Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

String Theory Lecture 2 In Conformal Gauge, the String Becomes a Wave Equation Episode 1 showed the geometric jump point particle -> worldline string -> worldsheet Episode 2 is the dynamical jump. The Nambu-Goto action measures the area of the worldsheet, S = −T ∫ dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ]...

mathelirium's profile picture

Mathelirium

39,189 subscribers

15,607 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

String Theory Lecture 1 A String Does Not Move Like a Point A point particle traces a line through spacetime. A string traces a surface. This is the first geometric shift in String Theory. Particle mechanics asks where one object is at time t, so its history is a curve. String Theory asks where every point of an extended object is at worldsheet time τ, so we need another coordinate telling us where we are along the string. For a point particle x(t) So, for one input of time we get a position in Spacetime. For a string Xᵘ(τ,σ) Here τ plays the role of time on the worldsheet, while σ labels position along the string. Freeze τ and vary σ, and you see the string at one instant. Let τ move, and that curve sweeps out a two-dimensional surface... the worldsheet. The same comparison appears in the action. For a relativistic point particle, the geometric action measures worldline length S = −m ∫ ds If we parameterize the path by t, the action has one integral, one parameter, and one tangent vector dxᵘ/dt For a string, the same idea grows by one dimension. The action measures area, not length. In Nambu-Goto form, S = −T ∫ dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] Here T is the string tension. It plays a role similar to mass, but for an extended object. It weights the area of a surface rather than the length of a line. The particle action has ∫ dt because the history is one-dimensional. The string action has ∫ dτ dσ because the history is two-dimensional. We are no longer summing along a path, we are summing over a surface. The geometry changes for the same reason. For the particle, one derivative is enough dxᵘ/dt For the string, the geometry is built from two derivatives: ∂τXᵘ and ∂σXᵘ The first tells you how the string changes as worldsheet time flows. The second tells you how the embedding changes as you move along the string. Together they define the induced worldsheet metric hₐᵦ = ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ In plain terms, hₐᵦ measures tangent lengths and tangent angles on the worldsheet. From it, the area element is dA = dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] This, the Nambu-Goto action is the direct analogue of the point-particle length action. The point particle extremizes length and the string extremizes area. For calculations, people usually switch to the Polyakov action: S = −(T/2) ∫ dτ dσ √[−γ] γᵃᵇ ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ This describes the same classical string dynamics, but the algebra is cleaner. After choosing conformal gauge, varying with respect to Xᵘ gives (∂²/∂τ² − ∂²/∂σ²) Xᵘ = 0 This is the first real dynamical payoff... a two-dimensional wave equation on the worldsheet. For a point particle, the equation of motion tells you how one position evolves along one path. For a string, it tells you how an entire curve evolves, with waves traveling along it. The term ∂²Xᵘ/∂τ² measures acceleration in worldsheet time, while ∂²Xᵘ/∂σ² measures curvature along the string. The time evolution is balanced by how the string bends along its own length. This is why strings have oscillation modes. A point particle has one trajectory. A string has many possible vibration patterns, each one a normal mode of the worldsheet wave equation. For a closed string, σ wraps around the loop Xᵘ(τ, σ + 2π) = Xᵘ(τ, σ) For an open string, one standard free-end condition is ∂σXᵘ = 0 at the endpoints. Solving the wave equation gives waves moving in opposite directions along the string Xᵘ(τ,σ) = Fᵘ(τ + σ) + Gᵘ(τ − σ) A function of τ + σ moves one way. A function of τ − σ moves the other. Therefore, a particle has a worldline, its action measures length, and its geometry uses one tangent. The string has a worldsheet, its action measures area, and its geometry uses two tangent directions. #StringTheory #TheoreticalPhysics #MathematicalPhysics #Physics #Spacetime
0:34

