JWKennington

Identity in physics can be challenging to find. We’re given a narrow set of labels to choose from, typically theorist or experimentalist, and these can often be time-dependent as we progress in our careers. Throughout my time in the discipline, I’ve worked in experimental labs, theory groups, and more applied settings. Many times I’ve branded myself a theorist, perhaps more out of desire than measure; however, I’ve always wanted a more nuanced way of describing my work, myself, and developmental stage. Short answer: like most things we do, it depends on a clever choice of coordinates. Three different classification systems (two 2D and one 1D) gathered from leading theorists, compiled. Measures features like preference for mathematical or intuitive tools, goals of analyzing existing models or constructing new ones, reliance on rigor, sophistication of computational tools, etc. See full post for more, including XKCD-style visuals (because why not):

Recently had to reconcile multiple keys for similar git hosts, and found several posts that were nearly sufficient. Summarized the method that worked for me in terms of namespacing the ssh credentials, hope it’s useful if you find yourself in the same position!

Often in discussions about blackholes, the question arises of observer experience when falling into a blackhole. Due to the extreme tidal forces experienced along such a path, the observer would be stretched out - a process colloquially referred to as spaghettification. This week I would like to look at a happier use for spaghetti near blackholes. If an observer in a stable circular orbit around the supermassive blackhole at the center of our galaxy were to use spaghetti as a tether, how much spaghetti would be required? Restated, the Fermi-Problem question of interest this week is:

> How much spaghetti would be required to form the smallest stable circle around the supermassive blackhole at the center of the Milky Way?

Without giving away the numerical answer, the result is around 3 meals for everyone on Earth!

I first encountered a diagram of algebraic structures at the end of Jeevanjee's second chapter, "Vector Spaces", which elegantly summarizes the high-level differences in structure between sets, vector spaces, and inner product spaces. I've attempted to augment this map along two dimensions: a structure dimension that aims to measure the number of attributes an algebraic object has, and a specificity dimension that measures the number of constraints placed on each attribute.

This is aimed primarily at mathematical physics, and is intended as a quick reference -- it's obviously incomplete and isn't a substitute for Hungerford, Lang, or [insert favorite algebra book].

I hope you find it as helpful as I did in making it!

I first encountered a diagram of algebraic structures at the end of Jeevanjee's second chapter, "Vector Spaces", which elegantly summarizes the high-level differences in structure between sets, vector spaces, and inner product spaces.

I've attempted to augment this map along two dimensions: a structure dimension that aims to measure the number of attributes an algebraic object has, and a specificity dimension that measures the number of constraints placed on each attribute.

This is aimed primarily at mathematical physics, and is intended as a quick reference -- it's obviously incomplete and isn't a substitute for Hungerford, Lang, or [insert favorite algebra book].

I hope you find it as helpful as I did in making it!