a region bounded by a crocodile with some wacky initial value function on the surface to understand that the wave equation is hyperbolic. I repeat, cosmology does not concern itself with GR’s structure. It postulates GR and then spends the whole time solving boundary value problems.
>experts experts experts
are you a jeet? You must be. Worshipping cosmology, appealing to authority and providing no actual arguments is what jeets love to do best in my experience. Please redeem textbook for full sapport of experts saar.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:28:28 UTC No. 16436251
>>16436224
>GR is not classical physics. It's modern physics
>You, for reasons that are beyond me, believe that anything that isn't particle physics is classical physics
And modern physics is quantum mechanics and relativity. Two completely unrelated things. I sense a dumb undergrad who hasn't touched a grad textbook on QM, because "quantum vs classical" is the standard textbook jargon.
>which reveals blind spots in your understanding of fundamental physics concepts.
You saying this reveals that you have not touched a physics textbook beyond undergraduate level.
>once again, the only people who describe gravity via gauge theories are NOT cosmologists
And? Literally not my problem, rakesh.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:42:13 UTC No. 16436280
>>16436236
>>16436251
Not reading your cope. How about I simply cite the people who published the first work on a theory of gravity utilizing gauge theory. Let's see what they have to say.
>In this paper we developed a theory of gravity consisting of gauge fields defined
in a flat background spacetime. The theory is conceptually simple, and the
role of the gauge fields is clearly understood — they ensure invariance under
arbitrary displacements and rotations. While it is possible to maintain a classical
picture of the rotation gauge group, a full understanding of its role is only
achieved once the Dirac action is considered. The result is a theory which offers a
radically different interpretation of gravitational interactions from that provided
by general relativity.
Since to indicate you have difficulty reading, let me reduce the amount of words
>The result is a theory which offers a
radically different interpretation of gravitational interactions from that provided
by general relativity.
>radically different . . . from that provided by general relativity
Understand yet, dumb fuck?
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:47:01 UTC No. 16436285
>>16436280
>>16436251
And if you continue reading you'll see their interpretation of the gauge theory is that of particles and the introduction of quantum effects. Which is exactly what I fucking told you.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:55:20 UTC No. 16436294
>>16436280
>not engaging in a debate
>how about I cite people
How about you get a brain lmao. Obedient bugs like you need to be expunged from the academia, but unfortunately professors really love useful idiots who take their words as Gospel.
>IT SAYS RADICALLY DIFFERENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! SMART PEOPLE SAID RADICALLY THEREFORE IT’S DIFFERENT.
You forgot to read the abstract where it says “a NEW gauge theory of gravity”. You know, because there’s the well-known one. We call it GR. This paper proposes an alternative to GR.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:57:17 UTC No. 16436297
>>16436294
>IT SAYS RADICALLY DIFFERENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! SMART PEOPLE SAID RADICALLY THEREFORE IT’S DIFFERENT.
