@RyderRude What I do know, is that if you are asking it in such a way, then it is clear that you are not even attempting to treat it with the nuance that it would require.
But Japan didnt even win. This is more of a case of "ruling state writes the history". More neutral accounts can be found on wikipedia, I guess. But it's very hard to know who is unbiased :P
The internet is a good anti-thesis to "history is written by winners"
But the internet is full of bias too. I just wish that someone could just give unbiased views
@RyderRude But this is already sufficient an evidence for you to refute your earlier non-nuanced take
@RyderRude Have you not been on the main site? Have you not seen the quality of the answers that ChatGPT gave to the questioners that later pushed them to us?
the idea that there even is such a thing as an "unbiased view" is questionable - mostly people who insist on their views being "unbiased" just want to shield themselves from criticism
elementary facts can be right or wrong, but once we come to views, to aggregation and presentation of facts, there is always choices being made where to put the focus or what to mention first and what last etc., and those choice introduce "bias"
Yes, chatgpt still seems very biased toward the popular viewpoint. I just like the aggregation aspect. U r right that there is no such thing as an "unbiased view"
It might be fun to ask those extremist experimentalists to give a presentation of classical mechanics in a way that is purely experimental and not at all theoretical. It will be an achievement if they can get past the millennia milestone of advancing past Medieval physics.
@RyderRude Flat Earth seems quite popular right now
@Mr.Feynman I found that it was useful to learn some asymptotic analysis, because that helps make some sense of what it is we were trying to do in renormalisation
@Slereah Two topics complicated for basically similar reasons
Oh, you know that the basic perturbation theory is asymptotic? _Good_ But I really just meant to study asymptotic series of stuff, even just, say, Airy function. Very nice to learn about.
@naturallyInconsistent I know in the sense that I've been told it. For the time being I'm content with the handwavy explanation for why asymptotic series provide information
Right now I'm more concerned with Lie Groups and G-bundles
Once again the ACM singularity has replaced the Slereah singularity and I've crossed the EH
@naturallyInconsistent I feel way too uncomfortable with that and that's why I define QFT magic
There is a preface to some notes of a course by Schuller that I really appreciated
> Theoretical physics is all about casting our concepts about the real world into rigorous mathematical form, for better or worse. But theoretical physical doesn’t do that for its own sake. It does so in order to fully explore the implications of what our concepts about the real world are. So, to a certain extent, the spirit of theoretical physics can be cast into the words of Wittgenstein who said: “What we cannot speak about [clearly] we must pass over in silence.” Indeed, if we have concepts about the real world and it is not possible to
@naturallyInconsistent are there? What I care about right now is to understand gauge transformations properly
okay i think i have been getting a little bit lost in the sauce :P i think i have it philosophically backwards to expect precise physical content from precise mathematical content. it seems i should get a good grip on physics first and foremost and then learn its precise formulation in math
what is the meaning of symplectic: what conceptual meaning does the presence of the word symplectic imbue into things
wikipedia says it is a literal translation of "complex" from another language
but it obviously is not used to just mean complex as in complex numbers; e.g. a symplectic vector space from wikipedia is not a vector space over the complex fild
Now I have all these mathematical machinery of tangent bundles, cotangent bundles, but everybody just wants to do the whole "you can use this maths" and not actually motivate them in a way that we can see why we ought to do so
And then after I understood some tangent bundles and cotangent bundles, suddenly we get thrown fibre bundles without any explanation of how to align them. How to think about parallel transport in them
@SillyGoose Names generally are historically interesting but not very enlightening. In this case the connection ends up being that these line complexes have vanishing antisymmetric forms, and symplectic geometry is based on an antisymmetric form, so Weyl named the latter after the former and switched to Greek to not confuse everyone with a double meaning of "complex"
@Mr.Feynman After doing a bit of GR, and thus having tensors, and later DG, I wanted to do some computation of problem solutions. Then I realised that the centuries old maths that are plastered all over physics, wiki, and so on, are working in terms of vierbeins, and so you cannot apply the tensors or DG toolkit without first translating everything
And then you have to have some way to communicate your answer solutions to students, and that is yet another headache
is the adjoint representation a formal way to have elements of your lie group transform elements of its lie algebra into other elements of its lie algebra
@RyderRude Yes, but it is a trivial, natural extension. It is not like tensors of many many indices are able to avoid being labelled as anything but grotesque
I also admire the beauty, but until we can reliably do basic computation of problems we get in physics, it is a problem
Like, because of the very nice textbook by Hestenes, I can solve, say, projectile motion problems in GA in perfect generality and much faster than other methods. But it is the integrals of E fields that I really want done.
