Following some great feedback on Thread 100130 😵 I've decided to rename my club and make it open for everyone in here that really likes physics and math (other science issues can be tackled too) to join in order to discuss ideas.
One thing I though was that people that intended to follow 't Hooft's work plan to discuss approaches, problem solving issues, results and everything related to it.
We could also present some problems to each other (no solve this homework for me please type of problems) and see if we can come up with different solutions to them.
Different opinions are expected and even encouraged (so we can have real discussions and mutual understanding) but tolerance and respect are always expected from everyone.
So if you are interested in this type of thing just jump on board that we will be very happy to have you in our ranks.
Originally posted by MrHandThough I'm a little surprised you'd name the club after a, more or less, run of the mill prof
I'm too lazy to think about that stuff anymore. Chess makes my head hurt enough.
Though I'm a little surprised you'd name the club after a, more or less, run of the mill prof. You should go for a classic mathematician like Euler or something in my opinion.
Anyway, you guys are NERDS! 😛
So someone that has won the Nobel Prize in physics for proving that all gauge theories are renormalizable (all serious physical theories nowadays are gauge ones) is a run of the mill prof? 😕 😛 I also think that the name is a little bit lame (not for the reason you say. From the classics I'd go either with Newton or Gauss... Maybe Lagrange too...) and suggestions are welcomed in order to get a better name.
But you wouldn't need to think much. You could use this club just to read what other people write and help us get a club forum going 😉
And thanks for feedback and compliment. 😛
Originally posted by adam warlockWell, compared to Euler, he's just a run of the mill professor 😛
[b]Though I'm a little surprised you'd name the club after a, more or less, run of the mill prof
So someone that has won the Nobel Prize in physics for proving that all gauge theories are renormalizable (all serious physical theories nowadays are gauge ones) is a run of the mill prof? 😕 😛 I also think that the name is a little bit lame (not for t ...[text shortened]... le write and help us get a club forum going 😉
And thanks for feedback and compliment. 😛[/b]
Newton is too mainstream. I like someone more on the edge. Gauss over Newton for sure.
Personally, I think Euler was more prolific. I don't really know that much about mathmatics though. Just had some complex variable stuff and a few diffequ classes in grad school. I'd have trouble solving a laplace equation these days. I think I could still integrate 1/x though.
Originally posted by MrHandI like Heisenberg's Principle better. So thanks for a nice suggestion. One reason that made me choose the so far name of the club is the fact that it uses both a physics theme and a chess theme so it'd be nice to have that but not essential of course.
Hmm, I'll think about it. Though I do have couple of ideas for catchier names:
Schrödinger's Cat
Heisenberg's Principle
Ps:
Even though it is a misnomer. In all versions of QM I know of Heisenberg's Principle is proven on the basis of the axioms of QM and by results pertaining to the theory of linear operators. So it should really be named the Heisenberg's Theorem. But then it would lose the nice ring to it...
Originally posted by adam warlockAll over my head. Think single variable calculus to talk to me 😛
I like Heisenberg's Principle better. So thanks for a nice suggestion. One reason that made me choose the so far name of the club is the fact that it uses both a physics theme and a chess theme so it'd be nice to have that but not essential of course.
Ps:
Even though it is a misnomer. In all versions of QM I know of Heisenberg's Principle is prove ...[text shortened]... ould really be named the Heisenberg's Theorem. But then it would lose the nice ring to it...
My physics training is all engineering related...never got past statics & dynamics really. In the academic sense, my physics muscles are even more anemic than my mathematics muscles.
:'(
Originally posted by MrHandWell, compared to Euler, he's just a run of the mill professor 😛
Well, compared to Euler, he's just a run of the mill professor 😛
Newton is too mainstream. I like someone more on the edge. Gauss over Newton for sure.
Personally, I think Euler was more prolific. I don't really know that much about mathmatics though. Just had some complex variable stuff and a few diffequ classes in grad school. I'd have trouble solving a laplace equation these days. I think I could still integrate 1/x though.
I get your point. In a sense Euler made very a deep and profound impact on math and physics (which on his time had no distinction between them and was called Natural Philosophy) and also he was a very prolific author. But I also think about that if 't Hooft lived on Euler's days he certainly would make very deep and profound changes and progress on the natural philosophy scheme of things. Given of course he was given the chance to. But this is a very hard matter to discuss so let me digress no more.
The funny thing about Gauss is that he is so big on Science/Math: everybody that knew something about math called the Prince of Mathematics and he is virtually unknown to the general audience. He's my main scientific hero. 😀
I think I could still integrate 1/x though.
lulz! And you better know how to integrate this. This is one of the immediate ones. 😛 But think about the project and if you think that you can give us a tiny bit of your time just jump on board.
Originally posted by MrHandAh ok. Normally a principle in physics is a term used for assertions you take as building blocks of your theory. Just like an axiom or a postulate. And theorems are things you prove using your building blocks and/or other previously proven theorems.
All over my head. Think single variable calculus to talk to me 😛
My physics training is all engineering related...never got past statics & dynamics really. In the academic sense, my physics muscles are even more anemic than my mathematics muscles.
:'(
But this terminology isn't that universal. In math these names are very well used but on physics things aren't that clear cut. The main source of problems are the expressions:principle and law. Sometimes they mean axiom, sometimes they mean theorem other times ad hoc assumptions... A mess really... 😞
Originally posted by adam warlocktypical physics crap. 😛
Ah ok. Normally a principle in physics is a term used for assertions you take as building blocks of your theory. Just like an axiom or a postulate. And theorems are things you prove using your building blocks and/or other previously proven theorems.
But this terminology isn't that universal. In math these names are very well used but on physics thing ...[text shortened]... mean axiom, sometimes they mean theorem other times ad hoc assumptions... A mess really... 😞
2 edits
Originally posted by MrHandClan needs 20 people to make a forum. If you're even remotely interested please join
If I had the mind and patience for it, I would be a mathematician. Exacting. Provable.
Physics gets to be a lot of hand waving to me. Bat gravity!
Club 39
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockSo why did they select the density of the magnetic field, dedicate a unit to Gauss? I thought he was a math dude?
[b]Well, compared to Euler, he's just a run of the mill professor 😛
I get your point. In a sense Euler made very a deep and profound impact on math and physics (which on his time had no distinction between them and was called Natural Philosophy) and also he was a very prolific author. But I also think about that if 't Hooft lived on Euler's days h he project and if you think that you can give us a tiny bit of your time just jump on board.[/b]
What do you think of Sir Charles Wheatstone? I thought he was awesome.
Discovered polarized light, then used it to be able to make a sun finder on a cloudy day...
Invented the reed we use for concertina's, harmonica's, and accordians.
When he was 14 he wanted to see if he could visualize standing waves and he did using a square wire, about 2 mm square, with holes drilled in both axis, up and down and left to right, that is, and put little wires with a little indian bead on each one, then gave it a whack and you could see the standing waves on it by the beads that didn't vibrate. Pretty impressive stuff for a 14 YO, don't you think? And in the early 1800's too.
Originally posted by sonhouseGauss, like most of that era did not limit themselves to a particular field.
So why did they select the density of the magnetic field, dedicate a unit to Gauss? I thought he was a math dude?
What do you think of Sir Charles Wheatstone? I thought he was awesome.
Discovered polarized light, then used it to be able to make a sun finder on a cloudy day...
Invented the reed we use for concertina's, harmonica's, and accordians.
When h ...[text shortened]... vibrate. Pretty impressive stuff for a 14 YO, don't you think? And in the early 1800's too.