Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:13:17 UTC No. 16475436

>>16475417
That's an unreasonable goal to set for yourself and probably a fruitless endeavor.

If you really want to self study it, do it for your own personal enjoyment enrichment or because of the secondary benefits from engaging in challenging material. You simply cannot self-study to an equivalent level of mastery as people who spend 60-70 hours a week working on it for 5+ years under the advisement of the smartest professionals in their field.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:27:32 UTC No. 16475447

>>16475436
Don't project yourself in me. I have all the time in the world, I wasn't asking for advice on whether I should follow on it or not but which subjects I should study, if you don't want to contribute to the discussion you're free to ignore the thread and instead reply to the other dozens of threads available. We're not the same.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:13:29 UTC No. 16475496

>>16475447
I'm not projecting myself onto you. I'm telling you that you will fail to meet that standard and you should set a more realistic one.

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:40:34 UTC No. 16475525

>>16475417
Don't listen to this fucker in the reply anon.

Stay away from ANYTHING QUANTUM. it isn't technically physics and non deterministic statistical analysis.

Study the following

Electromagnetism

Newtonian Physics

Thermodynamics

Chaos theory

Material science( like the piezoelectric effect of a quartz crystal or synthetic material)

Integrated circuits

System science( dynamical and linear and non linear systems)

Electromagnetic instruments (telecommunications, radios, radar etc.)

Thermodynamics

Heliophysics

Celestial mechanics/Celestial navigation

Clocks(oscillating frequencies. The pendulum, clocks in relation to timing Electromagnetic frequencies )

Energy. Oil natural gas and it's relation to society

I think this broad overview will give you a near peer understanding of PhD ivy leage level physics.

I would take my time pondering on each subject after reading and relate it to concepts you understand in real life. To get a true understanding of the subjects

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:49:31 UTC No. 16475532

>>16475525
That's really awesome, thank you for the recommends, I'll start looking for good books on them now.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:10:05 UTC No. 16475542

>>16475525
>Stay away from ANYTHING QUANTUM
lmao.

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:20:07 UTC No. 16475548

>>16475542
The quantum theories are a brach of theoretical physics. Which are non expiremental and rely off mathatical proofs.

The measurements are non deterministic and just a more sophisticated version of statistical or probability theory... it has too much jargon that confuses a person not trained in the precise defining parameters of technical language.

Aka the layman

It's kinda useless to get into the quantum

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:36:42 UTC No. 16475563

>>16475525
>Stay away from ANYTHING QUANTUM
>study Material science
Based

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:52:59 UTC No. 16475578

>>16475417
PhD means you pick a niche subfield and git gud at it, so pick a niche subfield and git gud at it.
...Or did you seriously believe it was just classes for 7 years?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:57:31 UTC No. 16475584

>>16475417
It's imperative that you apply your studies if possible. That's how people learn best. Obviously you can't build a particle accelerator, but there's probably other stuff you can do.

Good luck. I followed a similar path but with chemistry.

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:59:02 UTC No. 16475585

>>16475578

A phd can be multidisciplinary. Becoming a subject matter expert on a topic and to write your thesis/dissertation on a subject requires more than a niche understanding.

For example when the is military designs torpedoes they use concepts of biomimicry from penguins. This is not just physics but biology and the anatomy of a penguin.

You must have a vast array of knowledge to become a true expert

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:02:25 UTC No. 16475589

>>16475417
Question is kinda retarded given that a PhD picks a field they like and just go hardcore on the subject, there is no field to study, you could be a phd in QED and be completely clueless about fluid mechanics beyond the basics.

People working on quantum computing often completely forget their classical physics, or sometimes, ironically enough, develop a habit of treating everything as quantum even when studying classical phenomenas.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:04:48 UTC No. 16475591

>>16475532
Look a the text "Text Yourself Physics", by Jakob (((Swichtenberg)))

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:04:52 UTC No. 16475592

>>16475532
What is your math background/experience? You don't need to be a math major to learn more technical physics, but you'll need at least a strong background in calculus, ordinary differential equations, and linear algebra.

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:06:36 UTC No. 16475595

>>16475589
Quantum computing is a scam anon. Ask yourself a simple question. If a measurement is uncertain and unpredictable how can I get a consistent output?

Dumb de dum. . You can't therefore a Quantum computer is impossible.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:26:06 UTC No. 16475613

>>16475447
how about you go to community college, and then get a bachelors degree in physics? that's a good start

anon, how often do you brush your teeth? could you benefit from more teeth brushing?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:28:55 UTC No. 16475618

>>16475592
I’m used to be a math major, but I’m abandoning academia. I’m just gonna study stuff for the pleasure of studying, I’m not gonna be a whore to a corrupt system.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:41:37 UTC No. 16475636

>>16475618
I was asking because it would determine what books I'd recommend. If youre starting from the very beginning with physics, Serway and Jewett's Physics for Scientists and Engineers is very comprehensive, covers the basics of just about everything from a calculus based "entry level physics" perspective and is usually super cheap to get used (~$5 on thriftbooks ATM, not sure about other countries).

That obviously won't get you to PhD level, but it will give you the basics of a wide variety of physics, allowing you to then have a solid foundation for more specific books covering specific topics in greater detail.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:20:49 UTC No. 16475675

>>16475417
Don't listen to all of the shit replies in this thread. You'd be surprised how absolutely shitty and low-brow undergraduate and even masters level academic programs are. It's good you want to learn on your own, because that is the only way you can learn anything ever.

Most of the subjects you mentioned are certainly not entry points. Before anything else, learn a decent amount of math, at the very least to the point where you have a healthy understanding of multivariable calculus and differential equations. Then start with the fundamentals of classical mechanics, such as Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, and so on. Basically everything known before 1900. Once you have a competent understanding of that, dive into quantum by learning about the motivations that lead to the development of the theory, and take it from there as you approach more modern physics. If there's absolutely anything in life that you realize you don't know how it works, go learn how it works. This is a good way to discover new fields to learn about that you didn't know existed.

Read many books on each topic. Study the history surrounding each discovery. This will help you gain intuition of the concept. Never stop revisiting old subjects to brush up on them, you will gain new insight every time you do. Nothing is ever beneath you or behind you. Don't be afraid to veer into adjacent subjects like chemistry and engineering, as there is no clear line where physics ends and those begin. The /sci/ wiki has lists of decent books on a variety of subjects, which should be a good place to begin, but make sure to go beyond that too.

Godspeed anon, self study is a wonderful thing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:56:19 UTC No. 16475716

>>16475618
literally me, heh. I finished an as in math then went into a tech program for electronics, landed in the mic and now they're paying for me to get an as in EE. Go figure

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 05:28:22 UTC No. 16475734

>>16475417
I don't know what your background in math or physics is from highschool or college, but I studied from this text in highschool. It's free and has a lot of depth, but for some topics you might need to already have done some QM.

https://sethna.lassp.cornell.edu/StatMech/

I personally learned QM from Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, and I enjoyed it; pdfs are available online. I also used Taylor classical mechanics. I don't have a lot of perspective on different textbooks, but free is free and if the book works for you then it's a good book.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:03:08 UTC No. 16475845

>>16475417
>What subjects should I study if I want to have knowledge equal to a PhD in physics?
you never will, because PhD-level knowledge is fundamentally unattainable in self-study. Because it isn't about the math you can do or the things you know, but they way you develop new ideas and grind them against your supervisor and the wider scientific community.
It's about doing project work and publishing. If you have a bachelor's or even a master's you already know everything you need to start moving forward, but you do not have the infrastructure to get anywhere

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:07:39 UTC No. 16476105

>>16475845
You don’t know shit about academia.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:36:56 UTC No. 16476140

>>16476105
He (>>16475845) is more right than anyone else in the thread

t. Tenure track researcher in GR

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:16:13 UTC No. 16476238

>>16476105
You do not have a PhD. You have not done any independent research. You have published nothing.
You know nothing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:21:58 UTC No. 16476248

First take an IQ test to determine if it's worthwhile, anything sub 125 and you should focus on more concrete subjects

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:26:38 UTC No. 16476258

>>16476105
So what, in your mind, does it mean to get a doctorate? What does the title mean? What is the difference between someone with a PhD and someone without one?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:39:01 UTC No. 16476286

>>16476248
My IQ is 110 according to a psychologist, but according to mensa dk it’s 130. I personally think the mensa test is more trustworthy.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:41:02 UTC No. 16476295

>>16476258
The difference is that someone is a whore to a corrupt system that rewards robots without creativity or critical thinking while the other is a free thinker, an innovator, someone with actual potential to contribute with something actually meaningful to math and science. Now go back to studying your hyper specialized shit that only you and your advisor can understand while you pretend that’s something revolutionary to your field.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:47:22 UTC No. 16476302

>>16476286
Lol
Nah iq tests are meant to be administered by a shrink... the mensa one is a partial test that only covers pattern recognition too
Sorry bro you can still make bank majoring in finance or smth

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:03:24 UTC No. 16476326

>>16476295
>The difference is that someone is a whore to a corrupt system that rewards robots without creativity or critical thinking while the other is a free thinker, an innovator, someone with actual potential to contribute with something actually meaningful to math and science.
So, what have you contributed? Have you published ANYTHING at all?