No, it's that the people who came up with the theory said it's different, so it's different. In fact, they say it's radically different. They're quite clear in saying GR is not described by a gauge theory. I accept your seething as concession.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:59:15 UTC No. 16436299
>>16436297
>They're quite clear in saying GR is not described by a gauge theory
Is that what you got from it. Man, I feel sorry for cattle like you. When someone say “a new X”, they implicitly imply the existence of “an old X”.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:03:14 UTC No. 16436312
>>16436299
PROTIP: read more than the abstract. I've read the introduction and the conclusion and it's clear at this point you're only digging your grave further. Sit down. Read the intro. Read the conclusion. Then reflect on this interaction. I'm done with you; you're like a crying child at this point. I have more important things to do (it's 9 am, so I'll start my academic work day). Toodles, faggot.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:05:51 UTC No. 16436317
>>16436312
>read this alternative theory to understand why the mainstream theory isn't X
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:30:43 UTC No. 16436364
>>16431576
no, but you can learn a couple of science commandments and write pop science slop articles
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:08:55 UTC No. 16437700
>>16436317
What are you talking about? The paper I posted was clear in stating that although previous gauge theories of gravity existed that they didn't recover any of the observed results that GR described. In other words, it didn't fit the data and should be ceremoniously discarded as bullshit. Their published paper on gauge theoretical gravity, using geometric algebra actually describes the observed data, just as GR does. Which makes it a promising model. The authors then state very clearly that their model, while describing gravity, is "radically different" from GR. In other words, they admit rather candidly that GR is not a gauge theory; it is their model of gravity that is a gauge theory. They even say that there ought to exist tests to distinguish which model of gravity is more correct. If I recall it involved black holes, but I read the paper yesterday. You should be embarrassed
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:14:44 UTC No. 16437702
>>16437700
>although previous gauge theories of gravity existed that they didn't recover any of the observed results that GR described
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra
You should get some basic knowledge of a subject before reading some trendy new papers where authors claim a bunch of bullshit to get their shit published. This is something I noticed with a lot of people in academia. There’s always this stigma against old results and publications because of the libtarded notion of progress. Math doesn’t care.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:16:46 UTC No. 16437703
>>16437702
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source in the scientific community. You know better.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:17:31 UTC No. 16437704
>>16437702
>formalism
schizophrenia
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:17:48 UTC No. 16437705
>>16437702
>trendy new papers
It was published in the '90s. Did you not even look at it?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:24:35 UTC No. 16437707
>>16437703
Fine. Plenty of sources on the tetrad formalism. Use google. The important thing is that one can easily recover the metric from the tetrad formalism as it’s just a product of two tetrads. However, the metric formulation makes it impossible to couple fermions to it as gamma matrices only have a single Lorentz index. It is however possible to couple fermions to tetrads. That’s my first point. My second point is that because the tetrad formalism uses locality as fundamental building block, it’s has a natural interpretation as a gauge theory. You use the exact same notions of covariant differentiation and its commutator to build the Riemann tensor. I can write a whole post with equations if you really want to but this is covered in Ramond’s chapter I mentioned a while back. If you have some personal bias against Ramond, all modern GR books cover it. See Chapter 12.5 of Weinberg’s book on GR.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:26:18 UTC No. 16437708
>>16437705
And the tetrad formalism has been known since the 30s.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:31:35 UTC No. 16437713
>>16437707
Yes yes. I'm sure it's mathematically coherent. The power of a model is whether it matches data. Simple as. GR matches the data and has been verified by dozens to thousands of experiments, depending on how you count. That's why it's the main theory of gravity. There's a reason the tetrad formulation never caught on despite being formulated shortly after—no testable prediction has verified it.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:33:59 UTC No. 16437717
>>16437713
The tetrad formalism is literally GR you dense motherfucker.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:35:07 UTC No. 16437719
>>16437713
The tetrad formalism is literally GR you dense motherfucker. It produces the exact same results. What it can do that the metric formulation cannot is couple gravity to fermions. Literally stated here >>16437715.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:42:01 UTC No. 16437727
>>16437715
book anon are you schizophrenic
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:43:53 UTC No. 16437730
>>16437719
>couple gravity to fermions.
So it's not GR, and thus GR is not a gauge theory. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I also doubt you'll be honest about this question but I'll ask it anyway. What's the motivation for that?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:47:42 UTC No. 16437733
>>16437730
>So it's not GR
How? Fermions, like any matter, give a contribution to the stress-energy tensor. Thus, they source the Einstein tensor just like tensor representations.
Holy fuck, I want to round up and publicly execute all the pigeonholed retards in the academia like you who spend their entire career in a hyperspecialized field and can’t think straight.
>What's the motivation for that?
To properly couple all matter fields to gravity as expected. Or are there no fermions in the Universe in your retarded mind?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:52:04 UTC No. 16437737
>>16437733
>To properly couple all matter fields to gravity as expected.
>as expected
Expected via what observational evidence? Remember. Models are meant to match data. Or are you attempting to tell nature how it ought to behave?