Integrals of the various vectorial, bivectorial, etc quantities appearing in modern physics, especially in curved spacetime (really, just curvilinear flat space is already headache enough)
i dont know if you recall me asking but apparently there is this fraction term in the derivative of the exponential of a matrix w.r.t. to the variable the matrix depends on @naturallyInconsistent :0
@RyderRude what do you mean "if that worked out"? it's not particularly widespread or useful, but there are reformulations in terms of quaternions, see e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/a/28806/50583
in that derivative of the exponential, am i meant to understand the middle term (to the right of exp(X) and to the left of dX/dt) as a map acting on dX/dt?
@ACuriousMind The answer in there is mathematically correct but does not use quaternions correctly. It is a very well-known thing that the correct way to implement rotations in quaternions is the much simpler formula than whatever is presented, and boosts are trivial too.
Presumably especially in situations in which "1 divided by X" isn't defined
If I was reading something about groups and for a particular group $(G,\circ)$ an author wrote $1/g$ with $g\in G$ I would definitely interpret that as notation for the inverse element, $g^{-1}$
Mathematical texts are generally careful about introducing notation like that but anything goes in physics so the notation is likely to just mean whatever it makes sense for it to mean without further comment :P
I remember my Linear Algebra lecturer telling us... "how do you guys write your inner products? Oh yeah...", and then she mockingly continued the comma in an $\langle , \rangle$ expression that was on the board into a vertical line, lol. But I took it as a joke, I don't think there was any real "mockery" involved
@MoreAnonymous It is much more common for people who realise that they do not fully understand something, to be more careful to follow conventions about things
@Amit Tbh my first trauma was the first time ACM changed his propic (since I was here)... Then I found out he does it kinda regularly so I got used
@naturallyInconsistent What kind of conventions are you talking about though? Math books tend to be consistent with themselves. Physics books are full of ill-defined notation or ever changing notations
I guess it's different when people do stuff willingly too. But the Identicon thing and the Vote thing are both events that just happen there in the block universe
that's weird... although I know that I have an irrational dread of drinking coffee in the evening as well, so any sleep deprivation effect it would have will be partly psychosomatic
Hm well actually. So say we're dealing with $SU(2)$ as the Lie group. then, we have an $H \in \mathfrak{su}(2)$. Let $U \in SU(2)$. Then, $\text{ad}^{-1}_U H$ is actually just $U^\dagger H U$, right? Since $U = \exp(-it\Lambda)$ and $U^\dagger = \exp(it\Lambda)$
@Mr.Feynman I'm following a lot of parallel discussions on this and also I'm very angry at how SE dropped this on us, but generally I intend to honor our extremely uncontroversial local policy that computer-generated content is not welcome on physics.SE.
@ACuriousMind well, although it is not welcome, your action s as mods will be somehow restricted for the new policy. OTOH, Physics is luckily one of those fields where detecting AI bullshit is much easier than many others
I think there's one very big problem with the new voting buttons. They may draw more attention, but it's much harder to see that you already voted, and people can easily be confused and undo their votes by accident because of that imo
2
Actually on Physics.SE it isn't so bad. On Math.SE my votes are nearly invisible to me lol