An infinitely niche and borderline incomprehensible work is more of a contribution than nothing. It is infinitely more revolutionary than nothing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:05:32 UTC No. 16476331

>>16476295
I don't really care about any of that, I got a phd to make more money and get more cushy positions

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:15:29 UTC No. 16476354

>>16476326
Well that’s why I created the thread, to get recommendations on what to study, you fucking moron.
>>16476331
Like I said, you’re just a whore with no self-respect.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:18:45 UTC No. 16476359

>>16476354
You have very strong opinions about doctorates, why is that?
Do you have an undergraduate degree?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:30:58 UTC No. 16476379

>>16476359
No. College is a liberal indoctrination center and time spent there has a negative correlation with intelligence.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:33:18 UTC No. 16476381

>>16476359
I quit midway through. I Just hated that whole environment, all the fake people who pretend to be your friends while badmouthing you behind your back, the professors with holier-than-thou attitudes who think they’re always right no matter the subject, the constant mental masturbation. It’s all too tiresome. It’s not an environment for someone who values morality, honor and is passionate about knowledge like me.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:35:16 UTC No. 16476385

>>16476381
Fundamentally I agree, but you talk like a fag lol

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:36:04 UTC No. 16476387

>>16476381
Nigga that's human nature. Get over yourself. Stop acting like your above other people. Nigga by your own admission you quit. Didn't have the guts to finish. So your unqualified to make any negative statements

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:36:11 UTC No. 16476388

>>16476381
Holy shit called it lol

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:06:50 UTC No. 16476423

>>16475417
How do will I know if I will be more interested generally relativity, and therefore should major in aerospace engineering

or if I will be more interested in quantum mechanics, and should major in electrical engineering?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:25:54 UTC No. 16476448

>>16475417
A PhD doesn’t say anything about a person’s knowledge of the overarching subject. Physics is one of the best examples. Experimental physics PhDs have less knowledge of physics than a bachelor, because they’d spent the past 3-5 years either doing engineering or statistics instead of physics. There is no point going to experimental talks as a theorist because they politely tell you to fuck off when you start asking them physics questions instead of the usual engineering questions.

Theory isn’t much better. Every theory subfield is an echo chamber with zero communication with other subfields. There’s also fuckall to do as experiment is always behind. This was neatly summarized by Feynman all the way back in the 60s in his comment about GR (little did he know, particle physics would become the same soon)
>Because there are no experiments the field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are host of dopes here…
>…The “work” is always
>(1) completely un-understandable,
>(2) vague and idefinite,
>(3) something correct that is obvious and self-evident, but worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or
>(4) a claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument with convince the idiot),
>(5) an attempty to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed at the end fails, and
>(6) just plain wrong.
>There is a great deal of “activity in the field” these days, but this “activity” is mainly in showing that the previous “activity” of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in something promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:28:49 UTC No. 16476452

>>16476448
Tell me more. And recommend me subjects to study.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:34:24 UTC No. 16476463

>>16475417
Burn this heretic.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:34:32 UTC No. 16476464

>>16476452
Study whatever subjects you want. I am currently studying representation theory of locally compact groups only because I believe that subject is grossly overlooked in QFT, which results in people making contrived arguments for things that are manifest to those who have a modicum of knowledge of the subject. Yet I don’t know any plasma physics, for example.

Do whatever you want, anon. If you really like physics, that is, and aren’t a performative “le high IQ” cunt like 95% of the grad students, postdocs and professors I had the displeasure of dealing with. Self-study is great as you can really focus on something you want to do instead of being under constant pressure for not publishing a new paper on that hot new trendy topic that will be forgotten the next year.

What are your strengths and passions?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:44:10 UTC No. 16476476

>>16476379
>>16476381
So you couldn't make it.
There is no need to come up with snappy insults, because you already said everything yourself. You are too incompetent and weak and you will never amount to anything.
You don't even know what the environment is like, because you never managed to get into that environment.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:46:11 UTC No. 16476481

>>16476354
>you’re just a whore with no self-respect.
I am someone who makes good money working from home 3 days a week, working 25 hours on a 40 hour postdoc salary contract.
I will gladly be a whole with no self-repsect, if this is what it gets me.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:51:16 UTC No. 16476489

>>16476476
>you le failed because you left on your own volition
>you don’t know anything unlike my august self. I have a papal bull with my name on it with a fancy word “Doctor” in front, so I’m right and you’re wrong.
NTA but people like you is the reason I quit too. You sound exactly like my advisor. It was impossible to have a productive socratic dialogue with him. He was always right; I was always wrong. There was no intelligent exchange of ideas, but constant appeal to authority and fairy tales about oh how hard my advisor had it so I should shut up and suffer like him. Extremely narcissistic, toxic and anti-intellectual environment.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:56:18 UTC No. 16476496

>>16476489
If you couldn't make it, you couldn't make it. Not everyone can do it. I am sure you are very intelligent and very skilled, but if you can't accept the emotional burden of being the junior partner in the relationship you will struggle in every endeavor, whether that's academia or industry.
Of course, you'd also struggle with that as a bricklayer.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:57:48 UTC No. 16476500

>>16476464
I like abstract algebra, linear algebra and related fields. In physics I like studying about the nature of time, particles and the nature of celestial objects.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:00:22 UTC No. 16476504

>>16476496
I have worked in the industry since. The main difference between industry and academia is that there’s no cushy tenure and no daddy government to spoonfeed you. So the people on top are actual competent people who know how to manage their staff. Not manchildren who throw hissy fits whenever their underlings dare to question them. That’s the major difference. People in the academia are in their own parallel world with their own bizarre bootcamp mentality, whereas the real world with, you know, profit margins and revenue targets doesn’t have the space for all that pointless hazing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:00:34 UTC No. 16476505

>>16475525
This is not the equivalent of a PhD or even a Masters in physics, but more like a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering. Physics is much more than that shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:03:36 UTC No. 16476507

>>16476500
What’s your self-assessment of your knowledge of GR and QFT? I want to know to suggest something appropriate.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:05:58 UTC No. 16476511

>>16476507
None, I only read Young & Freedman’s University Physics.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:12:36 UTC No. 16476524

>>16476511
Well, you have a long way to go then. I suggest you start with the undergrad basics: Taylor’s Classical Mechanics, Griffiths EM and QM, and Schroeder’s Thermodynamics. Then you do the whole schtick again but with grad textbooks: Goldstein for CM, Jackson for EM, Sakurai for QM and Huang for statmech. Once you’re done with those, you get to pick from a selection of textbooks on GR and QFT. IMO Weinberg’s Gravitation and Srednicki’s QFT books are the best introductory texts for the mathematically inclined. After that, you’re free to dig through papers (use scihub) and additional textbooks to pursue your own thing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:21:22 UTC No. 16476549

>>16476504
You will find that academia is a lot more cutthroat and a lot less cushy than industry. It's much harder to your hands on project money at a university compared to the way it is in industry. But you don't know this, because you never reached the level where you'd be confronted with getting your hands on funding.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:33:57 UTC No. 16476575

>>16476549
It’s “cutthroat” for all the wrong reasons that I’ve listed. People who crawl their way to the top aren’t there for their merit or intellectual capacity. It’s always their connections, the name of a university on their piece of paper or how willing they are to do meaningless research that is in vogue with the DoE. It’s a very anti-intellectual environment as I’ve already stated, because none of these things have to do with curiosity and scientific reasoning. The amount of truly talented people I’ve seen give talks seemed to be uncorrelated to their institution or their personal clout. And, unfortunately, those people are in the minority and are shunned by their colleagues for daring to question the status quo. Your entire argumentation so far boils down to “I’m better than you bro, it’s le difficult”. Nothing about actual intellectual merit. What an amazing way to prove my point.

I’m not saying industry is this perfect merit-based system where the cream of the crop consists of the noblest souls. But there’s way more pressure on the system when it has to support itself. You don’t see any political activism or DEI crap in small-to-middle scale industry jobs, none of that show off mentality. The fact that the whole company is under constant strain for money means that there’s a lot more skill-based selection and camaraderie going on. Notice how none of this involves begging daddy government for grants, so the difficulty isn’t external and superficial like it is in the academia. A company is much less hierarchical and clergy-like for this exact reason. The people are a lot less insufferable too.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:05:29 UTC No. 16476623

>>16476575
I think you both deliberately misunderstand what I am saying (guess that's why your supervisor went with the "you don't know shit" approach) and you just don't know.