String Theory Lecture 1 A String Does Not Move Like a Point A point particle traces a line through spacetime. A string traces a surface. This is the first geometric shift in String Theory. Particle mechanics asks where one object is at time t, so its history is a curve. String Theory asks where every point of an extended object is at worldsheet time τ, so we need another coordinate telling us where we are along the string. For a point particle x(t) So, for one input of time we get a position in Spacetime. For a string Xᵘ(τ,σ) Here τ plays the role of time on the worldsheet, while σ labels position along the string. Freeze τ and vary σ, and you see the string at one instant. Let τ move, and that curve sweeps out a two-dimensional surface... the worldsheet. The same comparison appears in the action. For a relativistic point particle, the geometric action measures worldline length S = −m ∫ ds If we parameterize the path by t, the action has one integral, one parameter, and one tangent vector dxᵘ/dt For a string, the same idea grows by one dimension. The action measures area, not length. In Nambu-Goto form, S = −T ∫ dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] Here T is the string tension. It plays a role similar to mass, but for an extended object. It weights the area of a surface rather than the length of a line. The particle action has ∫ dt because the history is one-dimensional. The string action has ∫ dτ dσ because the history is two-dimensional. We are no longer summing along a path, we are summing over a surface. The geometry changes for the same reason. For the particle, one derivative is enough dxᵘ/dt For the string, the geometry is built from two derivatives: ∂τXᵘ and ∂σXᵘ The first tells you how the string changes as worldsheet time flows. The second tells you how the embedding changes as you move along the string. Together they define the induced worldsheet metric hₐᵦ = ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ In plain terms, hₐᵦ measures tangent lengths and tangent angles on the worldsheet. From it, the area element is dA = dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] This, the Nambu-Goto action is the direct analogue of the point-particle length action. The point particle extremizes length and the string extremizes area. For calculations, people usually switch to the Polyakov action: S = −(T/2) ∫ dτ dσ √[−γ] γᵃᵇ ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ This describes the same classical string dynamics, but the algebra is cleaner. After choosing conformal gauge, varying with respect to Xᵘ gives (∂²/∂τ² − ∂²/∂σ²) Xᵘ = 0 This is the first real dynamical payoff... a two-dimensional wave equation on the worldsheet. For a point particle, the equation of motion tells you how one position evolves along one path. For a string, it tells you how an entire curve evolves, with waves traveling along it. The term ∂²Xᵘ/∂τ² measures acceleration in worldsheet time, while ∂²Xᵘ/∂σ² measures curvature along the string. The time evolution is balanced by how the string bends along its own length. This is why strings have oscillation modes. A point particle has one trajectory. A string has many possible vibration patterns, each one a normal mode of the worldsheet wave equation. For a closed string, σ wraps around the loop Xᵘ(τ, σ + 2π) = Xᵘ(τ, σ) For an open string, one standard free-end condition is ∂σXᵘ = 0 at the endpoints. Solving the wave equation gives waves moving in opposite directions along the string Xᵘ(τ,σ) = Fᵘ(τ + σ) + Gᵘ(τ − σ) A function of τ + σ moves one way. A function of τ − σ moves the other. Therefore, a particle has a worldline, its action measures length, and its geometry uses one tangent. The string has a worldsheet, its action measures area, and its geometry uses two tangent directions. #StringTheory #TheoreticalPhysics #MathematicalPhysics #Physics #Spacetime

Mathelirium

31,560 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

What String Theory Does That Classical Physics Doesn’t Classical Physics begins with a point particle. Its position is described by one function of time x = x(t) As time passes, that point traces a curve through Spacetime called a worldline. String theory changes the starting object. A string has length, so time alone is not enough. We also need a coordinate along the string Xᵘ = Xᵘ(τ, σ) Here τ is worldsheet time, and σ labels position along the string. As the string moves, it sweeps out a surface called a worldsheet. The action measures the area of that surface S = -T ∫ dτ dσ √[-det hₐᵦ] This is where string theory begins. #StringTheory #ClassicalMechanics #TheoreticalPhysics #Worldsheet #QuantumGravity #MathematicalPhysics #Spacetime #PhysicsVisualization #ScienceEducation
0:55

What String Theory Does That Classical Physics Doesn’t Classical Physics begins with a point particle. Its position is described by one function of time x = x(t) As time passes, that point traces a curve through Spacetime called a worldline. String theory changes the starting object. A string has length, so time alone is not enough. We also need a coordinate along the string Xᵘ = Xᵘ(τ, σ) Here τ is worldsheet time, and σ labels position along the string. As the string moves, it sweeps out a surface called a worldsheet. The action measures the area of that surface S = -T ∫ dτ dσ √[-det hₐᵦ] This is where string theory begins. #StringTheory #ClassicalMechanics #TheoreticalPhysics #Worldsheet #QuantumGravity #MathematicalPhysics #Spacetime #PhysicsVisualization #ScienceEducation

Mathelirium

18,616 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

String Theory is one of the few frameworks that tries to describe Quantum Physics and Gravity in the same mathematical language. In this animation, the glowing loop is the string, the shifting color along it represent its quantum vibration modes, and the surrounding fabric is a proxy for Spacetime responding. When you quantize a string, one of its vibration modes behaves like a graviton. So, geometry shows up as part of the same quantum system. #StringTheory #QuantumGravity #GeneralRelativity #QuantumPhysics #TheoreticalPhysics #PhysicsVisualization
1:00

