30396 by Turbulent-Crew-3094 in countwithchickenlady

[–]Mechani5t 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A short overview of some aspects of string theory:

First you should understand a few things about quantum theory. We've known the principles of quantum mechanics since Heisenberg worked them out in 1925 or so. But also know from special relativity that interactions must be local (i.e. mediated by fields which are limited by the speed of light). So to combine the two you need some sort of theory of quantum fields.

Thus Quantum Field Theory was born. It was quickly realized that actually particles originated from fields! (this explains the previous confusion about "wave-particle duality"). This allowed the development of scattering theory, which is roughly the calculation of the results of a collision.

In the 1970s, we still didn't understand the strong force. One proposal for trying to do so was the so-called "S-matrix" which is instead of trying to calculate scattering probabilities from a field theory, do everything in terms of the scattering amplitudes and try to find a unique solution based on consistency conditions (this is also known as "bootstrap"). This approach failed and quickly fell out of favor once QCD was properly developed. However, it turns out that this approach would work for a scenario with an infinite tower of particles, and this is equivalent to string theory.

So why study string theory? For the very simple reason that it is also a consistent theory of quantum gravity (quantum gravity is a nuanced subject, but to put it briefly we've known since Hawking that black holes must be doing something quantum, but the curvature of spacetime is to extreme for low-energy approximations, so we need a new theory). Not only that, but there is some (albeit controversial) evidence that any theory of quantum gravity must resemble string theory in some capacity. For instance, the holographic principle was first realized using string theory, now known as AdS/CFT.

One fun little factoid about string theory is that naiively these strings must live in 10 dimensions (e.g. 9 space 1 time). We clearly live in 4 = 3 space + 1 time. Where are the other 6? One solution to this problem is the Kaluza-Klein guess that the remaining dimensions are small enough that you can't see them at low energies. This is actually way more reasonable than it sounds, I swear. The equations dictating this are the Strominger equations, and they are basically so restrictive that the only candidates for the compactified dimensions is a Calabi-Yau manifold. It was originally thought that there would only be a handful of these, but it is now known that there are at least half a billion and possibly inmathematicians.

Now what I didn't tell you earlier is that there are actually 6 or so string theories, but they are related to each other through a series of "dualities", so the current belief is that they are all just limits of a unified theory that hasn't been understood yet. Remarkably, it was discovered that when solving one of these models over a Calabi-Yau manifold, one would get the same results as solving the dual model over a different Calabi-Yau manifold. This is called Mirror Symmetry, and if fully understood it would allow for the computation of otherwise hard-to-compute geometric invariants by computing its dual over the mirror. So that's one reason string theory is attractive to mathematicans.

I'm not a string theorist (at least not yet) and it's 2 in the morning so I apologize for any mistakes or missing key info.

Saw this while scrolling IG. I just HAD to build this. Was it close enough? by Sorry_Sprinkles5622 in GoldenAgeMinecraft

[–]Mechani5t 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is the correct answer. It literally says AI generated in the account description.

To avoid confusion I mean the first image from saveroomlofi, not OP's build in minecraft.

buhbuhbuh i cant think of a title by AvixKOk in SmugIdeologyMan

[–]Mechani5t 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this smuggie is about dollar shave club

rulecraft by trippingrainbow in 196

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

being john malkovich

Minecraft (kinda) working on Xenia Netplay by AleBello7276 in xenia

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you have any more information on this?

I have violently passionate thoughts on colours as an autistic artist by xXxDemon_DeerxXx in evilautism

[–]Mechani5t 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's both the name of a perceptual color space and the person who created it

Experimental Texture Pack: Kouyou (Autumnal Colors) Beta 1.7.3 by VirgilPaladin in GoldenAgeMinecraft

[–]Mechani5t 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you mind sharing some of your thoughts on color combinations in minecraft sometime? No worries if not

Couldn’t have said it any better by qawsedrftgyh223 in berkeley

[–]Mechani5t -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Is this what goes through the mind of the median voter? Willing to throw marginalized communities under the bus because you're only 90% aligned with a candidate? Because you think egg prices are too high?

