Is reading the best intellectual activity? The only thing that stimulates me intellectually more than reading is solving physics/math textbook problems. What about you?
Is reading the best intellectual activity?
Is reading the best intellectual activity? The only thing that stimulates me intellectually more than reading is solving physics/math textbook problems. What about you?
You might want to know that the Laplacian on the sphere is the orbital angular momentum operator for the next exercises. Makes things a bit more intuitive.
morons.
Cope
> cope
Idiot
This isn't math or physics. This is just simplifying an equation from a textbook problem.
There's a reason they're called exercises, anon
Damn dude...copying the proof from wikipedia or the proof wiki...holy shit...
music analysis for me
Your handwriting is shit and this is undergraduate stuff (things you'd see in a basic quantum mechanics course). If you want to show off then come back when you get to quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
There is nothing intrinsically hard about formulating QFT in curved spacetime if you treat gravity semiclassically and ignore its renormalization. One essentially jumps from global Poincare invariance of special relativity to local Poincare invariance of GR, which basically acts like a type of gauge invariance precisely due to locality. The vierbein formalism and the equivalence principle are then used to construct an affine connection between locally flat SR-like Lagrangians and generic curvilinear ones. The Riemann curvature tensor can be constructed via covariant derivative commutators in exact analogy with EM and YM fields. The only complication comes from a non-vanishing torsion field for Lagrangians with fermions.
The main issue of quantum gravity comes from the form of the Einstein-Hilbert action. It is intrinsically pathological when one attempts to quantize the affine connection (Christoffel symbols). The Riemann tensor is dimension 2 in the language of 4-dimensional QFT due to being proportional to second derivatives (which is expected of curvature). The renormalizable action would involve two Riemann tensors contracting with a dimensionless coupling constant in exact analogy with the EM and YM tensors. Instead, nature decided to frick as up with a dimensionful Newton's constant that cannot be meaningfully scaled with a finite number of counterterms in the Lagrangian. The other major issue is that a presence of the cosmological constant sets a precise zero-point energy scale that cannot be ignored in, eg, the canonical approach to field quantization.
tl;dr quantum gravity isn't hard, because it's curvy. It's hard, because the Einstein-Hilbert action is bizarre from a QM perspective.
As a doctor in theoretical quantum mechanics this is pure cringe. It's embarrassing to try and flex your physics knowledge. I know exactly how you feel while doing it and that it feels good that you know all these things you previously saw as difficult, but everyone else just thinks you're insufferable
Maybe give some constructive criticism instead of just telling me that I’m cringe and flexing your doctorate in “theoretical quantum mechanics” (high-energy? condensed matter?)
I did give you constructive criticism: shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. Maybe you should try doing something interesting and novel in physics rather than coming on IQfy and regurgitating textbooks. It doesn't look "big brain", it just makes you look like an undergraduate who has let it get to his head. If you pursue grad school you'll be put in place though.
I'm not flexing my doctorate, I'm just giving context that in academia we do not act like this nor tolerate this kind of behaviour. The fact that you even think it's flexing is telling. For you, knowledge is about being able to show it off.
I am responding to a post. The post asked me to flex about a “textbook topic” and I did. I gave a well-known, non-original explanation on why GR cannot be quantized using the language of a graduate QFT course. I don’t pretend to be an expert in quantum gravity, because I only dabbled in it for my casual enjoyment. Just because it’s not my subfield doesn’t mean I can’t post about it to express a layman opinion.
I couldn’t give two shits about you being in the academia or how things are done there, etc. This is an anonymous Ugandan porcelain-manufacturing forum, not a physics conference.
All I see in your responses is projection. “Oh no, anon, it’s so embarrassing. Stop regurgitating textbooks. I went to grad school, I’m so much better than you. I wrote a thesis, I publish papers. I move science forward. We enlightened academicians are so humble and down to earth. We bully and drill each other like it’s bootcamp so you can’t go around making posts on anonymous forums, because we don’t tolerate this in our echo chamber.” I went to grad school too FYI. You’re huffing your own farts the same way I do, except you come from a position of authority rather than raw knowledge. And the former makes way less sense on IQfy, where credentials don’t mean shit.
I'm not even gonna read that. Just shut up and stop being cringe.
Thanks for the (You), homosexual. This condescending arrogance is why I dropped academia.
Sure, it had absolutely nothing to do with your grades, it certainly was the arrogance of the others
>well-known
>non-original
Damn...is this the power of moronation?
>seethe post
>but in an "intellectual" context so it's different!
Pure midwittery. The fact you even feel the need to post these things is quite telling and invalidates any attempts at convincing us otherwise.
frick off I liked it.
>i'm in academia
Yeah, we can tell by your b***hing.
LARP
This reads like schizo babble and I took two undergrad courses in Quantum mechanics for my physics degree. Did you just find several papers or a course uploaded to YT, take notes and then post it here?
In any case yes reading is probably the most "intellectually stimulating" activity you can do providing it's something you enjoy and is helping you grow in something specific.
T. Astrophysicslet
it's not schizo babble but it completely misses the point that the post is replying to--it's a technically correct description that he regurgitated from various sources (or maybe even one) that doesn't demonstrate any sort of actual understanding of the topic beyond familiarity with the terms.
>t. physics phd
>it’s technically correct
>HOWEVER he doesn’t understand anything
>refuses to elaborate
>trust me, I’m a physics PhD
based midwit-insecurity provocative thread
not so based equation
>copy-pastes formulas from math textbook
>this is supposed to be impressive
kek
I don't think you should worry yourself about your activities being sufficiently "intellectual"
PS it's not "big brain" to read from a textbook
Going to museums and looking at paintings can be very stimulating as well.
Bros I want to max my intellectual prowess, is studying Classical languages enough? Or should I dip into the rigor and depth of physics and maths?
consider programming. It is way more accessible than the other two. For math/physics you essentially need to go to university, otherwise you end up a pretentious homosexual like OP. Don't know why you would want to learn the classical languages because it will probably end up without any applications, but if you do, start with Latin (easier because the alphabet is the same, and there are more texts).
I don't mind going to university, and the goal is to development of my person. Math/Physics and the study of classics seem to be the most difficult and stimulating way to exercise the brain I can think of. The question is would I be better off studying the more mathematical subjects or the verbal ones? Or does it really not matter?
I'm doing applied mathematics with programming and philosophy on the side.
it just werks.
>applied mathematics
a maths degree would probably be better for my goals.
no, but it might suit your preference.
I'd like some more theoretical hence I do not like applied maths.
kultur terror right there
production is more intellectual, because it is putting reading into practice
programming is although i don't hear about it that much as i did stretching into the last few years. and no ChatGPT will not replace it.
>33 replies
>no mention of analyzing and critiquing rick and morty episodes and subtext as an intellectual exercise
I knew IQfy was low iq, this just confirms it
All of mathematics is tautology. The only worthwhile studies are philosophical writings, prose, and poetry. Nothing else compares
All of words are a tautology too you fricking wanker, let me guess you just got filtered by the first critique for the first time and now you feel insecure?
god i wish i did physics instead of EE.....
My wife's sister's husband did a BS in EE followed by a completely separate BS in physics followed by a physics postdoc and he is now a programmer. It doesn't always get better...
Doesn’t matter if the physics rant was correct or not, point is that it’s just really embarrassing to try and flex that in that way, knowing that the audience will not understand it. I’ve seen philosophy nerds try and do the same, trying to write like Hegel