>It’s always their connections
But industry is the same. You get a job by knowing people there, you get a better job by having people know you. It's how the game is played.
It's just that the pieces you're shuffling around are a little different. Whether that's a grant application to a government agency or a project proposal to management. It's all the same thing, you're trying to convince people that they should give you money so you can do the thing you do.
Research in industry is of course more focussed, but there's plenty of room for "please give two million dollars to do a thing", once you have shown yourself to be capable in a PI role.

>The amount of truly talented people I’ve seen give talks seemed to be uncorrelated to their institution or their personal clout.
Yes, there are skilled people at weaker universities and that are not known (yet).

>unfortunately, those people are in the minority and are shunned by their colleagues for daring to question the status quo.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but why would you expect people to be grateful if you're rocking the boat?
If you are truly talented, you can read the room and understand how to voice your discontent without making enemies.

>Your entire argumentation so far boils down to “I’m better than you bro, it’s le difficult”.
No, it's "you couldn't make it and you are bitter because of it". It's not difficult, it's actually quite easy. But social skills are important, being good at making people like you is very important.
It'a not about intellectual merit, everyone is roughly equal there.

>the whole company is under constant strain for money
Academia has signifcantly less money than industry and it is much harder to get stable access to money.

Universities are very different once you actually work there.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:15:33 UTC No. 16476636

>>16476623
>It's all the same thing
You have clearly never worked in the industry. There’s a lot less ass licking going on. There are two types of connections in the industry: internal and external. Internal is just about your ability to communicate with your coworkers. External is about customer and supplier connections. Nobody fucking cares about you going to Harvard or MIT if you can’t do your job. There’s a lot less leeching going on.
>please give two million dollars to do a thing
You see, that’s the crucial difference. Nobody does that in the industry. You get that two million dollars by providing a service. And if your service is shit, you ain’t getting that money no matter how many connections you have or how silver-tongued you are.
>why would you expect people to be grateful if you're rocking the boat
because actual science is about scepticism and not religious dogmatism and authority worship
>It'a not about intellectual merit, everyone is roughly equal there.
precisely. It’s not a place of learning or a place for the intellectual elite. It’s a place for government rats. And I can’t stand government rats. I am happy where I am now because the modus operandi of private industry is entirely different unlike your claims.
>Academia has signifcantly less money
It’s not about the amount but the source. See my point about providing a service. Academia doesn’t provide any services. It’s paid via citizens’ taxes without their direct consent. The way you get money is essentially by begging. The resulting environment is has a lot more toxic grifters.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:24:57 UTC No. 16476643

>>16476636
>There’s a lot less ass licking going on.
But there is none in academia either. It's just about publishing.

>Nobody fucking cares about you going to Harvard or MIT if you can’t do your job.
and you're not gonna last very long at MIT or Harvard if you don't publish anything.

>because actual science is about scepticism and not religious dogmatism and authority worship
Yes, but it is about how you express this and how you fight people about it, even people in higher positions than you, hierarchically. It requires a certain touch to walk up to someone asking them for a meeting in which you pick apart their work that you believe to be fundamentally flawed. And then walk away with a win in your pocket and the other party not hating you anymore. It requires delicacy.

>It’s not a place of learning or a place for the intellectual elite
Why would it be? It's a job, not an intellectual daycare.

>I am happy where I am now because the modus operandi of private industry is entirely different unlike your claims.
That's not true and you admitted that you have no experience to say otherwise.

>Academia doesn’t provide any services.
It does provide a service, the service is called research. And you might say that you don't care about this research or deem it to be unimportant. That's fine. But the people who make these funding decisions disagree.

>The way you get money is essentially by begging.
Yes and why should they choose you, rather than anyone else? Because you have a track record of providing the service (quality publications in high impact journals). Many research groups get paid by industry to do research. Literally selling their research as a service in exchange for money and the permission to then publish this research.

You don't know how academia operates. You just think you do, but you failed to ever see it for yourself, so you take secondhand accounts as gospel.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:26:42 UTC No. 16476646

What an insufferable thread. People who fetishize institutional accreditation ruin things for the few who actually enjoy their work. These days its typically an indian or chinese trait.

>t. masters in physics

OP, here's something that hasn't been mentioned ITT yet: learn statistical mechanics and then go into information theory from there. It's neat, and will change the way you view every other field. Also study condensed matter physics if you want to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and the stuff you actually see happen in daily life.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:35:18 UTC No. 16476655

>>16476643
>But there is none in academia either
Niggaaa please. You have retarded practices like spousal hires. Nigga pleeeease.
>and you're not gonna last very long at MIT or Harvard if you don't publish anything.
that’s another problem that I haven’t commented on. Quantity over quality. The best papers I’ve read were all from 1930-1980s and were all less than 20 pages long. And they always at more 10 reference. Compare this with any of today’s paper: 80 pages of meaningless crap that has a 5 page bibliography yet is unreadable because the author expects you to be familiar with all that bibliography. We all know why people do this: le citations and le publish or perish. Is this healthy for the scientific climate? Not at all. I have personally talked to my advisor about how premature any publishing on the g-2 anomaly would be since it was only 4.2 sigma. He didn’t care. He just excluded me from the project and published yet another crappy paper with his other grad students. All those papers are forgotten now, just after a year. Great ethics, I must say.
>Why would it be?
Because it used to be this way when it was landed gentry doing it for fun. Before it became a commie government shithole where “it’s just a job” and “everyone is equal”. Nobody is equal to Einstein or Dirac, let’s be fucking honest.
>the service is called research
Is there a store I can go to and buy research? Do I need it in my daily life? No and no. It’s not a service. It used to be an intellectual endeavour for the aristocratic elite before being turned into yet another government institution leeching tax money.
>they choose you
I don’t have to beg to someone for them to choose me. In a private company, people choose your service for everything but begging. Pathetic behavior that also explains why academia is ripe with soi types and manchildren.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:40:48 UTC No. 16476662

>>16476646
>statistical mechanics
I had feeling this would be very important, but I tried ignoring it since I hated statistics and probability when I was doing that course. What book would you recommend?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:42:26 UTC No. 16476665

>>16475563
Material science is all quantum these days.

>t. Chemchad

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:42:59 UTC No. 16476668

>>16476646
>solid state
just create your own subdepartment in engineering and fuck off. Fucking hate cunts like you who prefer le applications over gaining understanding of natural phenomena. Retarded engineers who think they’re physicists because they use quantum mechanics in their research.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:51:40 UTC No. 16476691

>>16476655
I guess this is you accepting defeat, since you have now resorted to screeching insults and whining. So let's wrap this up:

>You have retarded practices like spousal hires.
you're not gonna get the guy you want (based on their perceived merit) to move across the world for you, if their wife has to quit her own well-paid job (academics often come in pairs, because they meet at university), you to give her something nice too. It's only good hiring practice.

>Quantity over quality
This is the problem of academia. It's not quantity over quality. It's quantity AND quality. You need to publish a lot of highly cited papers, especially at presitigious universities. Most indexing systems take into account the number of papers, but also the number of citations.

>The best papers I’ve read were all from 1930-1980s and were all less than 20 pages long.
>And they always at more 10 reference.
You get plenty of those today. It's just that they'll be in garbage journals, because the standards are much higher now.

>80 pages of meaningless crap that has a 5 page bibliography yet is unreadable because the author expects you to be familiar with all that bibliography
This is what happens as things become more advanced, they have a larger burden of prerequisite knowledge.

>He didn’t care.
Maybe you should have argued better. You probably didn't make a good argument why it should be delayed. What there is to be gained in doing so. And if you don't wanna be on the project, why should you be on the project?

>Nobody is equal to Einstein or Dirac
There were a lot of very loosely hanging fruit during those early days. You're just engaging in hero worship.

>It used to be an intellectual endeavour for the aristocratic elite
I think you like the idea of research, but not any of the menial work.

>I don’t have to beg to someone for them to choose me
It's called a "job application", you'd know if you had ever gotten a job. People certainly weren't lining up to hire a dropout.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:13:32 UTC No. 16476744

>>16476691
>defeat
I thought both of you were retarded, but after you revealed your true values I think you're the bigger retard now.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:24:31 UTC No. 16476757

>>16476691
>It's only good hiring practice.
It’s not equal opportunity employment. And the guy you want can go suck a dick if that means his leech of a wife gets to steal the position of someone deserving. It’s a very dishonest practice.
>It’s quantity AND quality. You need to publish a lot of highly cited papers
citations =/= quality. The most cited paper in HEP theory is a niche result called AdS/CFT. It’s only practical applications are for extremely specific 2D systems in solid state. I can name you 20 papers with less citations that were much higher quality. For example, Wigner’s paper on Poincare group representations literally created a new technique in math that has been applied to the entire field of group theory since. Not that’s quality. I don’t even care how many citations it has.
>It's just that they'll be in garbage journals, because the standards are much higher now.
A good paper will be in a garbage journal? Bruh. I guess people like Dirac would be flipping burgers today.
>This is what happens as things become more advanced, they have a larger burden of prerequisite knowledge.
“An idiot admires complexity; a genius admires simplicity. If you make something so clusterfucked an idiot can’t understand it, he’s gonna think you’re a god.”
Terry A Davis
>You probably didn't make a good argument why it should be delayed
Nigger, the argument is literally “5 sigma is the standard in the field and your premature bullshit is the reason why laymen think we’re crackpots”. Can’t get better than that.
>There were a lot of very loosely hanging fruit during those early days
Massive cope.