As for you thinking GR is a gauge theory, let me be more precise. You claimed GR does not couple fermions to gravity. You also claimed the tetrad formalism can do this. Either the tetrad formalism is GR (in which case it cannot couple fermions to gravity), or it is not GR (in which case it can couple fermions to gravity). Which is it? You can't have both.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:53:19 UTC No. 16437738
>>16437736
200 matz vector 20k german vector 20k english vector, 800 million move vector, 1000 0000 billion billion visoon nector. do the matz....
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:55:15 UTC No. 16437741
>>16437738
1 vectors is 1 words
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:56:17 UTC No. 16437743
>>16437738
>>16437741
100 matz vectzos ony anway still
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:56:40 UTC No. 16437744
>>16437737
Expected via basic fucking logic. Fermions have energy, don’t they? If they have energy, they curve spacetime. Or is that wrong?
>Or are you attempting to tell nature how it ought to behave?
This is called consistency and predictive power. If you say GR is a theory that universally describes gravity, then its rules don’t fucking change. Otherwise you’re claiming that gravity magically vanishes at some arbitrary scale where our measurements aren’t precise enough. And that magical scale varies with humanity’s technological progress. You are the one attempting to tell how nature ought to behave.
>You claimed GR does not couple fermions to gravity
I didn’t, you fucktard. I said one can’t do that with the metric formulation. Both the metric and the tetrad formalism lead to the same action and thus predictions. Learn to fucking read.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:57:30 UTC No. 16437748
>>16437738
im prmary visoon and movment im a dragon cat
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:02:14 UTC No. 16437751
>>16437748
im what this looks for an human 80% physique 500000000000000% smoke
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:03:12 UTC No. 16437753
>>16437738
I'll make you live forever faggot in a torment suit fAG
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:03:52 UTC No. 16437755
>>16437751
i made 5 rotation connected to the human body in nfity but 10 connected to human vision.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:10:48 UTC No. 16437766
>>16437744
>basic fucking logic
Anon, please use your brain. I know you have one. You're talking about a theory of everything, and I really wish you would be honest about this. You're making the mistake of thinking nature must be describable via one model. Maybe it takes multiple models. You don't know and neither do I. The difference is I try to describe what I see. You try to tell nature how it ought to behave off "basic logic" wherein such basic logic apparently assumed multiple models is ontologically impossible. The way you shoehorn your singular model is by treating gravity in the same way particles are treated, and it hasn't worked for well over a hundred years.
> I said one can’t do that with the metric formulation. Both the metric and the tetrad formalism lead to the same action and thus predictions. Learn to fucking read.
So you have a model. You express said model using two different formalisms. You get different outputs. They must therefore be different models. Perhaps an analogy will help. In newtons formalism of calculus and leibniz formalism of calculus, they all have the same results, no different results and have different notations and representations. They are equivalent. If however they differed in any way beyond the representation, they wouldn't be equivalent. Understand? You're describing different models. In one, which is a gauge theory, you couple fermions to gravity. In another, which isn't a gauge theory, you have GR. Your argument would be like if I called GR Newtonian gravity.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:22:56 UTC No. 16437781
>>16437766
>You're talking about a theory of everything
GR is a theory of everything now?
>You're making the mistake of thinking nature must be describable via one model.
>Maybe it takes multiple models.
Many things aren't described by gravity. See electromagnetism. Multiple models are perfectly fine as long as they aren't contradictory.
>The difference is I try to describe what I see. You try to tell nature how it ought to behave off "basic logic"
Tell that to the man who predicted Neptune's orbit before its discovery. Or tell that to Einstein who predicted light bending around the Sun before it was observed during an eclipse. Yes, we use models to predict things. If observations don't match predictions, the model gets discarded. I am not aware of any observations out there that don't match GR. Enlighten me. You have this pointless dogma that models shouldn't have predictive power or at the very least that predictive power is useless. Then what the fuck is the point of modeling? Let's just store all the data in spreadsheets. We can't tell Nature how to act, right?
