Is there anything more interesting than this? What else are you guys reading
mom-son erotic stories
>>17068033>Is there anything more interesting than this?the female mind>What else are you guys readingLindsay Clancy's givesendgo
>>17068033>Is there anything more interesting than this?Literally any other branch of physics. I personally find statmech just an exercise in bullshitting your way through equations until you get some result. There are so many bullshit assumptions statmech calculations go through it’s insane. For example textbooks regularly tell you to switch sums for integrals justifying it with some wishy-washy “continuum limit” whereas in reality you’re doing Abel summation, which itself relies on assumptions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel%27s_summation_formulaThey also tend to heavily use asymptotic analysis without properly introducing it to students. The list goes on. So all of it feels like some hodgepodge of ad hoc tricks that get you from equation A to equation B.Don’t get me wrong, I think statmech foundations (all the ensemble stuff) is fascinating and essential to study as a physicist. But the moment you jump to applications, you get heavily involved in functional analysis and distribution theory, areas which physicists conveniently brush aside and start tardwrangling spurious “infinities” as a result.
>>17068033One interesting thing I learned during my postdoc years is that the way physics scholars are trained in undergrad and graduate school on the topic of Quantum Mechanics is very very lacking in the historical context of how the originators of the theory actually thought about it. In fact, QM’s founding papers — I am talking about Planck and his constant as well as Einstein’s papers on the quantization of photons — was very much coming out of the context of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Go back and read the original Einstein papers, or Planck’s papers (they have English translations) — it is nothing like what you read in textbooks today, but is rather very high-level thermodynamics stuff that is very hard to follow if you read them from the perspective of someone with a modern physics educationThermo is really a lost art, and what is really sad is that the 20th century greats like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger were all using that art constantly in their pioneering work, but it is all completely lost now, as far as I can tell , except maybe for some weird condensed matter theory spergs
>>17068070If Navier-Stokes teaches you one thing, even broken theories are working just fine. There is still huge success.A rigorous mathematician would give up at finding the singularity, a rigorous physician would built it anyway and ignite fusion.
>>17068461In what way is Navier-Stokes broken?>muh singularityliterally all of quantum field theory is working around singularities
>>17068472Honestly nobody in real physics ever even thought the “idealized liquid” of Navier Stokes was a realistic physical system in the first place. An incompressible fluid? Constant viscosity? No phase changes? It is an overly idealized system on which Navier-Stokes applies.It really doesn’t surprise me that there are mathematically predicted “fluid black holes” in Navier Stokes because no real fluid is immune to the realities of chemistry and physics. At some point it freezes or cavitates or does something that defies the assumptions of an overly-idealized system. It’s like assuming that the equations of Newtonian “rigid bodies” apply even to rigid bodies that would have to have 10^6 times the strength of titanium. Those things don’t exist and different physical rules come into play once your idealized toys get destroyed by reality. This is not news to anyone by the way Everyone should have known that our descriptions of idealized liquids are just as stupid as descriptions of idealized solids long ago. The N-S equation thing was more about autist math shit, and not much about real physics with applications to the real world
>>17068038you are soooooo wrong
>>17068033Probably why everything inside is non local as well, because a local system between 1-2 would use non local to stop the build up of entropy.
>>17068070Is QM tardwrangling a spurious infinity in thermodynamics?
>>17068482So how should one honestly learn to do physics?
>>17068482You do realize the AI proof isnt justified right? Don't go changing your mental model because of some bogus clickbait. Consider the case where someone drops another mountain of equal slop that disproves each and every one of OAI claim. How do we know which one is true?
>>17069857It is perfectly a reasonable thing to do for physics students to study idealized systems. One of the first things a physicist needs to learn how to do is how to figure out *reasonable approximations* which amount to idealized simplifications of a real system amenable to a practical solution. Nobody with half a room temperature IQ goes about the problem of how well an antenna will pick up a radio signal by writing down QED feynman diagrams. It is all about knowing the appropriate types of physics that apply in the regimes of the appropriate models.So sure, it is good to study incompressible fluids when it applies to scenarios where the fluids in your system are basically not compressing. Water doesn’t compress very much at all compared to the scales relevant for designing the hydraulic systems in construction equipment or ghetto pump-my-rides, for example. But if you are thinking about the hydrodynamics that go on inside, for example, a hydrogen bomb (where fluid dynamics are indeed super important) you drop that assumption and use a more realistic model where things are compressibleit depends. And most of the time knowing exactly what assumptions are good and what aren’t depend either on having some great intuition (not recommended for new learners of physics), or just by learning from empirical experience