Anyways, I have no more desire to respond to your posts. You’re a nigger picking cotton at a field who thinks he’s the shit because his job is hard and he’s good at begging his massa for gibs. I hate niggers and that’s why I quit your paper plantation. Have fun being a mindless busy bee.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:45:41 UTC No. 16476794

>>16475417
>knowledge equal to a PhD in physics
A PhD in principle involves specializing to the point that you can get the gist of current papers and contribute original research. This is harder than you think for the kind of theoretical physics you seem to want to work in. Try looking at arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new and see what you would be expected to deal with.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:58:06 UTC No. 16476816

>>16476744
>your true values
Which are what exactly? What are my true values that I revealed?

>>16476757
>It’s not equal opportunity employment.
No, it's not. But if that's the incentive that's needed to poach the guy you want, what are you gonna do? Not hire the guy?

>citations =/= quality
Then how do you measure quality in a somewhat impartial way?

>The most cited paper in HEP theory is a niche result called AdS/CFT.
>It’s only practical applications are for extremely specific 2D systems in solid state.
I wonder why practical applications might be of interest for some people.

>Wigner’s paper on Poincare group representations literally created a new technique in math that has been applied to the entire field of group theory since.
Well, a lot of people will be citing that then, if it has so many APPLICATIONS. If it is so useful for people. They'll use it and cite it and they'll get reviewers telling them to cite it if they use it and they don't.

>A good paper will be in a garbage journal?
A paper that is small in scope and fails to discuss the relevant literature? I think you won't publish this in a good journal.

>the argument is literally “5 sigma is the standard in the field and your premature bullshit is the reason why laymen think we’re crackpots”.
This is a bad argument, because why do you care what laymen think? They don't even know what a sigma is. Who gives a shit? If you're fast and it is something as good as it could potentially be, you have a smashing success of a paper. The incetive to wait would be something along the lines of "we need to do some more work and then we can get a better paper". You are not thinking like someone who ever understood what the work you are doing is.

>Massive cope.
You don't think so?
During those times there were a lot of open questions with lots of avenues towards solutions. Just shake the tree and pick up some fruit.

>Have fun being a mindless busy bee.
I hope you are very successful in your bricklaying as well.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:40:45 UTC No. 16476890

>>16476655
Anon, there is a graceful way to cope with failure, and a retarded way. Quietly accept defeat, and just pick a damn subject already. If they're as worthless and full of shit as you say they are, you'll be able to prove it so in a couple of years.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:50:04 UTC No. 16476974

>>16476665
I know, that's why namefag is so funny

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:47:21 UTC No. 16477104

>>16476890
There is no defeat when you quit out of sheer disgust. It's like going to a party expecting it to be a blast just to discover that it sucks.
>pick a damn subject already
The problem isn't the subject at all. I love physics and have been passionate about it since childhood. It's the people like the retard I'm responding to. Mindless bugs who only care about churning out papers and sniffing their farts. Have you seen any of his posts mention actual fascination with Nature and its inner workings? Fuck no, the guy is doing it because he derives pleasure from sitting in his ivory tower and telling everyone about how august and noble his profession is and how I only didn't make it because I'm not good enough.

I come from a blue collar background myself and faggots like him would get treated like the arrogant little pansies they are. Which is why they isolate themselves in their libtarded echo chambers and scoff at the outside. The sheer fucking brashness of saying
>because why do you care what laymen think?
YOU LIVE OFF OF PEOPLE'S TAXES YOU UTTER BUFFOON. DO NOT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS. Fucking mental. These are the things I had heard constantly and it made my blood boil. Delusional government rats.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:56:11 UTC No. 16477446

>>16475417
Just get this book and start working.
When youre done, get Electricity and Magnetism by Purcell.
Youll probably get filtered or bored before finishing both so there no point in planning further until you finish them.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:26:19 UTC No. 16477474

>>16475417
You should study this. a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review.
https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:27:20 UTC No. 16477476

>>16475525
Hey bruh. This. a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review.
https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:28:21 UTC No. 16477478

>>16475542
Underrated movie. a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review.
https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared>>16475584
>>16475578
>>16475589

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:32:36 UTC No. 16477479

>>16475595
I know how to make quantum computers work, but, murderbot ai kills everyone. Oh and btw. a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review.
https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 06:01:47 UTC No. 16477527

>>16476668
Do you really think that condensed matter is just semiconductor devices? How is, for example, learning why states of matter change at certain temperatures not gaining understanding of natural phenomena?

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:11:38 UTC No. 16477594

>>16475417
Physics is broad, start with the basics then work outwards while identifying what you are interested in.

Stay away from quantum until you are ready, it has the capacity to one-shot someone who isn't philisophically prepared and you will spend the rest of your life yelling "QUANNTTUMM" at people

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:18:59 UTC No. 16477629

>>16477104
>Have you seen any of his posts mention actual fascination with Nature and its inner workings?
It's not the subject of the discussion, so why would you expect it to come up?

>I come from a blue collar background myself
>faggots like him would get treated like the arrogant little pansies they are.
An odd thing to say, when I explicitly treat academic work like an unglamorous blue collar job. You just get uoset, because it doesn't gel with your, "intellectual pursuit for the elite" perception of it.

>YOU LIVE OFF OF PEOPLE'S TAXES YOU UTTER BUFFOON.
Most of my money comes from industry.

You are making a lot of assumptions about things, despite not really knowing how things work. This was the subject of the discussion, you complaining about things without knowing anything about them.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:38:46 UTC No. 16477661

>>16475525
retard take

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:44:34 UTC No. 16477665

>>16475417
Good, you will realize General Relativity is unnecessarily bloated and in odds with QM just because they didn't want to give up on relative spacetime, so while the two-way speed of light is constant they let the one-way speed of light go nuts resulting in all kinds of bad Juju.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:49:17 UTC No. 16477667

>>16477629
>This was the subject of the discussion, you complaining about things without knowing anything about them.
According to you, apparently. Because you mentally filter out any inconveniences and end up saying shit like
>who care if its not 5 sigma
>who cares about being the intellectual elite
>who cares about meritocracy
>who cares about hiring someone because they spread their legs to a guy we want
>who cares about the laymen
>I care about publication “quality” (how much social approval I get in the form of citations)
>I care about equality
>I care about just coming to my work every day and churning out trash for 60 years until I retire
>God Bless America and Protestantism
No offense, but you sound so American saying these things. It’s why the only scientists of note to ever come out of your soulless country are all Jews or East Asians.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:57:46 UTC No. 16477676

>>16477667
The real world isn't a comfortable model. It's very messy and chaotic. You can't expect things to be universal in the real world.

To go through all of these complaints about things I said:
>who care if its not 5 sigma
If it is an extremely improbably deviation, it might be significant, even if it not the usual 5 sigma.

>who cares about being the intellectual elite
I don't, it's a job. I am anti-elitist. Unlike you. You worship a fictional academia as something that is more than it is.

>who cares about meritocracy
The world is not meritocratic. So why pretend?

>who cares about hiring someone because they spread their legs to a guy we want
Why is that an issue? You need incentives to convince people. You might disagree with the specific incentive, but you cannot fault the reasoning.

>who cares about the laymen
Who does care about the laymen, they are so far from the subject that they cannot even comprehend what you are doing or why it might matter. Things are difficult now and they were a hundred years ago. Explain the photoelectric effect to a layman in 1905 and see what they think about that. Laymen are irrelevant.

>I care about publication “quality” (how much social approval I get in the form of citations)
That is the metric that is accepted, therefore it is what is used. If you do not like the game, that is fine. But it is how the game is played.

>I care about equality
I never said that.

>I care about just coming to my work every day and churning out trash for 60 years until I retire
Another day, another dollar.

>God Bless America and Protestantism
I also never said that.