String Theory is one of the few frameworks that tries to describe Quantum Physics and Gravity in the same mathematical language. In this animation, the glowing loop is the string, the shifting color along it represent its quantum vibration modes, and the surrounding fabric is a proxy for Spacetime responding. When you quantize a string, one of its vibration modes behaves like a graviton. So, geometry shows up as part of the same quantum system. #StringTheory #QuantumGravity #GeneralRelativity #QuantumPhysics #TheoreticalPhysics #PhysicsVisualization

Mathelirium

42,235 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Why String Theory Won't Die The string theory idea refuses to die because it's one of the few frameworks that forces a quantum object and spacetime geometry into the same picture. In the render, a closed string isn’t just a loop doing pretty vibrations. Its internal phase pattern is a quantum degree of freedom, shown as color. At the same time, its motion stirs ripples in the surrounding metric, shown as the fabric below. One object, two roles. A wave-like state living on the string, and a curvature-like response spreading through the background. You can literally watch quantum stuff and gravity stuff talk to each other in the same scene. #StringTheory #Physics #QuantumMechanics #GeneralRelativity #MathematicalPhysics #SciComm
1:00

Why String Theory Won't Die The string theory idea refuses to die because it's one of the few frameworks that forces a quantum object and spacetime geometry into the same picture. In the render, a closed string isn’t just a loop doing pretty vibrations. Its internal phase pattern is a quantum degree of freedom, shown as color. At the same time, its motion stirs ripples in the surrounding metric, shown as the fabric below. One object, two roles. A wave-like state living on the string, and a curvature-like response spreading through the background. You can literally watch quantum stuff and gravity stuff talk to each other in the same scene. #StringTheory #Physics #QuantumMechanics #GeneralRelativity #MathematicalPhysics #SciComm

Mathelirium

13,657 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

this model doesn't predict where the S&P 500 will go it predicts when the market's own velocity is about to collapse Z(x,y) = F(β, α, τ, ∇τ; x, y, t) one equation. four parameters. a 3D surface that maps how price momentum evolves across time and space β is drift velocity: μ/σ, the ratio of expected return to volatility when β is high the market is moving with conviction when β decays toward zero the trend is losing energy before the chart shows any sign of it α measures how fast that velocity is changing τ is the time structure of the regime ∇τ is the gradient, the rate at which the regime itself is shifting the 3D surface on screen is not decoration the red peaks are where momentum is concentrated and unstable the blue basin is where the system is calm and mean-reverting the yellow marker is where the S&P sat at the moment of the snapshot the model's output: position sizing optimization not buy or sell. how much exposure to hold given the current position on that surface the bottom chart shows it: blue line is the model, white line is buy & hold same asset, same period, different sizing at every point based on where the dynamics equation said the market was > time dynamics models: rooted in physics, applied to finance since the 1990s > drift-to-volatility ratio: standard risk metric at Two Sigma, AQR, Man Group > this exact framework: free, public, 60 seconds in this video > what retail uses instead: lagging indicators that measure the past, not the velocity of the present retail asks "is the market going up or down?" this model asks "how fast is the market's own energy decaying and where on the surface are we right now?" completely different question. completely different result full breakdown in the video below
1:01

this model doesn't predict where the S&P 500 will go it predicts when the market's own velocity is about to collapse Z(x,y) = F(β, α, τ, ∇τ; x, y, t) one equation. four parameters. a 3D surface that maps how price momentum evolves across time and space β is drift velocity: μ/σ, the ratio of expected return to volatility when β is high the market is moving with conviction when β decays toward zero the trend is losing energy before the chart shows any sign of it α measures how fast that velocity is changing τ is the time structure of the regime ∇τ is the gradient, the rate at which the regime itself is shifting the 3D surface on screen is not decoration the red peaks are where momentum is concentrated and unstable the blue basin is where the system is calm and mean-reverting the yellow marker is where the S&P sat at the moment of the snapshot the model's output: position sizing optimization not buy or sell. how much exposure to hold given the current position on that surface the bottom chart shows it: blue line is the model, white line is buy & hold same asset, same period, different sizing at every point based on where the dynamics equation said the market was > time dynamics models: rooted in physics, applied to finance since the 1990s > drift-to-volatility ratio: standard risk metric at Two Sigma, AQR, Man Group > this exact framework: free, public, 60 seconds in this video > what retail uses instead: lagging indicators that measure the past, not the velocity of the present retail asks "is the market going up or down?" this model asks "how fast is the market's own energy decaying and where on the surface are we right now?" completely different question. completely different result full breakdown in the video below

delost

72,436 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

In String Theory, it has been shown that one vibration of a closed string behaves like a graviton, the Quantum particle of gravity, revealing that gravity is already built into String Theory’s spectrum.
0:40

In String Theory, it has been shown that one vibration of a closed string behaves like a graviton, the Quantum particle of gravity, revealing that gravity is already built into String Theory’s spectrum.

