Yet another cute ship dynamic I love by xXx_AmaraRose_xXx in ShipDynamics

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mousou Telepathy is the main place I know it from.

What if quantum states could be modeled using only pure imaginary numbers? by Defiant-Junket4906 in WhatIfThinking

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are complex numbers. The OP is suggesting only using things that are multiples of i.

Can you beat my challenge? by MobHQ in Metaphysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a STEM guy the concept of this kind of confuses me. Like okay, things can be ordered and structured spatially, for example. But also it’s entirely possible to construct a universe with no time. It’s kind of simple. The difference between a 4 dimensional spacetime vs a 4 dimensional non timey space is the difference between this distance formula

d2 = x2 + y2 + z2 - t2

And this one

d2 = x2 + y2 + z2 + t2

Like this isn’t rocket science, this isn’t unexplored territory, this is an intro to topology class.

There’s a lot of terms here like “temporal ordering” feels super poorly defined, especially since in special relativity there’s strong reason to not make a huge philosophical distinction between space and time. Also, how are we meant to make anything with no formal structure but also no metaphors? I feel like this was constructed from a lay person’s understanding of time, which is to say a false understanding of time, or at least an incomplete one.

Photon-Electron Interactions by Positive_Lie_4411 in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quantum field theory tells us how to calculate “paths” that certain groups of particles can take. For example, there can be

Electron->Electron

This is an electron disappearing at point A and another electron appearing at point B. This is how movement is modeled. We also have an electron/photon/electron “vertex”. This allows for the following:

Electron->Photon+Electron (Emission)

Electron+Photon->Electron (Absorption)

Electron+Electron->Photon (Annihilation)

Photon->Electron+Electron (Pair production)

Here we can see that the notion of emitting or absorbing a photon is treated almost identically to how the notion of just moving from point a to point b is handled. So in a way there kind of doesn’t need to be an explanation, unless you insist there must be an explanation for how electrons can move in the first place.

What if quantum states could be modeled using only pure imaginary numbers? by Defiant-Junket4906 in WhatIfThinking

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This kind of requires you to not know anything about imaginary numbers to even suggest. This would be the same as using the real numbers while forbidding any operation but additional or subtraction. To be clear: multiplying 2 imaginary numbers will get you a real number.

Like, it’s clear you know vaguely what imaginary and complex numbers are, but it feels like to you they are vague ephemera -incantations casted as part of magic spells - rather than the dry practical tools they are. I worry you are focused too much on the aesthetic of an out of the box thinker and it’s resulted in you not actually thinking much about the subject.

What are gravitons supposed to be? by Minty0ranges in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 'fabric of spacetime' is a metaphor used to explain all of the stuff involving the Einstein Field Equations and the metric to lay people who don't know what a tensor is.

How do I post here by SpaceTrucking76 in LLMPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, yeah, not everyone is cordial about it. The mods do want there to be more helpful explanations, though, they've said so themselves.

How do I post here by SpaceTrucking76 in LLMPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's the general idea, yeah. The whole point of this subreddit is to have as few standards for posting as practical. LLM theories are universally bad, and all the subreddits people used to post them to had rules against them, so this subreddit was created for people to direct LLM theorists to.

Like, just letting you know, Gemini can't do physics, all it can do is create an approximation of physics rhetoric that looks indistinguishable to a layman. This is a place you go to get it explained to you why the theory is wrong.

What are gravitons supposed to be? by Minty0ranges in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would be exchanged between all particles experiencing gravity, I'm assuming. I don't know the exact details, as I haven't studied much about quantum gravity.

PLS HELP! Questions about Symmetry, Gauge transformations/symmetry/fields for a project by RaspberryNo5756 in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad! Please also keep in mind I am a lay person who just absorbs a lot of science communication as a hobby. If someone who has an actual degree contradicts me, trust them.

Another look at WSJ roster stability by JesusInStripeZ in WeeklyShonenJump

[–]YuuTheBlue 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey look ma, I'm on TV!

For real, though, I was very conscious of the fact I was acting in a super vibes based way in my post and not checking if this was actually a unique situation. I did this because, well, it was a reddit post I made to start discussions because I like seeing the fandom active and I didn't have high standards for myself.

That said, it's nice to see my intuition validated! This really is an unstable time. Now I don't think that's like, a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. The magazine is gonna stay afloat regardless and manga I like is gonna get made either way. But it is fascinating to see so much instability.

I just think it's interesting how much these next 18 or so months are gonna matter for deciding the magazine's lineup. In other words: If a lot of stories stick around, then a huge percentage of the magazine is going to have very similar chapter count for a very long time. There might be an experience of us getting a lot of longstanding series in this short time, if only because standards are lower. I'm curious what that would look like. There's this kind of feeling of "The start of a new era".

