you can pretend to be anything you want in here

@Blue sounds like something a sociopath would say

"haha i'm totally normal bro"

Hi all, I think my question won't suit Physics.SE (I've tried asking here several times but never a response), but is too homework-like for the main-page. What else can I try?

What other sites* can I try

@user55789 to risk stating the obvious, googling to see if there's an answer somewhere else on the internet?

@Phase Wouldn't bother you guys if I hadn't done that first. I've also asked other people, but I couldn't find anyone

@Blue See above, I have asked like 4 times already xd

Ah I didn't know that

I will join that and see if anything fruitful comes from it:)Thx

what's the question relevant to @user55789

Oh that one

Is calculating the line of regression for an exponential graph a silly thing to do or is it relatively simple?

I can do linear but I've never done an exponential

Okay... I'll hunt down a formula or something :p

@CooperCape who cares if you're anything like me none of your data will ever be salvageable through LR anyway

Had to do Millikan's experiment the other week and my quantised charge was like a power of $10^7$ off

Uh

Okay ciol

Well I put it into Excel and it popped out with kx^-1.048

@Blue I mean, this is even an undergrad course, I can't remotely justify that I can't do this xd

An it's supposed to be -1

So I was pretty pleased just wanted to write something other than "Excel told me this"

But I will elaborate in the PSS chat

And break it down a little bit

@Phase better than cosmological constant wasn't that like 10^100 off

I think someone told me that or I read it in a book...

@CooperCape Are you thinking about ground state?

@Phase idk I just heard that somewhere I'm just a lil innocent highs cool equivalent of student

I think the theoretical result from early QED was like 10^100 and the observed value was like 10^-10

Idk though, my history of science isn't particularly breathtaking.

Ahh right

So a bit off, then

I'm sure my knowledge of science is even less breathtaking...

Eh, if I get my way I won't even be doing a science undergrad : p

I'll hopefully climb my way onto some Mathematical / Theoretical Physics masters or PhD program though.

Btw want a probably useless tip that's helped me out like, 4 times in my life?

Nvm I've probably already said it

Unmmmm

Sure?

While others apply... Phase 'climbs'

Dun dun dun

It's just a trick for remembering double angle theorem

Ooooh God not trig?

I'm pretty sure I said it before though, if not you can pretty easily derive a rotation operator for a vector in 2 dimensional space, then just use the fact that if $\hat R_\theta v = v'$, then rotating a vector and then rotating it again is obviously equal to rotating it once by the sum of the angles, so you end up with $\hat R_\theta \hat R_\phi v= \hat R_{\phi + \theta} v$ and then you can just use quick matrix multiplication to read off the double angle theorem

I.e. the upper left element of the 2x2 matrix will be $\cos(\theta)\cos(\phi) + \sin(\theta)\sin(\phi)$ which is equal to $cos(\theta + \phi)$ as the matrix on the right must be of the same form as each on the left

Helped me to remember them, since I could never remember the geometric proof / derivation

Uhhhhh okay I understood little of that...

I guess you could but I dont like the idea of taking real and imaginary parts, it feels like an artificial step

@CooperCape I have no idea how to format matrices in LaTeX, if I knew I'd show you. But if you recall the fact that the columns of a matrix are it's image, then the basis vectors $x = (1, 0)$ and $y = (0,1)$ get mapped to $(\cos(\theta),\sin(\theta))$ and $(-\sin(\theta)), \cos(\theta))$ by an anticlockwise rotation then just slap those two new basis vectors together to get the matrix

Yeah they are but I just dont like splitting imaginary and real parts artificially, it feels a bit like you already know what the result is and are just trying to get to it

rather than with rotation operators it's more just emergent from the properties of rotating a 2d vector

Imo at least

How so?

It should follow naturally that the rotation matrix will be of the same form as any other

eh

I dont think that A-level students need to necessarily understand everything they use

It'd be nice if the syllabus allowed for that but it just doesn't

In fact, when I asked my maths teacher "is integration by parts just a reverse product rule" he said "i dont think so, no"

You just get taught things that you're expected to use for the most part. Or at least it was like that in my School

I think he was just a mix of "I dont remember that being the case" and "I really [redacted]ing hate you"

He really hated me

Even derided my drawing skills once in a completely unrelated-to-maths setting

And matrices are ez iirc

\begin{array}{pmatrix}

Idk dude it took me a while to understand matrix multiplication

Oh you meant in LaTeX

yeah

Lol

Not multiplication that's iccky

I stand by my point and @Blue 's though, to remember the rote method is easy but understanding it is weird

It's like making a composition of functions

Honestly I maintain that if you wanna look ahead into anything for fun, Linear Algebra will be worth your time. I'm headed to bed though, goodnight chum

Ahhh good night... :p I'll have a look into it

So getting back to my original question

What's out there that's similar to Physx.se where I can ask questions like these? :P

What's wrong with physics SE?

I believe my question is not fit to be answered here

If it's homework and exercises I believe physics forums have a different policy but idk

@EmilioPisanty I hit the rep cap. With fire and lightning.

Not the worst HNQ, but not my favourite answer ever by far :/

Thanks I think ToughSTEM is my best bet ("?)

I don't really know any of these sites so I couldn't tell

JohnRenne is right that I should never try to talk sensible to any crank. I felt like whatever stinging emotion I felt when this crank said:

yesterday, have mixed with my worry today about the interview and create a powerful nightmare last night that I felt like I will die in it should I had believed everything it said

This entrappement nightmare, as I call it, is even more powerful than that groundhog day dream I mentioned earlier. Had I never knew I don't sleep walk in reality, I would have already ingested the poisons of 3 snakes, and possibly died in the dream and in reality (at least that's how it felt)