I think you are just upset that I do not have an emotional connection to the work I do.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:07:49 UTC No. 16477681

>>16477676
>even if it not the usual 5 sigma
It’s the industry standard. If you don’t adhere to your own standards, then you’re an unprincipled moron and I want nothing to do with you.
>I am anti-elitist
Yeah, I gathered. Very American.
>So why pretend?
Because people (Americans aren’t people) have an inner sense of justice. Americans don’t have one so you compensate with your overzealous courts.
>Why is that an issue?
See above. There is no honor or justice in being a prostitute. No respect for such scum. You are tricking grad students into working for a glorified whore instead of a talented individual (see elitism)
>You need incentives to convince people
See my point about principles.
>That is the metric that is accepted, therefore it is what is used
Very individualistic and sceptical of you. A true scientist. Don’t think for yourself, just play the game and go with the flow. What a golem mindset.
>I think you are just upset that I do not have an emotional connection to the work I do
Yes, because only those with a passion for the subject produce great things. And those who are just bugs going through the motions (you) are literal trash who infest and ruin everything they touch. Newton was so passionate about his craft that he routinely forgot to sleep and eat. Will you ever amount to anything without this attitude? No, but the job pays and you’re an American who only values money. Appalling state of things.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:46:13 UTC No. 16477704

>>16477681
>It’s the industry standard
Maybe the standard needs to be revised. Maybe it doesn't. By discussing such deviations that are close to the standard, it helps make such decisions. Perhaps the level of proof is not sufficient, but it could be an indicator all the same and lead to a discovery that is within the standard later on.

All things are flexible and malleable. Principles and standards do not exist to make you unable to act.

>Very American.
It's very funny how 40 years ago you'd have looked at it in a different way.

>Because people have an inner sense of justice
And the world does not. The world is unjust and unkind. So why should we delude ourselves into thinking otherwise?

>See my point about principles.
It's how the game is played. You can scream and cry, but you're not gonna change the game.

>just play the game and go with the flow.
If you want to succeed at the game, you have to accept the rules. If citations are what people care about, then I will make work that people want to cite.

>A true scientist
>Newton was so passionate about his craft that he routinely forgot to sleep and eat.
Again, you are engaging in hero worship. You are the one who treats the sciences as some transcendental, religious experience, when this hasn't been the case since the 1930s.
The world we live in today is completely unlike the world of Newton. Of Einstein, Dirac, all of your heroes you read about in pop science books. They all lived in a very different world.

And you can say that you don't like that science is now just "work", rather than religion. But things change. The extraordinary becomes ordinary with time.

>those with a passion for the subject produce great things
Nobody today produces "great things". It's always the effort of a large team. Cooperation is key.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:01:24 UTC No. 16477712

>>16477704
>All things are flexible and malleable
Very effeminate way of thinking.
>So why should we delude ourselves into thinking otherwise?
Because we have an inner desire for justice. That’s why that word exists. That’s why we have law and courts, etc.
> If citations are what people care about, then I will make work that people want to cite
I care about Nature first and foremost because I’m a physicist. The word physics is Greek for Nature or Cause. Doesn’t have the word “people” in it. If you’re measuring your success via people and not Nature, you’re not a physicist.
>The world we live in today is completely unlike the world of Newton. Of Einstein, Dirac, all of your heroes you read about in pop science books. They all lived in a very different world.
Translation invariance says otherwise. Speaking of religion and the intrinsic Christian desire for progress. The world is the same, the society is different. The society shuns brilliance in favor of mediocrity. I apparently engage in “hero worship” when I point out a simple fact that people like Newton were exceptional. You hate that because exceptional people can’t be equal to others.
>Nobody today produces "great things"
Precisely. How could you when your community consists of passionless bugs working in hives… excuse me, “large teams”? And you seem to have no problem with that because you’re a bug yourself. A midwit with no desire for something higher than the mundane. Just crank the wheel, cooperate, don’t question the status quo and play the game. Good goy.

You don’t even realize that if people like Newton and Einstein were to play the game, we wouldn’t even have classical and relativistic mechanics respectively. But acknowledging this is hero worship apparently. Good grief, thank God I quit that soulless prison.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:12:28 UTC No. 16477715

>>16477712
>Very effeminate way of thinking.
Trying to insult me for not being autistc like you are. Nice.

>I’m a physicist
Are you? You don't seem like much of one.

>If you’re measuring your success via people and not Nature, you’re not a physicist.
This is just like your opinion, my man
Nature isn't gonna tell you that your work is relevant, because nature doesn't talk to you.
And the world is much too complicated for simple solutions to work today.

>Translation invariance says otherwise
You're just saying words now.

>people like Newton were exceptional
Again, I ask you in all honesty: Were they?
Or was the world just a much simpler place with more open questions that had clear paths towards solutions that you just had to invest some time into solving?
If Newton hadn't come up with classical mechanics, someone else would have. If Einstein hadn't come up with relativistic mechanics, someone else would have. They're not special. They just were in the right place at the right time, pursuing the right ideas.
I realize that you don't want to hear this, because it feels bad. But progress is stochastic, even Newton recognized this hundreds of years ago. "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

>How could you when your community consists of passionless bugs working in hives… excuse me, “large teams”?
Your beloved Einstein and Dirac did not work alone. Everyone during those times knew each other and spoke and corresponded constantly.

It's always been cooperation, but you want science to be a competition. You want grand heroes, not humble workers.

>thank God I quit that soulless prison
Of course, industry has so much more "soul". Now please, son. My bricks need a new coating to make them 5% less water permeable.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:14:28 UTC No. 16477716

>>16477715
t. Bug

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:14:49 UTC No. 16477717

>>16477716
I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:21:20 UTC No. 16477721

>>16477712
>it made a distinction between people and nature
Jew spotted.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:32:20 UTC No. 16477724

>>16477721
The Jewish, trannies and sfg nerds are a blight on their board.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:39:22 UTC No. 16477729

Mouf

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:47:20 UTC No. 16477733

>>16477446
Those are undergrad level, I already studied the entirety of Young & Freedman’s University Physics.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:57:19 UTC No. 16477739

>>16477715
>because nature doesn't talk to you
holy projection
>You're just saying words now
It really doesn’t talk to you it seems. Can’t even put two things together, Mr GR man. Publishing papers on a subject without understanding the underlying implications.
> Again, I ask you in all honesty: Were they? Or was the world just a much simpler place
The world was the same and will be the same. Just because something is obvious to you doesn’t mean it was 300 years ago. There’s nothing simple about inventing calculus from scratch and going against the 2000 year old Aristotelean view of the world. It requires exceptional ability, something you seem to actively loathe.
>If Newton hadn't come up with classical mechanics, someone else would have
Someone of Newton’s calibre. Someone exceptional. You really seem to think I worship the person. I don’t. I am simply pointing out the fact that great strides are made by great men. Their names and personal biographies are irrelevant. What isn’t irrelevant is their exceptionality.
>but you want science to be a competition
I never said that. I want science to be an elite endeavour. Only those who have true passion and ability should be allowed to do it. Morons who “go with the flow” only poison the well.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 13:08:01 UTC No. 16477745

>>16477739
>The world was the same and will be the same
the material conditions of today are completely incomparable to even the material conditions of just 30 years ago.

>There’s nothing simple about inventing calculus from scratch
Who is Leibniz?

>something you seem to actively loathe
Or maybe I just don't think it's that exceptional.

>I am simply pointing out the fact that great strides are made by great men
This is your perspective on science.
Meanwhile, I believe it to be a bunch of little men throwing little rocks onto a pile until it is large and stable enough for someone to climb the pile and see a new reason to pile up rocks for. As Newton put it, standing on the shoulders of giants.

>I want science to be an elite endeavour.
One you are not a part of and never can be. You are a cuckold, essentially.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 13:58:17 UTC No. 16477782

>>16477745
>le material conditions
People are the same despite these conditions. There are great men and there are little men. It was the case 30 years ago and 2000 years ago. Still the case today.
>Who is Leibniz?
A great man. Something incomprehensible to you, because you still can’t get the point.
>I believe it to be a bunch of little men
Of course you believe this. You’re that little man coalescing together with little men to resentfully pretend like you can compare. And your yardstick isn’t the work’s content, but citations and prestigious journals. What’s Galois’ h-index? Sounds like an irrelevant guy. Didn’t even publish anything.
>As Newton put it, standing on the shoulders of giants.
Yeah, giants. Not little men. Euler is a giant. Some bug slaving away for monkey social points in the form of citations isn’t a giant in any way.
>One you are not a part of and never can be
Neither are you. At least I have the balls to admit it. Your government rat nest is the farthest from that world, I can assure you. All these posts of yours are a proof of that.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:20:05 UTC No. 16477811

>>16475417
Earning a PhD isn’t just reading books and working problems, it’s also the insights and wisdom gained through the experiences along the way, which isn’t something you can replicate on your own.

>>16475447
>I have all the time in the world
Oh, OP… no, you really don’t.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:37:24 UTC No. 16477823

>>16477782
>People are the same despite these conditions.
>Still the case today.
Prove it.
Show me that this is true. You fancy yourself a scientist despite being unable to make it, so go on and show me that your assertion is true.

>There are great men and there are little men.
And you my friend are a little man, you are little man looking up at those big men thinking "I could never do anything like that". Your own ideology exists only to cuckold you.
Why not look at those great men and understand how they could do such things.

