@KyleKanos , well , if you say so! t's very irritating this thing with unexplained downvotes. It seems something by pure whim. All the serious people that have an objection, say the objection, discuss it with me. But, if you say, then, so it is.
@KyleKanos I harmed nobody, I only helped. But aaaahhh! Yes, if someone is not honest, someone may downvote my answer because of having a competing answer. But, how ugly character one can have for doing this. It's not a Nobel price here. It's just a pleasant exercise of mind are we are rewarded for our help-giving by points.
(lol at sofias contd serious angst over -1's... simple consolation, -1s count 5x less than +1s)
> "every rose has its thorn" etc
alarge agreed liquidity is critical to model in some models but its maybe not important for the models cited. agreed key aspect of 2008 crash aka "leverage" or "capitalization". re "extremely idealized", taking the long view, disagree, just think they are "pre empirical testing/ validation". sort of like particle physics before large supercolliders. etc.
@vzn We had no "particle physics" before colliders. The colliders found the "particle zoo" and we spent about half a century trying to sort the mess out.
AC that is roughly true but also an exaggeration. there was a rudimentary particle physics before large colliders. there were small collider experiments that have largely been forgotten. originating at stanford etc.
@innisfree If by "allowed" you mean that someone can register it, apparently yes. If by "allowed" you mean it is an accepted behavior, then definitely not.
anyway the pt is it took decades to build up large detectors & the large coupled theory... so lets not be in too big a rush with econophysics & dismiss it (& its "big pictures") "early on".
@vzn I get what you're trying to say, but I think we have to agree to disagree: I am less optimistic about econophysics although I do think it's cool. Also, on a slightly different note, I think it is a bit arrogant for a physicist to think that their methods are superior to those used by economists; It's not really mathematical rigour that is missing in economics, anyway (and indeed many of the quants have argued that the mathematical axiomatization is actually hurting the industry).
there is a stereotype of physicists "invading" other fields & "arrogantly" declaring they have superior methods or whatever. there was an xkcd comic strip on that. however, dont really see a lot of real cases of this.
just see different scientific cultures with different povs/ bkgs/ training etc intermingling at times. cross disciplinary boundaries breaking down. less reductionism/ compartmentalization & maybe even specialization (at times, some places) in science to deal with the real complexity of the world.
it was the methods rather than the personal that invaded. after the rapid progress of physics in the 20th C, and probably the seminal works by popper eg LSD, many social sciences tried to emulate the scientific methods, using more math etc
physicists are both building on & challenging existing economic theory & real/ serious economist scientists will mostly welcome it.
physics is very successful in decades of hard-core reductionism but now reaching some of its own limitations & its own near-crises in abstraction/ falsifiability re string theory etc.
social science & other sciences can stand to benefit from more math in places, its a long trend. re that old classic "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" / wigner
@innisfree I think it's maybe more the case that people from physics (or at least a background education, say an undergrad, in the mathematical sciences) moved into those fields, rather than the people already in those fields tried to apply the methods of physics.
@vzn I'm sure they welcome it, but again, I doubt anybody seriously thinks the (reductionist) theories of physics will actually apply there or work better than what they already have. Now, they are very pretty and interesting to physicists, but I think the trends in economics are very different.
@TAbraham You don't need to ping people asking if they're here. Just ask your question. And yes, I saw your Hamiltonian, two weeks ago or whatever, and you still refuse to write it out despite me asking several times for you to do so.
And no, it's not written out if you don't know what the notation means. I've given you references, and asked you to go through them several times as the notation is explained therein. I am not going to do everything step by step for you, that's what books are for.
parts of economics will forever be divorced from physics. a significant part of economics is connected to human psychology. other (key, major) parts will nearly entirely succumb. its early times in this shift. predict it will continue for decades.
economics is widening in a lot of ways not just overlapping with physics, there are new fields of eg neuroeconomics emerging etc.
@vzn That's a good point. That said, I think these interdisciplinary fields often have their own research questions, and they don't necessarily feed back to the "main subject" in a major way. For example, chemical physics doesn't really contribute to fundamental physics research, but rather is a (large) field of its own.
@Sofia Nope. The invitation you refer to is an automatically generated message though, so even though he has written it, he may not have intended to discuss it there right now.
@ACuriousMind , thank you! Now, what you say? That he may not have intended ... No, I can't follow you. He said, let's discuss in chat, and I was busy, and then I came to that room, and he seemed to be there, but he didn't react to my words as if only his picture were there, not him personally - wow! science fiction situation.
@ACuriousMind : the fellow seems to have quantum properties, two wave-packets belonging to the same person, one in the room, and one elsewhere.
Unrelated: What on earth does this commenter want from me:
ACuriousMind: ""Events" are just points in spacetime" -- No, not "just", but (also) "spacetime coincidences {such as} encounters between two or more material points". "what you want {?}" -- An explicit description how to assign (subsets of) "the fundamental representation of the Lorentz group; just $\mathbb R^{1,3}$" to given sets of encounters between two or more identified "material points"; or at least appreciation for the difficulties involved, since the OP asked about physics. — user122622 mins ago
@Danu, Ohhh! It's late in my country. May I ask you from which part of the Earth you talk? I just want to estimate when could I talk with you tomorrow. Those Lienard-Wiechert fields irritate my nerves. If you can help, I'll be very glad.
I submitted my resignation three weeks ago. I started a very new job last Monday. I liked being a "rocket scientist", but I didn't like the excrement that went with it, and even less, I really didn't like that NASA is going nowhere.
@ACuriousMind the commenter has nothing of value to offer you (or me), in my opinion. Why give him (or her) the value of a response or a second thought?
So last week, I worked on problems related to directional oil drilling, problems related to capping a well that is spewing oil or gas, problems related to modeling a UAV, and finally, problems related to a very messy (OMG, so very messy) airplane hangar.
@alarge references for what? I read the plenio paper that @MarkMitchison told me to read and read a bit about heseinberg model and learned about diagnolization (although I have to read more) and learned some stuff from @ThomasKlimpel ...
@alarge oh yeah, even after reading about Heisenberg model, couldn't find info on how to expand the second term.. so I tried doing it the mathematical way...
let's just assume you're all idiots... because you all are