Mathelirium

11,588 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The Torus Becomes the Canvas A Jacobi Theta Function lives naturally on a complex torus. Instead of drawing it on a flat plane, we wrapped the mathematics onto the torus. The surface is driven by θ₁(z|τ), with its moving zeros, phase winding, and logarithmic derivative shaping the colour, seams, and raised divisor points across the geometry. What you are see is a periodic quantum-like field painted onto the space where it actually belongs. #JacobiTheta #ComplexTorus #MathematicalArt #ComplexAnalysis #RiemannSurfaces #MathAnimation
0:33

The Torus Becomes the Canvas A Jacobi Theta Function lives naturally on a complex torus. Instead of drawing it on a flat plane, we wrapped the mathematics onto the torus. The surface is driven by θ₁(z|τ), with its moving zeros, phase winding, and logarithmic derivative shaping the colour, seams, and raised divisor points across the geometry. What you are see is a periodic quantum-like field painted onto the space where it actually belongs. #JacobiTheta #ComplexTorus #MathematicalArt #ComplexAnalysis #RiemannSurfaces #MathAnimation

Mathelirium

22,197 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

When the Lorenz Attractor Becomes a Cosmos Many of us have seen plots of the famous Lorenz system that famous butterfly-shaped chaos: ẋ = σ(y - x) ẏ = x(ρ - z) - y ż = xy - βz But here, we went one layer deeper. At every point (x, y, z), we computed the local Jacobian matrix, J(x, y, z) = [ -σ σ 0 ] [ ρ - z -1 - x ] [ y x - β ] Then we found its eigenvalues λ and plotted them in the complex plane. Re(λ) tells us whether nearby motion is locally growing or decaying. Im(λ) tells us whether that local motion is rotating. That gives us the spectral flow of the Lorenz system and not the attractor itself, but the hidden local linear geometry driving its instability. When I saw that flow, it looked strangely cosmic with two mirrored swarms curling like particles trapped in a mathematical whirlpool. So I mapped that spectral flow onto our living fabric, not as Einstein Spacetime this time, but as a creative geometric stage for chaos itself. #LorenzSystem #ChaosTheory #DynamicalSystems #Eigenvalues #SpectralFlow #ComplexPlane #NonlinearDynamics #Mathematics #Physics
0:40

When the Lorenz Attractor Becomes a Cosmos Many of us have seen plots of the famous Lorenz system that famous butterfly-shaped chaos: ẋ = σ(y - x) ẏ = x(ρ - z) - y ż = xy - βz But here, we went one layer deeper. At every point (x, y, z), we computed the local Jacobian matrix, J(x, y, z) = [ -σ σ 0 ] [ ρ - z -1 - x ] [ y x - β ] Then we found its eigenvalues λ and plotted them in the complex plane. Re(λ) tells us whether nearby motion is locally growing or decaying. Im(λ) tells us whether that local motion is rotating. That gives us the spectral flow of the Lorenz system and not the attractor itself, but the hidden local linear geometry driving its instability. When I saw that flow, it looked strangely cosmic with two mirrored swarms curling like particles trapped in a mathematical whirlpool. So I mapped that spectral flow onto our living fabric, not as Einstein Spacetime this time, but as a creative geometric stage for chaos itself. #LorenzSystem #ChaosTheory #DynamicalSystems #Eigenvalues #SpectralFlow #ComplexPlane #NonlinearDynamics #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

22,460 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

In String Theory, we ask a deceptively simple question What happens when you replace a point with something stretched across space and time? On one side, the particle draws a world line. On the other, a string fills out a world-sheet as every point along it evolves together.
0:58

In String Theory, we ask a deceptively simple question What happens when you replace a point with something stretched across space and time? On one side, the particle draws a world line. On the other, a string fills out a world-sheet as every point along it evolves together.