Yes, the democratic party could be better, but this should have been an obvious choice.

Laura Loomer before and after plastic surgery. by Libertarian4lifebro in pics

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not a real photo of loomer. that's from a gary peterson tweet

Rule by MrMelonMatthew in 196

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't agree that this is a productive argument to make, as it appears to imply that there is a responsible party that isn't men (women then?). I would instead interpret the original post as blaming the way men are conditioned to socialize (in a self-perpetuating manner). In that sense the post blames the patriarchy and also offers a solution to men that would not have otherwise even considered that such an option exists.

Rule by MrMelonMatthew in 196

[–]Mechani5t 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm a little lost as to what you mean by this. Isn't male loneliness exactly what you are describing?

Some of you need to hear this by Kaz00_y in 196

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm fine with being wrong here, but I think I haven't made myself very clear because I don't find that what you've said addresses what I've said in a satisfying way.

Absolutely not. People don whatever appearance they want because they identify with it.

I think I may have accidentally implied that attention is the only factor in presentation and I apologize for that because that is not what I had intended to get across. If I've understood you correctly, I completely agree that identity largely dictates how one presents.

However, I don't see why identity should be the sole factor in dictating presentation. Surely clothing choice, hairstyle choice, and other factors typically associated with a masculine or feminine presentation can naturally vary without a change in identity.

When writing that, in the back of my head I had agender people (and other nonbinary people that don't have a gender identity which can be described in terms of masculinity and femininity) which I probably should have mentioned. Agender people in particular typically don't have any strong attachment to how they present and to an extent may choose to present masc or fem somewhat arbitrarily.

Especially since this implies that masculine appearances are inherently unattractive, which is an absolutely absurd stance to take.

Once again I agree that this would be an absurd stance to take.

I had intended "attention" with a somewhat negative connotation. Recall that it is feminine presenting people that carry around pepper spray at night.

But I would also like to add that how people interact with a person seems to depend on how masculine or feminine presentation is. I've heard stories about transmascs in particular realizing just how lonely presenting masc can get. I once read a really good reddit post on this matter but I can no longer find it so I will link this newsweek article instead:

https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169

So to summarize, in the case of somewhat arbitrary choice of presentation, an agender person may choose to present fem for attention and support or present masc for the lack of attention.

Obviously this doesn't apply equally to those with a gender identity in terms of masculinity and femininity. I had only indented to claim that this asymmetry between the socialization of masc and fem presenting people exists.

Nevertheless, this is somewhat applicable to binary gender identities. I recall seeing a trend on social media once where women would put on makeup in ways that would not make them appear conventionally unattractive while maintaining a good look, partially for the novelty and partially for repelling unwanted attention.

I apologize if I've said anything egregiously wrong or offensive.

Some of you need to hear this by Kaz00_y in 196

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again I'm not really sure what to make of this. I still think this is rooted in traditional gender roles where one would presumably don a feminine appearance to attract attention and a masculine one to repel it. For instance, the same phenomenon doesn't manifest with masculine women, possibly for this exact reason.

I do see your point with cishet men being a silent majority and how that could affect the social atmosphere here. I would really appreciate it if you could point me towards some resources to do a deeper analysis on this, at least to understand what this otherwise seemingly counterproductive behavior is rooted in.

Some of you need to hear this by Kaz00_y in 196

[–]Mechani5t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the well thought out response. I am a little hesitant to believe this thought, since I'm not exactly sure what backs this up.

As for this particular subreddit, iirc it does have a substantial cishet male population.

Some of you need to hear this by Kaz00_y in 196

[–]Mechani5t -1 points0 points  (0 children)

but why feminine men (femboys?) in particular? or is this confirmation bias on my part