>you still can’t get the point
You are missing the point. Why mention Leibniz? Because he also came up with calculus, independent of Newton. And if it wasn't either of the two, there'd be another guy who came up with it. This is what I mean when I say that progress is stochastic. Someone will progress things.

>What’s Galois’ h-index?
Why would you hold someone from the early 19th century to today's standards? Publishing in those days certainly wasn't what it is today. It seems like you might be retaded.

>Yeah, giants. Not little men.
A bunch of dwarves in a trenchcoat also make for a giant.

>Euler is a giant
All Euler's accomplishments would've been made by others had he died in a ditch in 1720. Progress is not made by great men, progress is stochastic.

>At least I have the balls to admit it.
I refuse their existence entirely. Of course I am no great man, because such a thing does not exist. There are no great men.

Also, I think it is odd how you completely ignored my remarks about your views of science as a religion where you worship a wide cadre of saints.

>All these posts of yours are a proof of that
And all these posts of yours are proof that you are bitter that you couldn't make it.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:02:24 UTC No. 16477838

>>16477823
>Prove it.
Evolutionary timescales are much greater than 30 years, my man. I thought that’s obvious.
>Why not look at those great men and understand how they could do such things
Understanding someone isn’t the same as being that thing. It’s not a skill you learn. A person with Down syndrome will never produce any intellectual work of note.
>Someone will progress things.
>All Euler's accomplishments would've been made by others had he died in a ditch in 1720
And you still don’t understand that that someone isn’t a bug mindlessly churning out papers. They have an inner drive beyond money and social approval. Spinoza literally got himself expelled from his community because of that drive. Why are you so resistant to admit this? Not everyone is born great. Not everyone can replace Euler, Newton or Dirac. Only a tiny little percentage of people have the capacity. The elite.
>Why would you hold someone from the early 19th century to today's standards
I repeat. Translation invariance. Saying “things are different now” is a gigacope. There is only one standard: depth of content.
>A bunch of dwarves in a trenchcoat also make for a giant.
kek is this what you tell yourself to sleep better at night? No, they’re a bunch of dwarves in a trenchcoat.
>I refuse their existence entirely. Of course I am no great man, because such a thing does not exist. There are no great men.
Diagnosis: utter libtardation of the brain. No known cure.
>Also, I think it is odd how you completely ignored…
Because you completely misinterpreted my point. Because you mentally throw away the idea that some men are better than others. “It cannot be. Of course, it cannot. No, we’re all equal little men bugging away in our communal hive. You cannot be greater than me because you just can’t.” Any such notion is immediately projected as “hero worship” or “saint worship” because thinking some people are better than others is obviously delusional.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:20:34 UTC No. 16477852

>>16477838
>Evolutionary timescales are much greater than 30 years, my man.
This does not refute my assertion about "material conditions". Do you think we could talk like this 30 years ago? What about 50 years ago?
I think this is obvious in many ways.

>Understanding someone isn’t the same as being that thing.
>It’s not a skill you learn.
This is just like your opinion. Maybe YOU can't learn it. How is your insufficiency my problem?

>you still don’t understand that that someone isn’t a bug mindlessly churning out papers.
You keep repeating this, but I addressed this already. It's not "mindless". You need to make a lot of high quality work. You might disagree with the metrics that are used to determine what a high quality work is, but I don't think you disagree with this idea in principle.
So why are you so resistent to it? Is it because your heroes don't look as impressive using todays metrics?

>Why are you so resistant to admit this?
Because I see no evidence of it. There is no evidence, you are just making an assertion.
You are not arguing your point at all. You are just saying "this is how it is and if you disagree you are wrong and a libtard" or some nonsense.
Make an actual argument. Tell me what makes these people exceptional beyond getting lucky. I know this offends you. The idea that all things are just a lottery and you didn't pull a winning ticket. I accept that people are not equal, in fact, this is a key assertion I have made throughout. These people existed within circumstances that allowed them to do these things.
They got lucky.

>Saying “things are different now” is a gigacope.
And yet, it is the truth.

>There is only one standard: depth of content.
We know a lot more today than we did in the past, which makes contributing lot more difficult and complicated today than it was in the past. You don't want this to be true and I understand that feeling.

Diagnosis:
terminal cuckoldry and grieving your own failure

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:29:05 UTC No. 16477858

>>16477852
>Do you think we could talk like this 30 years ago?
Irrelevant.
>This is just like your opinion
Saying “a person with Down syndrome cannot produce intellectual work” is an opinion? Holy reddit.
>Tell me what makes these people exceptional beyond getting lucky
A drooling retarded can get all the luck in the world. He cannot come up with classical mechanics. Pure fucking cope.
>I know this offends you
No, it just baffles me that people like you unironically exist. Have you even seen a retard? Like a mentally challenged person? You clearly haven’t, because according to you, that person can get lucky enough to produce intellectual work. There are no great men, after all.
>We know a lot more today than we did in the past,
You realize that this exact statement was true 30, 100 and 2000 years ago, right? A person living in the 1600s knew a lot more than someone living in 1400s. So? Our age is not special.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:32:56 UTC No. 16477861

>>16477858
You seem weirdly obsessed with retards.
Why is that?

>You realize that this exact statement was true 30, 100 and 2000 years ago, right?
Sure is. And it is more difficult to contribute today that it was 30 years ago and more difficult than 100 years ago and more difficult than 2000 years ago.
Thank you for proving my point.

>A person living in the 1600s knew a lot more than someone living in 1400s.

>Our age is not special.
It is special. Research costs a lot more money now than it did a 100 years ago. And in 100 years it will cost much, much more than it does today. It can no longer be supported by an individual person.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:35:49 UTC No. 16477864

>>16477861
Because I’m conversing with one.
>And it is more difficult to contribute today that it was 30 years ago
lol. Lmao even. Skill issue.
>It is special
Again, everything you’ve said applies to every other time period. Experiments in the early 1900s cost a lot more money than had in 1700s. That changes nothing.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:38:43 UTC No. 16477865

>>16477864
>Because I’m conversing with one.
epic

>Skill issue
Well, I mean, you never did manage to contribute, so I guess it must be.

>That changes nothing
You don't think at some point we reach some sort of inflection point, where things are no longer comparable to the past? Where the cost is too big to compare?

>Experiments in the early 1900s cost a lot more money than had in 1700s
This unfortuntely for you is unlikely to be true. Can you figure out why I say that?

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:47:52 UTC No. 16477877

>>16477865
>you never did manage to contribute
Because my advisor ignored my contributions. Apparently they needed “more literature review”. When I confronted him about it, he said he didn’t understand what I was doing. A shining beacon of knowledge, you might say.

What have you contributed beyond mindless calculations? Yet another “in this paper, we show that another paper is actually wrong?” or “here’s a cobbled up ‘model’ where it all magically works and I won’t bother lucidly explaining it because you’re stupid and I’m smart (I don’t understand why it works myself, but don’t tell anyone. It might hurt my ego.)”

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:50:30 UTC No. 16477882

>>16477877
>Because my advisor ignored my contributions.
Then you didn't argue well enough. I told you this already. If this is how you argued in a professional settting as well, it's no wonder you got pushed to the side.

>When I confronted him about it, he said he didn’t understand what I was doing.
Well, maybe you should have bothered to lucidly explain it?

Either way, I am very happy for you or sorry that that happened to you.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:56:01 UTC No. 16477885

>>16477882
>Then you didn't argue well enough
There’s no point in arguing when someone gives you a blank stare and tells you they don’t understand it. I expect a professor in my field to be familiar with the basics such as the Fierz identity or the non-linear sigma model. Apparently that’s a very tall order.
>Well, maybe you should have bothered to lucidly explain it?
Nigger, I came up with a way of understanding SU(N) GUTs through Feynman diagrams and literally constructed an SU(5) proton decay operator in front of him using nothing but a simple set of rules following from the Fierz identity and basic tensor algebra. If that’s not fucking lucid, I don’t know what is. You can show this to a high schooler and they’d be able to construct invariants by drawing things and counting integers.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:24:48 UTC No. 16477909

>>16477885
Well, maybe your idea needed more literature review.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:40:01 UTC No. 16478043

>>16477909
Bitch please. It’s a working method ready to publish. No need for literature review for something that is original.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:32:02 UTC No. 16478084

>>16478043
maybe it's not so original after all?
hence, more literature review is needed.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 20:10:33 UTC No. 16478118

>>16477885
>my idea is so simple i can explain it to a high schooler with napkin drawings and colored spreadsheets, like for reals
>but i can't explain it to my advisor without him looking at me like i'm retarded - this is all academia's fault!
i have some bad news you may not be prepared to hear, anon

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:19:48 UTC No. 16478806

>>16478084
Maybe you should suck my dick
>>16478118
It was the opposite; I was looking at him like he’s disabled. Maybe you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but I think it’s just because that moron had never come up with anything original himself and “research” for him was basically copying others’ methods. Hence the “literature review” comments.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:33:39 UTC No. 16478821

>>16478806
You are not as good as you think you are.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:42:53 UTC No. 16478827

>>16478821
Go fuck yourself. The method works and I used it to produce ALL 4-fermion operators of an SU(7) GUT I was tasked with. It was on the order of 7000 of them and my method was piss easy to program on a computer because it’s essentially just selection rules. Make some nested for-loops with if-else statements and it shits out all those operators like it’s nothing. I have not seen anyone ever use that method in 2 years of me digging through papers in the period from 1970 until today. Instead, people just pick a bunch of representations and then come up with ad hoc explanations of why this or that happens. My method explicitly shows all the form of 4-point functions.

