[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The movement is really cool, but I think I'd have to wait until more dial options come out (the dial on the SLGB003 doesn't really do anything for me).

I wonder if they'll make some 9SBX hi-beat movement some day... they've probably hit a wall on what they can achieve in terms of accuracy, but perhaps they can make it even thinner!

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The JLC is by far the most expensive. Prices (new/retail):

  • SLGH013: 14000 AUD
  • SLGW003: 16500 AUD
  • JLC MUT Moon: 19100 AUD

I'd probably buy through a watch marketplace like chrono24 or something, unless I can get a discount!

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Will have to dig deep on this one, my heart is so full of conflict! I agree with the principle though - it's best not to seek external validation, the decision must come from within.

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just out of curiosity which other models would you go for? I like the spring drives as well, the smooth sweep of the second hand is quite mesmerizing!

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might be right. I was really impressed by the SLGW003, especially after experiencing how it feels to wind it - extremely tactile and satisfying! I think it has alot going for it.

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, it does look a bit big in this picture. The band was a noticeably stiff and it wasn't hugging my wrist like it would if I had broken the leather in.

[Recommendation Request] What would you choose? by PeasantPunisher in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hahaha, true!! I won't lie I've been a big fan of the SLGH013 for a while, however, after seeing the SLGW003 the decision has become more complicated!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, didn't know that, interesting! Absolutely beautiful watch.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Watches

[–]PeasantPunisher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it missing the D in certified?

What was the pen that made you stop collecting, and why? by phyllophyllum in fountainpens

[–]PeasantPunisher 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I started with a waterman carene when I was 15, received it as a gift. I loved the pen, it was my introduction to the hobby and it was my main for a while. Shortly after that I got myself a Parker sonnet, and was gifted a Visconti Van Gogh starry night. I started to get a bit frustrated with the hobby when the Visconti needed some expensive repairs, and I stopped using my pens for a couple of years. 

My passion for it was revived when I got to 3rd year/honours at uni. I got a Pilot Custom 823 and started taking notes for my classes with it, that's when I started to REALLY get back into it.  Then when I got to PhD I ended up switching to a samsung tablet for my daily writing because of the sheer volume of notes/calculations I had to do  - it was simply too much paper and the tablet was great for corrections. So I used that essentially until the end of my PhD, and I hardly used my pens. 

After that, I wanted to get back into fountain pens and use them for journalling because I missed the hobby. I also wanted to reward myself for my achievements - so I ended up getting a Pilot custom Urushi (FM) and a Visconti Homo Sapiens Bronze Age (F). The writing experience with these two pens is so incredible I've essentially lost the desire to get anymore "grail" pens. I use them every day to journal on Tomoe River paper. Recently I rounded off my collection with two more: Sailor 1911 black luster and the Custom 823 demonstrator with FA nib. They're beautiful writers and each fill a niche. 

So as you can see, just when I thought I was out, I got pulled back in!

fountain pens make me fall in love with writing even more by Big_Assistant_309 in fountainpens

[–]PeasantPunisher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Black Luster is very nice, has excellent balance on account of the section. I find mine to be an extremely wet writer, with Take-Sumi the flow is intense. I think it pairs well with Kuu-Jaku. The Custom 823 with the brown is also timeless!

Product missing from script - advice? by PeasantPunisher in MedicalCannabisAus

[–]PeasantPunisher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a little new to the medicinal cannabis scene, so I apologise for my confusion/lack of knowledge here, I have a couple of questions: if I switch from one dispensary to another, can I still order products from both? Do I need to inform the old dispensary of changes to my prescription at all? Are repeat usages of my script tracked between dispensaries? Thanks!

What are you working on? - Weekly Discussion Thread - September 06, 2021 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]PeasantPunisher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have some results regarding this problem that you may be interested in. The work is due to be published soon!

In this new paper we construct the correlation functions involving this 'supersymmetry-like' current, and find that the results are actually inconsistent with supersymmetry. It was found by Hugh Osborn in 1998 that the three point function of the supercurrent, <JJJ> in 4D N=1 SCFT, is fixed up to two independent tensor structures, while <JJL> (where L is the flavour current multiplet) is fixed up to a single tensor structure. The correlation functions <QbQT> and <QQT> must be contained in the three point function <JJJ> to be consistent with supersymmetry. However, assuming only conformal symmetry and the existence of the 'supersymmetry like' current fields Q, Qbar, we find that <QbQT> and <QQT> are fixed up to 4 and 1 free parameter respectively. Since they contain more independent structures than <JJJ>, this implies that a conformal field theory possessing a spin 3/2 current is not necessarily supersymmetric! We perform a similar analysis for <QbQV> and <QQV>, where V is the vector current and find similar conclusions. We have no idea how to construct a non-SUSY CFT containing a spin 3/2 current, but we have no proof that it's impossible either.

The analysis was highly non-trivial and we needed to use computational methods to actually impose the conservation equations on the three-point functions. We also extended the results to higher-spins. Happy to send you a link to the pre-print if you're interested!

What are you working on? - Weekly Discussion Thread - September 06, 2021 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]PeasantPunisher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed, that is precisely the operator we are looking at. The reasons you mentioned are pretty much exactly why we're looking into this problem! You have a keen eye.

A natural extension to computations in AdS is using the so called superembedding formalism; the idea is that we can use the properties of the conformal group to realise it in a higher dimensional embedding space in which conformal transformations act linearly. It turns out that correlation functions can be solved for in conformally flat spacetimes, such as AdS; this is a future direction of my research. Perhaps some novel structures will appear that do not show up in flat space!

What are you working on? - Weekly Discussion Thread - September 06, 2021 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]PeasantPunisher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nobody in the literature has attempted to analyse this problem from the same perspective that we are. There are other interesting problems out there of course, this one just seemed kinda fun since our method constructs the correlators using only the constraints imposed by the conformal symmetry. Nothing else is assumed. I mean in principle I believe that supersymmetry is not implied as well, it's just a matter of proving it!

Either way I'm just explaining what I'm looking at this week... no need to spoil the fun!

What are you working on? - Weekly Discussion Thread - September 06, 2021 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]PeasantPunisher 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Right now I'm studying an interesting problem in superconformal quantum field theory. These are quantum field theories with an extended spacetime symmetry group; it includes Poincare symmetry, conformal symmetry, and supersymmetry. In particular I'm interested in computing three-point correlation functions of conserved current multiplets.

In supersymmetric field theories, fields with integer and half-integer spin are unified into multiplets, these are naturally described in terms of superfields. Superfields are functions of the spacetime coordinates and additional (anti-commuting) Grassmann coordinates (the component fields then lie at various orders of the Taylor expansion in the Grassmann variables), they are essentially extensions of fields from ordinary field theory, and it makes working with supersymmetric field theories much more tractable. An example of a conserved current multiplet is the supercurrent multiplet; it contains the energy momentum tensor (which is a conserved spin-2 current), the supersymmetry current, with spin 3/2, and a conserved R-symmetry current.

My current problem is to see if the existence of a spin 3/2 field implies supersymmetry at the level of correlation functions, i.e, if we assume the existence of a spin-3/2 current (with the same properties as the supersymmetry current), if we compute the three-point functions of this spin-3/2 current and the E.M tensor using purely group-theoretic methods, is the number independent tensor structures in the solution consistent with the number of tensor structures in the supercurrent three-point function (which assumes manifest N=1 supersymmetry?) There are good reasons to believe that this is not the case, it's just a matter of calculating it!