>The way you shoehorn your singular model is by treating gravity in the same way particles are treated
Both the metric and particles are Poincare representations due to the invariance of the action. So yes, we treat them the same way because that's what relativity demands. Gravity is just spin 2. Every spin 2 field must be equivalent to gravity as proven by Gupta in 1954. Basic field theory results.
>You get different outputs.
NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. YOU GET THE EXACT SAME EINSTEIN-HILBERT ACTION + MATTER ACTION. HOLY FUCK KYS.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:24:43 UTC No. 16437784
>>16437781
*every massless spin 2 field
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:32:57 UTC No. 16437801
>>16437755
i juderstand 3 smells,
10 words,
besides this only physuique and pioctures
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:35:16 UTC No. 16437805
>>16437781
obligatory image btw
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:35:46 UTC No. 16437806
>>16437801
im not joke if you cantr make your sentences 3 woirs it no exist :D
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:37:13 UTC No. 16437810
>>16437806
musics is 1-40% physiques this is why i can understand it
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:56:11 UTC No. 16437820
>>16437801
>>16437810
dragon cat means of crystalized sound, anyway doesnt mean i react to anything wihch is logner as 3 words
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:57:58 UTC No. 16437821
>>16437820
me understanding 20k german 20k english doesnt mean i will do anyhting but super easy task requested by maximal 3 words.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:20:22 UTC No. 16437856
>>16437781
>You get the exact same
>+ Extra
>Exact same
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:26:04 UTC No. 16437860
>>16437801
>>16437755
>>16437751
>>16437738
>>16437736
that feel when the incel uses gauge theory to inform himself of what touching grass is like instead of just going outside
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:33:00 UTC No. 16437866
>>16437781
>Gravity is just spin 2.
So you're talking about particles. That's not GR.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:37:35 UTC No. 16437875
>>16437781
>. I am not aware of any observations out there that don't match GR.
Are you fucking stupid? What the fuck do you think dark matter and dark energy are?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:41:36 UTC No. 16437883
>>16437875
They are just another heckin epic gauge symmetry
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:58:14 UTC No. 16437906
>>16437866
I’m talking about relativistic fields, you dumb fucking retard. Everything in relativity transforms as a Lorentz representation, not just particles.
>>16437856
You don’t have to include fermions if you really don’t want to. Doesn’t change anything.
>>16437875
Dark energy is just the cosmological constant, which is GR. Dark matter has not exhibited any behavior in contradiction with GR. It’s in fact how we observe it.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:58:36 UTC No. 16437908
>>16437781
>Multiple models are perfectly fine as long as they aren't contradictory.
What's the problem with mutual contradiction at different scales?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:00:07 UTC No. 16437909
>>16437906
>Dark matter has not exhibited any behavior in contradiction with GR
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:00:52 UTC No. 16437911
>>16437908
Ok. So gravity scales. You have come up with quantum gravity, congrats. Please derive the scaling law aka the beta function.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:01:53 UTC No. 16437912
>>16437909
Ok. Point me to a single observation where it doesn’t match GR predictions.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:03:56 UTC No. 16437919
>>16437911
Huh? I'm saying gravity is a metric which only shows effects at large scales. I really don't understand why you're so bothered by a model of gravity that isn't a particle. No, I won't waste my time trying to describe gravity via a beta function (particles). Let me be perfectly clear. I see no evidence to suggest a graviton exists. It boggles my mind someone as dumb as you passed introductory physics courses. You're pulling the classic breakfast argument. Let me be even more direct. IMAGINE A REALITY WHERE GRAVITY ISNT A PARTICLE. Can you do that?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:10:26 UTC No. 16437931
>>16437912
Ultra diffuse galaxies. Man, that was easy.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:13:37 UTC No. 16437937
>>16437919
>which only shows effects at large scales
This statement is in direct contradiction with general relativity as it is scale-invariant. Scale-dependence is a feature of quantum field theories. So, please, provide your pet quantum gravity theory and justify the scaling law.