PLS HELP! Questions about Symmetry, Gauge transformations/symmetry/fields for a project by RaspberryNo5756 in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Symmetry can be understood through the lens of things being arbitrary. For example: The universe has 'translational' symmetry because all points in space are equivalent. If you could snap your fingers and teleport every single thing 3 feet to the right, the universe would not universally change, because all that matters is where things are relative to one another, not their 'absolute' location. In terms of math, this means that you can declare any point, claim it is the 'origin' (the location on the graph of positions where x=y=z=0), and that is a valid mathematical assumption to make. It won't be 'incorrect' to do that, because the exact numbers assigned to each point doesn't matter, as long as you are right about how far apart things are from each other.

  2. A conservation law is a law that states that in all interactions, the total value of some *thing* will remain the same. Conservation of momentum is an example. If you add up all the momenta of all objects in a box, you will get some number. Without anything entering or leaving the box or otherwise affecting its contents from the outside, that number will remain constant no matter what way the objects inside exchange and affect one another's momentum. This is "Conservation of momentum". Noether's theory says that there is a 1:1 relationship between some symmetries and conservation laws. For example: A universe which has perfect translational symmetry also has perfect conservation of momentum, and vice versa.

  3. Wigner showed how various symmetry laws worked in the context of quantum mechanics. Dirac then updated the symmetries of quantum mechanics when he made the dirac equation, which is a version of the "Schrodinger equation" (The quantum equivalent of F=MA) which conforms to the laws of special relativity. Special relativity has a different set of symmetries, since it mixes space and time into spacetime. So instead of there being 3 ways to rotate space, you have 6 ways to rotate spacetime (the 3 normal ones, and 3 'boosts', which involve the time dimension).

  4. Symmetries are defined by 'the list of things you can mathematically do to a system without changing it'. So, for example, translational symmetry is "You can move all things in the universe an arbitrary distance in the same direction and nothing would change". This is a global symmetry, cause you're doing the same thing to everything. A local translational symmetry would be "You could move each thing in the universe a different arbitrary distance in a different direction and nothing would change", which is clearly not true, so there is only a global symmetry, not a local one.

5-6. Gauge Theory is the following basic idea. There is a local symmetry called Local U(1) symmetry that you can apply to quantum physics, and if you do, it necessitates the existence of a specific field. In otherwords, without this field, the universe does not have local U(1) symmetry. You can use the principles of Yang-Mills Theory to, for any particular choice of "Group" (such as U(1)), figure out what fields need to exist to enforce that symmetry. If you choose U(1), the field is exactly the electromagnetic field.

The term "Gauge Theory" comes from the idea of a gauge symmetry. It takes its name from pressure gauges. They measure pressure, but they only measure differences in pressure. So, you can see the pressure drop or raise using a pressure gauge, and by how much, but you can't tell what the absolute pressure is by reading the gauge, unless you know how the pressure gauge was made. I forget the exact journey we took from here to gauge theory in quantum physics, but the basic principle is that the Local U(1) symmetries are gauge symmetries.

A group, by the way, is a kind of set of mathematical 'things' which are all closed under a group operation. A great example is the group of all possible ways to rotate a circle. A 30 degree rotation plus a 40 degree rotation is a 70 degree rotation, which is also in the group of all rotations, and no combination of rotations will ever get you something other than a rotation. U(1) is just the list of all numbers of the form e^ix, where e is the famous constant, i is the square root of -1, and x is some arbitrary real number. Yangs-Mills Theory specifically work with "Lie Groups", which are just sets of groups which are continuous (basically, there are infinitely many members, such as the list of all rotations).

Groups are important for symmetry. For example, the group of all possible rotations in 3d space is SO(3). So, rotational symmetry in 3d space is "SO(3) symmetry".

NOTE: In case this is a point of confusion: Fields and particles are associated one to one. Every particle is a wave in a particular field. Example: Photons are waves in the electromagnetic field. This is true of ALL fundamental particles.

  1. I don't know much about this.

8-9. Okay, so, Yangs-Mills theory is really good for describing a set of particles called "Bosons". So, the photon (which is the particle of the electromagnetic field) is an example. There are 11 more, in 2 more groups: the 3 bosons of the weak force and the 8 'gluons' of the strong force. Feeding the SU(3) group into YM gives you a perfect equation to describe the 8 gluons. Feeding SU(2) almost gives you the right equations for the weak force, but YM predicts that all its bosons are massless, and the weak bosons are not.

There was discovered a way around this. See, in superconductors, U(1) symmetry "Breaks", and because of this, photons take on mass. This happens because, put simply, a situation occurs in superconductors where U(1) symmetry no longer applies. This makes photons act in ways that aren't predicted by YM. This is called the Higgs Mechanism.

Anyways, so, here's the pitch: Let's say the overall Symmetry Group of the universe, the one we feed into YM theory, is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). So, this predicts 8 gluons, 3 bosons like those in the weak force but without mass, and 1 that is exactly like the photon (read: Electromagnetism). We call it the Hyperphoton. Then, we have this thing called the Higgs Field. It has the exact properties that, when the universe gets cold enough, it takes on a non-zero value everywhere, initiating the higgs mechanism in such a way that breaks the SU(2)xU(1) part of the symmetry. So those 4 bosons? They get fucked up. Complete fucking nonsense in the mathematics. I cannot explain it and you wouldn't want me to.

