• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Solve this equation

U

  • Total voters
    2
Magrat Garlick

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Why would you post this? It's such an absolute trash equation even an econometrician would be embarrassed

oh i posted this before howe's post excuse me theoretical physicists of the forum
 
Last edited:
vcs

vcs

Well-known member
That makes me thankful I didn't study Physics. A transistor h-parameter equation in analog electronics was enough to make my head swim in college.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
vcs said:
That makes me thankful I didn't study Physics. A transistor h-parameter equation in analog electronics was enough to make my head swim in college.
Click to expand...
the standard model lagrangian written properly is actually very neat and tidy; the version on the coffee cup in the article howe posted is much more illuminating. (edit: albeit probably incorrect unless you assume there's hidden 1/2s lying around)

the op abomination is not just the standard model lagrangian (with higgs, ghosts etc); it's the standard model lagrangian written out in the silliest, most obtuse possible way because you lose all semblance of the original su(3) x su(2) x u(1) gauge structure which is kind of important, and i would strongly argue that writing out the ghost fields is completely pointless, they're either not needed at all or come for free, especially if you absolutely insist of writing it out as a lagrangian (rather than being sensible and writing the actual generating functional instead)

Howe_zat said:
Looks like a formula rather than an equation. Spark to confirm, assuming it's the physics I think it looks like

Edit:

So it's the Standard Model equation, so I guess it is an equation if you're not a pedant. Either way, you can't 'solve' it.

Breakdown here: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation
Click to expand...
you can certainly solve it. shove it into the euler-lagrange equations and it will, one day, give you an answer. the answer would alas be completely useless as we are doing quantum, not classical, field theory.
 
Last edited:
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Well-known member
Spark said:
you can certainly solve it. shove it into the euler-lagrange equations and it will, one day, give you an answer. the answer would alas be completely useless as we are doing quantum, not classical, field theory.
Click to expand...
Had no idea it was even that sort of functional. I'm a simple man who wants his functionals to have integration signs at least. Throw me a bone
 
vcs

vcs

Well-known member
Howe_zat said:
Had no idea it was even that sort of functional. I'm a simple man who wants his functionals to have integration signs at least. Throw me a bone
Click to expand...
What are you even supposed to solve for, it has like 125490128 unknowns

Lambda?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top