>I really don't understand why you're so bothered by a model of gravity that isn't a particle
never made such claims. This entire conversation I’ve been talking about non-quantized relativistic field theory. I don’t know why you’re so hellbent on insisting that I am.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:14:47 UTC No. 16437940
>>16437931
And? Where does it violate EFEs exactly? Do these galaxies exhibit gravitational interactions different from regular matter?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:18:56 UTC No. 16437944
>>16437940
You're literally too dumb to understand what an ultra diffuse galaxy is and why it's problematic. It completely contradicts the model of GR for how galaxies from (even with dark matter).
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:20:12 UTC No. 16437946
>>16437944
>it contradicts our initial conditions for the boundary value problem
>therefore EFEs are wrong
rewrite your boundary conditions, moron
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:22:45 UTC No. 16437949
>>16437946
Anon, please. Let me reiterate.
IMAGINE A REALITY WHERE GRAVITY ISNT A PARTICLE
Can you do this?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:23:23 UTC No. 16437950
>>16437949
Yes, I can. It’s called general relativity. And?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:25:33 UTC No. 16437953
>>16437950
>It’s called general relativity
Which isn't described by a gauge theory. Can you agree to that, at the very least? Or can you really not conceive of that? If it's the latter you literally sound like a cultist.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:26:47 UTC No. 16437956
>>16437953
He can't. He doesn't understand that gauge fields describe particles. Which is funny.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:27:04 UTC No. 16437957
>>16437946
you can't rewrite dirichlet conditions without fundamentally changing the interior solution, MORON.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:33:46 UTC No. 16437965
>>16437953
It is. I have given you plenty of justification in this thread. Let me describe where your confusion arises from. Your dumb pigeonholed retard brain goes
>gauge theory is something I recall particle physicists saying
>therefore it must describe particles
which is plainly not true. Maxwell’s electrodynamics is also a gauge theory and there are no particles involves. Gauging a field is a purely classical concept. Quantizing a theory is another. Are we clear?
>>16437957
Your entire complaint is
>we have a pet model with sources and boundaries. We then plug these sources into EFEs. They don’t match observations. Therefore EFEs are wrong.
Imagine coming up with a current model for some exotic conductor and solving Maxwell’s equations. Then they turn out to not match with observations. Is EM wrong? No, you didn’t model your sources and boundaries correctly.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:39:32 UTC No. 16437975
>>16437965
You're N-ing down at this point. Let me quote an earlier post from you.
>>16437781
>Gravity is just spin 2. Every spin 2 field must be equivalent to gravity as proven by Gupta in 1954. Basic field theory results.
Pray tell. What's a spin, and how can a field that is not a particle have a spin?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:41:44 UTC No. 16437980
>>16437975
>how can a field that isn’t a particle have spin
Observe: Maxwell’s electromagnetic field. A spin 1 field. Aka a 4-vector field. More questions?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:54:36 UTC No. 16437999
>>16437980
I have never, not once, heard of gauge fixing in Maxwell's equations introducing fields with a spin. You're conflating classical Electrodynamics with QED. Just like you're conflating GR with the gauge theory description of gravity, and worse confusing this gauge description of gravity with a quantized gauge theory of gravity requiring a spin 2 field. Just like a theoretical particle cultist. You may not be a stringfag, but you talk just like one. Your god is simply different.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:00:51 UTC No. 16438008
>>16437999
>I have never heard of a theory describing spin 1 field introduce a spin 1 field
Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound. Do you even know what spin is, you dumb retard? It doesn’t just pop out of nowhere. It’s not an intrinsically quantum phenomenon. It’s a basic consequence of relativity. The Lorentz group SO(1,3) is isomorphic to SU(2)xSU(2). So ALL Lorentz representations have spin. 4-vectors are the (1/2,1/2) representations aka spin 1. Read Weinberg’s GR book for fuck sake before you say dumb shit, Mr GR expert.
>Your god is simply different.