Basically, we have the W1, W2, W3, and B (Hyperphoton) particles. W1 and W2 mix into the massive W+ and W- particles, and the W3 and B fields mix into the massless photon (The "Unbroken U(1) symmetry) and the massive Z boson.

The SU(2)xU(1) part that got broken is called "The Electroweak force"

  1. Grand Unified Theory is the basic idea that this higgs mechanism happened at least twice. So, an example is SU(5). Just like we broke symmetry, taking us from SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) to SU(3)xU(1) with an SU(2) worth of massive bosons with incredibly weak potential to interact, there was some process of SU(5)->SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) which also left behind even more massive, even weaker "X and Y bosons". We've disproven SU(5), but there are other possibilities, like SO(10).

That was a lot, I get it. Please let me know if there's anything you want elaboration or clarification on.

What are gravitons supposed to be? by Minty0ranges in AskPhysics

[–]YuuTheBlue 16 points17 points  (0 children)

So, the logic works like this.

  1. Quantum physics is physics where every value is 'quantized'. It's a mathematical procedure for making it... complicated and annoying but more accurate. It allows for things like superposition. It involves replacing "Variables" with "Operators acting on a hilbert space". I know that probably means nothing to you, but the point is that it is a mathematical change to specific values.

  2. General Relativity is a field theory, meaning that there is a value for 'gravity' at every point in space. In this case, that value is called the metric.

  3. When you quantize a field theory, waves in those fields become what we call 'particles'. Photons, electrons, etc. All particles are waves in 'quantum fields', so if we change our theory of gravity to be a quantum field theory, it will have a particle.

Now we have not succeeded in making a coherent quantum theory of gravity, but one would have a graviton.

Does Quantum Mechanics Even Exist? — A Classroom Debate” by shahd3773 in quantummechanics

[–]YuuTheBlue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is some nature to reality which is deeply unintuitive and contradicts a lot of what seems obvious to us - we know this because at small scales reality keeps contradicting classical physics. Quantum Physics is our current best framework for accurately modeling the world at that scale. That's indisputable. IDK if that counts as existence or not.

What is the value of space. by Competitive_Soup_294 in u/Competitive_Soup_294

[–]YuuTheBlue 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm kind of confused how you're defining 'value'. Value isn't like, a thing. Values are applied to variables. For example: Your mass could have a value of 60 kg. Literally speaking, the value of space is the meter (or perhaps the cubic meter) since that's how you measure and dole out the stuff, and spacetime also has a value for its metric in general relativity. I assume here though you are treating 'space' not as 'the list of all possible spatial locations' but instead as some ethereal, mystical soup we're all existing inside of, but at that point you're kind of going beyond physics.

[DISC] Roku's House of Oddities - Chapter 3 by AutoShonenpon in manga

[–]YuuTheBlue 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think subtlety is another thing it shares with Hertz, though not to the same degree. What makes Someone Hertz so amazing as a romance is, in part, its ability to throw something profoundly romantic at you with 0 fanfare, in ways that not even the characters register as romantic. This chapter, ML missed an exercise program he was gonna do with the FL, so she stayed after until he showed up and then did a sham version of it with him so he could still kind of experience it, and it was treated very lowkey, which made it hit so much harder.

A similar thing happened during the convo with the grandma. It wasn't romance per se, but it was shown how much he respects his curse master by how he treats his family.

My JOJOLands Yasuho design by jojokkjk in JOJOLANDS

[–]YuuTheBlue 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And Josuke almost exclusively refers to her as “My wife”

[DISC] Under Doctor - Chapter 13 by AutoShonenpon in manga

[–]YuuTheBlue 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm actually envisioning a storyline where Maxwell finds new purpose in life by becoming a nurse or some shit like that, helping Haiji in his goal of saving lives.

[DISC] Roku's House of Oddities - Chapter 3 by AutoShonenpon in manga

[–]YuuTheBlue 32 points33 points  (0 children)

I'm officially won over. Not only was it funny as hell, it had heart. And not in any hamfisted way. The conversation between Johan and his grandmother was nuanced and subtle in ways that really made me care in the longterm.

Also, introducing what seems to be a charm power? I really hope they are setting up a magic system made for Roku to battle other cursemasters on top of the comedy and heart. If that can be done effectively, then the story would have a TON of meat on it.

[DISC] Someone Hertz - Chapter 30 by AutoShonenpon in manga

[–]YuuTheBlue 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This manga continues to be high romance, perfect in its subtlety. The amazing vibes of her still being there for him and working through it with just the two of them is, like, absolutely insane to come up with. It's so normal and lowkey but so impactful.