So, once you have that last equation from wolframalpha you've got it, right? Log[Cot[u]+Csc[u]]=Log[(Cos[u]+1)/Sin[u]]. Use the half angle formula on (Cos[u]+1)/2 and factor out the sqrt as a constant.
@Qmechanic @DavidZ @dmckee: Sorry, I'm still confused about the res. rec. questions. I thought they weren't made CW anymore, so I've started to VTC them as primarily opinion-based or too broad on sight because I don't think people should derive rep from those questions. But Qmechanic keeps making them CW, while DavidZ doesn't, and dmckee seems to abstain from acting on those questions. Should we have a new discussion on meta about how to treat these questions?
Yes, we've had this debate before. Unfortunately, there's no definite consensus to be found about their community wiki status:
Good list, bad list (from July 2013) has the top voted answer (with a meager +11/-2) saying that book recommendation questions need to be actively moderated by the comm...
@yuggib No no no no no, it's rather the converse: The theory is a model of the world.
@Rigor lol
> Being in its infancy, QFT is unlike SRT, GRT, and QED
Implying QED$\not\subset$QFT
@0celo7 No, $\tan x = (\cot x)^{-1}$
The inverse is not in the argument. Basically, all those trig functions that start with co- can be completely forgotten/ignored, because they are just (normal trig function)^{-1}
(...except cosine, haha)
@DavidZ I think there is, for the sake of having useful things that people shouldn't be getting rep for
@Danu that's precisely the reason I don't think there's a valid use for CW. There's no such thing as a useful question that its author shouldn't be getting rep for.
@DavidZ Oh, damn :( I'm definitely up for hearing you out if you'd like to get it off your chest or something, but I understand if you don't wanna talk about it.
I've never had something so bad that I really couldn't sleep at all. I hope you're okay.
(this is one of the few distractions I have that hasn't been "infected" with personal stuff)
@Danu Probably some of both? I guess it always seemed fairly normal to me to have something on my mind that keeps me up until the wee hours of the morning a few times a week
@Danu not really better. Still planning not to continue in physics after this postdoc ends.
@Danu yeah... well, FWIW my normal sleep schedule has me up until 4 AM, so staying up until 7 is not so much of a stretch. Going a full night without sleep is still exhausting of course.
I'm not really trained for anything too different - I couldn't switch into gravitational physics or something like that - and even within HEP they want people who have experience in the precise field topic they're going to work on as a postdoc/professor/whatever
Exhibit A: I was rejected from one postdoc in nuclear particle physics because my research interests weren't compatible with the position they were looking to fill. The postdoc was on something like parton distributions in mesons, whereas I work on small-x gluon distributions in baryons and nuclei.
@Danu when they have tenure, sure. Having a less fruitful period before then just means you get replaced with someone else who doesn't.
To be clear, I'm not inferring the reason for the rejection - I was actually told that my research interests weren't in the right area. It's one of the very few that I got feedback on.
I don't think I'll be lacking for opportunities - that stuff is basically what I do at work anyway, and I've got friends who are willing to put in a good word for me at some major tech companies if the chance comes up
Hopefully the reality turns out to match the expectation
Honestly, the advantage of being in academia is that you get to work on something you love (assuming you do love it, but I guess that's why you're here), you get a lot of flexibility in how you do that work, and you get that sense of moral superiority satisfaction that you "made it" through the pipeline. Other than that, non-academic jobs seem better in almost every way.