No I simply have more knowledge than you and you endlessly seethe at me due to your own ignorance. It’s ok.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:03:08 UTC No. 16438013
>>16438008
>[Spin is] not an intrinsically quantum phenomenon
Wow.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:07:51 UTC No. 16438023
>>16438013
Yes, congratulations. You’ve just become a bit smarter today. All quantum mechanics does is project these Lorentz representations onto a Hilbert space as per Wigner’s theorem. You sound like someone who’s never done a grad course in QM. Astrophysics major?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:08:10 UTC No. 16438024
>>16438008
If spin isn't quantum mechanical, can you provide me a field with a spin-value that isn't quantized? For instance, a spin of 7/18, or a spin of π, or a spin of 2.81639461?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:10:47 UTC No. 16438028
>>16438024
NOOOO I CAN'T DO THAT ACKaaa!
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:13:01 UTC No. 16438036
>>16438008
In classical electrodynamics, gauge fixing Maxwell's equations does not introduce a field with a spin. Come on, man.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:20:45 UTC No. 16438054
>>16438024
That’s not how it works. The group SU(2) is compact, so its representations have integer character (trace). Ever heard of spherical harmonics? They pop up in EM whenever you have spherical symmetry. They are representations of SO(3), which is also a compact group. Does it make sense to index orthogonal polynomials with pi or 7/18? No, why would you. The same thing happens with SU(2), which is a double cover of SO(3), so you get half-integral spins included.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:24:51 UTC No. 16438070
>>16438036
Never said a single thing about gauge fixing. The EM potential already has spin. It’s a four-vector. Fuck’s sake, it sounds like I’m talking to first year grads. Why do I have to reiterate basic shit over and over again. Go back to any book on GR and review Lorentz group representation theory. It’s literally the fundamental concept in relativity.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:28:34 UTC No. 16438079
>>16438023
>Astrophysics major?
>Are you an astrophysicist who doesn't understand gauge theory bro?
>>16438070
>Go back to any book on GR
>You don't understand GR bro, go read more books
>t. Only experience with gravity is through gauge theories
You're delulu
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:34:01 UTC No. 16438091
>>16438079
You display basic lack of understanding of Lorentz representation theory, the central concept in relativity. You also display undergraduate level knowledge of QM and don’t seem to understand where states in Hilbert space originate from (again, see Wigner’s theorem). You have spent this entire fucking thread seething because you are confronted with something that you cannot understand due to your lack of basics. You are making a mistake after mistake and you entire defense this entire thread has been
>I am in this subfield
>le experts in my subfield don’t talk about what you’re describing
>here’s an unrelated paper which uses the magic word you mentioned
>I’ve only heard of your terminology in particle physics
>therefore you’re le schizo string theorist who thinks gravity is a particle
>I on the other hand believe that gravity scales in direct contradiction with GR
>no, I will not elaborate
what a sound logic this entire thread. I’m in awe.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:19:35 UTC No. 16438277
>>16438091
Gauge theory describing gravity is unrelated to your opinion that gravity is described by a gauge theory? Are you out of your mind?
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:25:38 UTC No. 16438286
>>16438277
It’s an alternative theory to GR, not GR itself. So yes, it’s unrelated to GR, because it results in different predictions. Unlike the tetrad formalism which is literally just GR presented using tetrads (Jacobian matrices) instead of the metric.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:44:54 UTC No. 16438324
>>16438286
So you finally admit GR isn't described by a gauge theory. I accept your concessions.
Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 18:08:02 UTC No. 16438356
>>16433370
>idea guys: the post
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 03:23:11 UTC No. 16439237
>>16438324
>>16438286
kek what a beautiful exhange you had this thread
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:05:38 UTC No. 16439488
>>16438324
I finally admit that you’re a retard who argues in bad faith. Peace.
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:13:48 UTC No. 16439503
>>16431603
>branch falls from tree and hits your head; ouch, that hurts
>don't know the force, energy, gravitational lensing effect, and quantum tunneling behind it all
>but you grab a branch and club a motherfucking deer over the head with it and you now eat
Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:56:40 UTC No. 16439589
>>16439503
thats antideermitic