this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
1561 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

11552 readers
1557 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1561
Nom nom (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Surely in theoretical physics, the most common use of > is in a ket (eg. |ψ>).

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Crocodile want to eat cactus ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

That cactus is the devil!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Crocodile needs eat cactus to see window

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

arguably, it's |ψ〉, which is not the same as >

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

wow that's a big difference (I have no idea what you are talking about)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

I think 〉 means a very hungry (or at least large mouthed) crocodile, and > is just a normal one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It is just a notation for linear algebra and linear operators on complex vector spaces together with their dual space both in the finite-dimensional and infinite-dimensional case. Really quite simple stuff actually...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

smiles and nods, smiles and nods...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No? Not everyone's doing work on quantum systems. Far from it. Most people do not need to use Dirac notation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I guess not. Its just that when I hear 'theoretical physics' I immediately think of particle physics (and related fields). I have this idea that in most branches of physics people just say the topic, eg. astronomy, material sciences, or whatever; and don't usually specify whether they are doing theoretical work or experimental/empirical work. But in particle physics ... my impression is that people are more likely to specify. Anyway, that's just my own bias I guess.