You know what I’m not good at? Sucking up to my advisor and following trends. That I admit. My advisor was that “little man” whose lifetime of work consisted of conforming to the hive and publishing what others are publishing. So he just short-circuited when he saw me doing something different. It’s a very common thing for midwits.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:51:18 UTC No. 16478835

>>16478827
If your method is so good, why did nobody care?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:00:18 UTC No. 16478841

>>16478835
I genuinely think that moron was just jealous. It goes all the way back to “holier-than-thou” attitude and all the discussions we’ve had about what’s wrong with the academia. I dared go against his commands. He had spent two months prior telling me shit like “why are you looking at QCD, anon, that’s not what I told you to do”, “I believe you can’t do it with Feynman diagrams” and “but what are le applications”. And one day I come up to him and just flip him off in a major way. It hurt his ego. His little man ego that rests on his august title and his fancy diplomas. It offended him that some pesky grad student did something against the rules. The bug hive hates going against the rules. No, anon, we go with the flow. And if you don’t, you’re just not good enough and you don’t know things etc etc. This was the reason I quit my PhD. I want to do original research, not “original” hive-approved research.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:01:46 UTC No. 16478842

>>16478841
So, you just didn't do your job and you are upset that someone told you off for not doing the job you were hired for?
This echoes back to my comment about academia being work, not an intellectual daycare.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:07:54 UTC No. 16478849

>>16478842
I literally did my fucking job. I did what I needed to do. I just didn’t do it the way my advisor wanted me to do it. It hurt his ego.

You’re either trolling or you really are a bug just like him. There are many ways to a goal, anon. Some are hard to find, but easy to take. Some are easy to find, but a pain in the neck to traverse. I came up with the former while my advisor expected the latter. He always followed the latter, because his little man ego tells him that the more clusterfucked and obscurant something is, the smarter you look. Just like 95% of contemporary papers. 80 pages that people shit out on cooldown instead of taking a moment to produce the same result in 20 using a clever method.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:09:53 UTC No. 16478850

>>16478849
So instead explaining why you were looking at OCD, how you can do it with Feynman diagrams and what the applications are, you just threw a fit?
Sounds like your ego was damaged, not his.

If your thing is so good, why not write it up, put out a preprint and then submit it somewhere?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:14:34 UTC No. 16478855

>>16478850
I didn’t throw a fit. I explained everything to him in the end. Literally drew it on the board. You’re making a lot of assumptions. I sense major insecurity and projection.
>If your thing is so good, why not write it up, put out a preprint and then submit it somewhere?
Because I don’t know how. I’m a first generation college student. Advisors are expected to guide you through all that process. But emotions got in the way and he just couldn’t handle it. He was just as insecure as you are. “Just do work like a bug, fuck being clever about things. It’s just a job”. This is why theoretical physics is dead. Laying bricks is just a job. Coming up with original research literally is “intellectual daycare” as you put it. It’s a place for creative people producing creative results that got infested with soulless bugs that just “work”.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:38:48 UTC No. 16478880

>>16476381
You sound like my BPD ex.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:38:58 UTC No. 16478882

>>16478855
NTA, but I work in mathematical physics as well, and if your method really has something to offer to the community it should be easy to publish. Just send a polite email to other researchers in the field explaining that you were a grad student under so and so and you have unfinished work which you would like a second opinion on and maybe publish it down the line. Then schedule a meeting and humbly explain it to them.

9 times out of 10 if you are really onto something they will be enthusiastic or at the very least acknowledging. Yes, there are bad academics that can't fathom breaking paradigms and get offended by new ideas, but they are few and far between.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:25:33 UTC No. 16478979

>>16478855
>Because I don’t know how.
So you’re smart enough to get into grad school and smart enough to develop a theory of everything, but not smart enough to read the ‘how to submit’ guide on every journal publisher’s site?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:18:04 UTC No. 16479013

>>16478855
You are constantly throwing insults my way, while the worst thing I said about you is that you couldn't finish your doctorate (which you admitted readily) and that you have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

I am just wondering if you approached the conversation with your supervisor in a similar fashion. Because if you did, then it's no wonder that he didn't like your work, even if it might have been good and useful. If you so readily throw insults around, you just don't really seem like the sort of person that is easy to work with.

>But emotions got in the way and he just couldn’t handle it.
Yours did.

>Coming up with original research literally is “intellectual daycare” as you put it.
No, it is also just a job.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:31:15 UTC No. 16479527

>>16478979
These are unrelated.
>>16478882
Thanks for the advice.
>>16479013
A good researcher shouldn’t care about trivialities like banter. If you have a student doing good research, your job is to make sure that research keeps on going and gets published. Don’t like banter? Go back to the kindergarten.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:33:10 UTC No. 16479533

>>16475447
Then just go get a PhD for real.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:37:13 UTC No. 16479540

>>16479527
>If you have a student doing good research
Clearly the research was not so good.

>your job is to make sure that research keeps on going and gets published
Hardly any research is worth dealing with someone like you. And no result in mathematical physics is worth putting up with a little bitch like you.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:44:01 UTC No. 16479552

>>16479540
>Clearly
kek. Because authority told you so? The infallible has spoken.
>Hardly any research is worth dealing with someone like you. And no result in mathematical physics is worth putting up with a little bitch like you.
I’d break your spine in half if you were to have one, you pathetic authority-worshipping little bug.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:46:52 UTC No. 16479560

>>16479552
>I’d break your spine in half if you were to have one, you pathetic authority-worshipping little bug.
You think someone who says things like this upon being mildly criticized is someone worth working with?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:48:52 UTC No. 16479567

>>16479560
I think someone who is so sure of others being wrong on the account of the Holy Father Doctor Professor Whoever getting triggered is not worth working with. Hence why I quit. Enjoy your authority cult.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:54:55 UTC No. 16479581

>>16479567
I know you threw the towel, because your fragile ego couldn't take rejection (or is that a lack of enthusiasm?). You said this many times already.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:13:51 UTC No. 16479620

>>16479581
I threw the towel because he turned out to be a spousal hire, not because he rejected my ideas. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I’m not hearing anything from some cunt who didn’t even get his job fairly.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:14:59 UTC No. 16479624

>>16479620
I'll tell you a little secret:
Nobody in a high-ranking position gets their job "fairly".

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:20:51 UTC No. 16479635

>>16479624
So I want nothing to do with them then. I am not taking orders from crooks. Adios.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:23:31 UTC No. 16479638

>>16479635
So you never want to be in a position where you interact with people who have high ranking positions?
stick to laying bricks then

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:31:37 UTC No. 16479646

>>16479638
I never want to be in a position where I interact with pathetic little worms like you who have no sense of virtue, honor or justice. The perfect NPC. An honest man laying bricks is worth a thousand high-ranking crooks. If a man lays bricks well, has a knack for it, and doesn’t act like a scummy Jewish rat while at it, then he has my utmost respect. Unfortunately such people are a dying breed in sciences.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:33:05 UTC No. 16479648

>>16479646
You say big words like "virtue", "honor" and "justice", but what does that mean to you?
It seems like all it means is coddling your ego.
Putting up with a retard like you, that's virtuous, alright.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:17:39 UTC No. 16479830

>>16479648
It means nothing to you so I’d be wasting my time explaining it. Go be a Jew instead of asking these basic questions.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:19:22 UTC No. 16479835

>>16479830
So you can't explain what you mean when you use words in ways unique to yourself?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:24:15 UTC No. 16479841

>>16479835
There’s no point in throwing pearls before swine who sees nothing wrong with hiring someone because of their marital status and not their intrinsic ability. The end justifies the means after all. The university got the guy they want. And all that silly grad students unknowingly wasting their time on their waste-of-space spouse, they’re just unlucky, amirite?

