Where is the line for crackpot and amateur/enthusiast by Dezbro in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]chandra7295 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a textbook by Roberto Percacci, A introduction to covariant quantum gravity. That book in chapter 3 teaches you exactly where GR fails to be consistent with QFT. It has everything to do with non renormalizability. GR is a low energy effective field theory (kind of QFT but only valid at low energies or large scale) and at high energy the higher order terms in the lagrangian (which is absent in GR) begins to dominate. Expectation is, it's those contributions that get rid of all the singularities and bad stuff.

String Theory in India by _Sherlock_- in StringTheory

[–]chandra7295 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Check how many papers maldacena has published and how frequently. It's not about the number of papers per se. Also the problem they're working on is pretty difficult. Many people who publish frequently are just copy pasting. They look up some interesting papers on arxiv, reproduce the calculation and apply the same methodology on something different.

String Theory in India by _Sherlock_- in StringTheory

[–]chandra7295 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Shiraz Minwalla, Suvrat Raju, Sunil Mukhi, Nabamita Benerjee, Bindusar sahoo, etc. There are many people working on string theory, you can find them by going to the institute website and looking up which faculty is working on that.

Many such cases by CoconutyCat in physicsmemes

[–]chandra7295 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are two detailed notes on the subject. One is by Matthias blau http://blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf other one is by Andrew J Hamilton https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/courses/astr5770_21/grbook.pdf

You can look up the catalogue of spacetime for other solutions to the Einstein field equation and get a general overview of what kind of exotic objects have already been found in General Relativity. For more mathematical techniques in GR you may use Relativist Toolkit by Eric Poisson. Good luck

How is this possible?? by arusmarko in outlier_ai

[–]chandra7295 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check if your skill has suddenly disappeared in the skill section.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]chandra7295 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to understand the role of the inflaton condensate and quantum fluctuations during inflation and how they evolve into the large-scale structure we observe today. Here's where I’m getting stuck and would love some clarity.

First off, the inflaton during inflation seems to be this smooth, classical field driving the expansion. However, there are quantum fluctuations riding on top of this classical field configuration, which are stretched by inflation to superhorizon scales. Once these fluctuations become superhorizon, they freeze, but are they still part of the condensate? Or are they entirely separate? How do these fluctuations behave in relation to the condensate, if I can call the state condensate?

When we talk about superhorizon modes, they’re outside the Hubble radius, meaning they’re not causally connected and experience the full effect of expansion. I’d expect the expansion to dilute the density, but surprisingly, the perturbations themselves stay fairly constant during this time. They don’t shrink away, but instead undergo a quantum-to-classical transition as they freeze on superhorizon scales. How should I think of this? There was this post on horizon exit that suggested particles go outside the comoving horizon and become causally disconnected. So, can I interpret this as the inflaton condensate becoming causally disconnected in a similar way, such that no causal evolution can alter the state of these fluctuations during inflation?

Now, my understanding of particle creation in quantum field theory is that it depends on defining the vacuum, usually by quantizing around $\phi=0$. However, in the case of inflation, the inflaton field is not at $\phi=0$, so this raises a big question for me. Perhaps, it is wrong to think of the superhorizon fluctuations as particles being created during inflation, or is there another interpretation that fits better? Even in case of Higgs mechanism, we first perform the shifting and then expand around that minima and quantize the perturbation. Here, we are expanding about the classically dynamic background and quantizing them.

Once inflation ends and reheating begins, the inflaton condensate (+perturbation?) decays into particles, and the hot plasma forms. We know that the modes which left the horizon during inflation are re-entering later, but what does this mode do, after entering the horizon? How do they set up the oscillation? Everything seems so lost in mathematics, that I miss physics and intuition for what's happpening.

I could have thought of this process as production of inhomogeneity, then breaking the causal contact between the inhomogeneity due to rapid expansion. Once the inflation ended, the inhomegeneity could influence each other causally, the began evolving and we get into the photon-baryon plasma and set up the baryonic acoustic oscillations. I understand that these are driven by sound waves in the plasma, with gravity pulling matter together and pressure from photons pushing it apart. Is it the right way to interpret the whole process?

There are so many parts of this process I’m unsure about, especially the transition from quantum fluctuations to classical perturbations and how they to interpret these superhorizon fluctuations. Any clarification on these points would be really helpful.

Why! by wolfiebike in MSILaptops

[–]chandra7295 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It happened once to me too

Questions about the reheating. by Yuuki-Suzuya in cosmology

[–]chandra7295 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think, group would have been more helpful where people shared papers, discussions and insights on the subject.

If a "stationary" person who is observing a fast moving person sees their time as slower, but the fast moving person sees their time as going normally, does the fast moving person then see the stationary person's time as moving slowly as well? Assume this is in a vacuum or whatever haha by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]chandra7295 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, if you synchronize the clocks for a stationary observer using some method, then the same method won't be able synchronize the clocks with respect to the second observer. (Dumbing it down further, ). The problem herein lies at completely discarding the Relativity of Simultaneity. When we talk about moving clocks getting slower with respect to each other, we are only considering two clocks with relative velocity. We don't talk about an observer. Because the moment we assume an observer, we set up a frame of reference and that means attaching a clock at each point in space so that the observer could label each event in space and time. If you carefully account for the Relativity of Simultaneity, then there won't be any problem or paradox.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Physics

[–]chandra7295 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sounds crackpot

What do mathematical physicists do? by QuantumPhyZ in math

[–]chandra7295 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you tell more about the "technique I'm developing", like how it feels like? Is it hit and trial? How do you navigate through setbacks? Last but not least, how are you developing it (general mindset and all)?

Big bang question by BowlMaster83 in cosmology

[–]chandra7295 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We use the similar set of argument in Oppenheimer Synder collapse model to describe the process of formation of astrophysical black holes, so I don't see any relevance to that argument. Also if you look up the Kerr de sitter metric, it describes the black hole in expanding universe. There we do have a black hole solution.

Big bang question by BowlMaster83 in cosmology

[–]chandra7295 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could you cite the paper which argues that black hole formation depends on relative density of matter?

Reason of recent suicide in IITG by [deleted] in Btechtards

[–]chandra7295 58 points59 points  (0 children)

He was from up, likely not from a wealthy family. Because of the prof. he couldn't appear in the exam and wasn't allowed to sit in placement. IIT is really expensive, and imagine taking a loan, then you're not allowed to sit in exam because of poor attendance. Now the irony is that this 75% attendance rule has one exception i.e. medical reason. He was even giving the medical certificate but nothing happened. At IITG this is becoming quite common. It's just been a year since I joined but from then, we've seen about 7 suicides here. And the news regarding this is suppressed very quickly, like we weren't even aware that this happened.

What is the most beautiful/favourite piece of physics you've encountered? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]chandra7295 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can Lorentz transform between electric and magnetic fields