Swine like you lack basic empathy because all that matters to you is money and status. You’d sell your mother if you could, kike.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:27:55 UTC No. 16479844

>>16479841
You seem very emotional.
I can see that your failure is still gnawing at you inside.
How long ago was it when you threw the towel? 3 months? Less than that?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:32:07 UTC No. 16479850

>>16479844
A year and a half ago. Of course I’m emotional. Imagine throwing away the passion of your life because of incompetent kikes with no principles hiring people in violation of equal opportunity laws. Imagine witnessing some moron fail to answer basic questions about the Higgs mechanism and the Standard Model getting a postdoc at Princeton. These are the people calling themselves physicists. I’d hang, draw and quarter every single one of those passionless rats who only do it for social approval. They have no respect for the craft. They have no respect for Nature and its Laws. Their only interest in life is gobbling enough dicks until they finally get to have theirs gobbled. Disgusting monkeys.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:37:47 UTC No. 16479865

>>16479850
So why didn't you just swallow your pride, finish your degree and then move on with your life?
But perhaps you were always doomed to failure, if you are this emotionally unstable.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:44:13 UTC No. 16479881

>>16479865
I did. Got my masters and fucked off. I don’t consider it a failure. I consider the whole academia a failure.

A person who cares about something will get emotional when he’s surrounded with passionless rats. A rat is, of course, at an advantage because its only emotion stems from social approval. The craft itself is of no importance. So a rat has no problem surrounding himself with other rats neither of whom care about the discipline. It’s just a job after all. Like laying bricks, right? Just slave away and don’t think. Thinking is “intellectual daycare”. We do work here, not think.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:50:03 UTC No. 16479891

>>16479881
if you were so passionate, you'd have figured out a way to keep moving forward, but clearly some minor inconveniences and a bad relationship with your advisor (that you yourself caused) were too much for your "passionate mind" to handle.
You should really go see a psychiatrist about your anger issues.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:31:41 UTC No. 16480416

>>16479891
I did move forward. Away from idiots.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:56:37 UTC No. 16480442

>>16480416
You are still stuck emotionally.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:00:07 UTC No. 16480446

>>16480442
Yeah, sure. Give it a couple years.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:25:32 UTC No. 16480564

>>16480416
More like away from sanity.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:47:15 UTC No. 16480857

>>16480564
>sanity is being a complacent little NPC who doesn’t notice things
good goy

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:29:19 UTC No. 16481126

>>16477885
It sounds to me like your advisor suspected your idea was far from original but was too incompetent and/or fed up with dealing with you to show you this himself. I can't tell from your description what your exact idea is, but I think you are underestimating what competent researchers (not your advisor) know about group representation theory.

For what it's worth I also many times have had the experience of coming up with "new" ideas that turned out to be already published in the literature. It's not uncommon.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:08:18 UTC No. 16481167

>>16481126
The only time I’ve ever seen something like this being used was a short paragraph I’ve seen mentioning it being used in string theory context.

I’m not saying the idea is entirely novel. It’s a very simple idea at its core, so it must have seen use in other areas. However, I have not seen it used in the specific context I was working in. Because if it were, people wouldn’t explain things via ad hoc symmetry arguments.
>I can't tell from your description what your exact idea is
Very basic. The SU(N) Fierz identity reads
(T^a)_ij (T^a)_kl = 1/2f(delta_ik delta_jl + 1/N delta_ij delta_kl)
The first term is the charged current. The second is the neutral current. The Fierz identity only describes the 4-point functions between fundamental representations. If you were to come up with a Fierz identity for general representations, you would take tensor products and apply the relevant Young diagram restrictions. In case of the SU(5) fermionic 10, it’s just the antisymmetrization of a rank-2 tensor product.

When you work it out, you find out that you end up with two distinct terms: what I called an interaction term and a spectator term. An interaction term obeys the usual Fierz identity rules for fundamentals while the spectator term doesn’t get carried through the gauge boson. You can interpret this as a second fermionic line basically doing nothing (ie the color just gets conserved without participating in an interaction).

These generalized Fierz identities let one work out all 4-fermion gauge-invariant operators. I was tasked with showing how there are no baryon-number violating operators in a given theory, so this does exactly that. Just look for embeddings that violate that via this simple rule.

The method works and the code I have is designed to spit out 4-point fermion functions for ANY SU(N) theory. I had tested it out on SU(5) and got expected results and on SU(7) and got what my advisor wanted. Alas, ‘tis all in vain.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:11:36 UTC No. 16481174

>>16475417
>What else should I include?
Read the Feynman lectures. Once you understand the contents, you are a Physicist.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:11:48 UTC No. 16481175

>>16481167
You are making it sound trivial.
Here's one word of advice from a senior researcher, never talk down your work.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:14:37 UTC No. 16481180

>>16481175
>never make it simple. Make it sound so fucking complicated that no one can understand you
Midwit tactics

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:20:51 UTC No. 16481188

>>16481180
You are willfully misrepresenting what I am saying, despite not disagreeing on an emotional level.
You clearly quite proud of what you came up with. So why talk it down and make it sound like it is less than it is?

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:22:36 UTC No. 16481194

>>16481188
>why not talk it down?
>why are you making this sound trivial?
make up your mind already, Mr Senior Researcher.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:25:31 UTC No. 16481202

>>16481194
No wonder you quit, you don't have very good reading comprehension.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:31:56 UTC No. 16481210

>>16481175
>>16481202
Yeah, I misread. Go do yourself a favor and buy a copy of Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity. The man explains such a rich theory in less than a 100 pages. He’s “talking it down” as you put it. He should have spent a 1000 pages describing it in a way that no one would understand. Hegelian science, I call it.

Btw thx for confirming my suspicions. You morons don’t care about efficacy. Who cares that something so simple could produce such general results? No, that’s not enough work. You need to have put more sweat, blood and tears into brute force methods. Now that’s respectable. Now that’s work.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:38:01 UTC No. 16481216

>>16481210
Not all ideas can be conveyed in simple language. Not all merit can be seen by people without deep understanding of the subject.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:38:21 UTC No. 16481217

>>16481188
I am not talking it down. Sorry that it’s so simple yet efficient. And sorry that I’m admitting of my own ignorance. Those two are anathema in modern “science”. I won’t get published with that attitude. My research needs to be completely unheard of and so fucking incomprehensible (“non-trivial”) that the journal review would go “that guy is fucking smart because I don’t get any of this clusterfuck. A true visionary.”

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:39:22 UTC No. 16481219

>>16481216
Doesn’t contradict what I say in the slightest.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:41:27 UTC No. 16481221

>>16481219
I mean you're just inventing narratives about people who disagree with you to make yourself feel better. Of course, it doesn't change anything about the backstory you invented.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:43:12 UTC No. 16481223

>>16481217
No, it needs to be novel and interesting and understandable.
That's what's difficult about having ideas. You need to come up with something that people can understand, that is new and that people want.

It needs to be understood or the editor will toss it back telling you to rewrite it in an understandable way.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:43:45 UTC No. 16481224

>>16481221
>you le invented the backstory
Whatever you say. Don’t take what I said in >>16481167 to heart. It’s all bullshit. I’m just an unhinged idiot while you are a Senior Researcher publishing Non-Trivial Serious Research That Is Too Advanced For The Plebs.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:45:55 UTC No. 16481225

>>16481224
I do not care what you idea is. I am talking about the language you use to describe it.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:47:15 UTC No. 16481226

>>16481223
What the fuck do you not understand about what I said? And how is it not new given that I literally told you it hasn’t been used in my research area before? Do I need to spoonfeed you Young diagrams and Fierz identities?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:48:15 UTC No. 16481228

>>16481226
why are you willfully misinterpreting what I said?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:48:16 UTC No. 16481229

>>16481225
>>16481226

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:50:12 UTC No. 16481231

>>16481228
If I’m “misinterpreting” what you said, you didn’t do a good enough job of conveying your point. Something you’re accusing me of. So far to me you sound like a midwit saying
>uhhh you shouldn’t say your thing is simple. No, no, no, that’s not good enough. We don’t like simple solutions. We like brute force methods.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:57:02 UTC No. 16481238

>>16481231
I said "willfully".

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:00:21 UTC No. 16481244

>>16481167
Ok then, it sounds like maybe you had a nice idea that would be useful for your field. For your own sake, why not type up a short article and put it on arxiv? If you have quit academia this might not have any practical benefit to you, but at least you can go back years later and feel some sense of pride in what you did and the potential you had.

You can frame the article as a pedagogical article, and that might allow you to even publish it. I have had some success publishing articles like this in Annals of Physics and European Journal of Physics

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:08:03 UTC No. 16481254

>>16481167
Also ignore the other guy saying you are "talking down" your idea. That's ridiculous

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:16:25 UTC No. 16481264

>>16481244
>>16481254
I really appreciate your support, anon. Maybe I should. The whole grad school experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth, so I have been reluctant to do share any of my results. Perhaps I can contact a few researchers to see if they're interested.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:24:50 UTC No. 16482938

>>16475417
you must buy expensive books, read the last papers and follow high level researchers on X.
Worth it? You better apply for a real PhD.