Mathelirium

18,727 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Lecture 2 of our Physics-Informed Neural Networks mini-series. In Lecture 1 we made the idea visible...a neural network isn’t predicting a PDE solution, it is the candidate function uᵩ(x,t), and the PDE residual rᵩ(x,t) is the leash that keeps it honest. Now the natural question follows: How can a neural network be punished for breaking a PDE when nobody ever handed it the true solution, and the equation itself contains derivatives like uᵩₜₜ and uᵩₓₓ? Here’s the satisfying answer: A PINN doesn’t need the true answer to be corrected. It only needs a way to measure how wrong it is according to the PDE! The network outputs uᵩ(x,t). A software called "autodiff" is used to compute the derivatives (uᵩₓ, uᵩₜ, uᵩₓₓ, …) exactly by applying the chain rule through the network. Those derivatives get dropped into the PDE to produce rᵩ(x,t). If rᵩ is big at some point, the loss spikes there, and gradient descent pushes the parameters so that rᵩ shrinks. The math breakdown We want a function u(x,t) that satisfies a PDE on a domain Ω. In this lecture we keep a concrete nonlinear example in mind, the damped sine-Gordon equation uₜₜ(x,t) + γ uₜ(x,t) − c² uₓₓ(x,t) + sin(u(x,t)) = 0. A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network uᵩ(x,t), where ᵩ means all the network parameters (weights and biases). Now we build the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t) + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). If uᵩ were a true solution, rᵩ would be 0 everywhere. So we sample points (xⱼ,tⱼ) inside the domain. These are collocation points. At each one we evaluate rᵩ, and we define a physics loss L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|². This is the punishment mechanism. (Punish just means: if |rᵩ| is big, L_phys is big; training updates ᵩ to make L_phys smaller. Reward means the loss drops, so those parameter changes are kept.) The key question was where the derivatives come from. Since uᵩ is built out of differentiable operations, we can compute uᵩₜ(x,t), uᵩₜₜ(x,t), uᵩₓ(x,t), uᵩₓₓ(x,t), at any input (x,t) we choose. Imagine a simple differentiable model written as a sum of nonlinear features uᵩ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ( wₖx x + wₖt t + bₖ ) + b₀. Then the derivatives are just chain rule uᵩₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖx uᵩₓₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖx)² uᵩₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖt uᵩₜₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖt)². So rᵩ(x,t) is an explicit computable number at every (x,t). For the damped sine-Gordon example, it’s the same story, just with one extra nonlinear term: rᵩ(x,t) = [uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t)] + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). A real PINN is a deeper composition of these same building blocks, but it’s still just a chain rule, and autodiff is the machinery that does that bookkeeping reliably for big graphs. Then we train by gradient descent on the total loss. Even if we use only physics for the moment, the update is conceptually just ᵩ ← ᵩ − η ∇ᵩ L_phys(ᵩ), with learning rate η. In practice we also include initial/boundary conditions or data, because PDEs aren’t uniquely determined without them L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ), where L_bc/ic(ᵩ) enforces things like uᵩ(x,0) ≈ u₀(x) and uᵩₜ(x,0) ≈ v₀(x), or boundary conditions at x = ±L. So Lecture 2’s punchline is simple: the PDE becomes a training signal. We keep differentiating uᵩ, measuring rᵩ, and updating ᵩ until the residual goes quiet across Ω. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #AutoDiff #Backpropagation #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics
1:00

Lecture 2 of our Physics-Informed Neural Networks mini-series. In Lecture 1 we made the idea visible...a neural network isn’t predicting a PDE solution, it is the candidate function uᵩ(x,t), and the PDE residual rᵩ(x,t) is the leash that keeps it honest. Now the natural question follows: How can a neural network be punished for breaking a PDE when nobody ever handed it the true solution, and the equation itself contains derivatives like uᵩₜₜ and uᵩₓₓ? Here’s the satisfying answer: A PINN doesn’t need the true answer to be corrected. It only needs a way to measure how wrong it is according to the PDE! The network outputs uᵩ(x,t). A software called "autodiff" is used to compute the derivatives (uᵩₓ, uᵩₜ, uᵩₓₓ, …) exactly by applying the chain rule through the network. Those derivatives get dropped into the PDE to produce rᵩ(x,t). If rᵩ is big at some point, the loss spikes there, and gradient descent pushes the parameters so that rᵩ shrinks. The math breakdown We want a function u(x,t) that satisfies a PDE on a domain Ω. In this lecture we keep a concrete nonlinear example in mind, the damped sine-Gordon equation uₜₜ(x,t) + γ uₜ(x,t) − c² uₓₓ(x,t) + sin(u(x,t)) = 0. A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network uᵩ(x,t), where ᵩ means all the network parameters (weights and biases). Now we build the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t) + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). If uᵩ were a true solution, rᵩ would be 0 everywhere. So we sample points (xⱼ,tⱼ) inside the domain. These are collocation points. At each one we evaluate rᵩ, and we define a physics loss L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|². This is the punishment mechanism. (Punish just means: if |rᵩ| is big, L_phys is big; training updates ᵩ to make L_phys smaller. Reward means the loss drops, so those parameter changes are kept.) The key question was where the derivatives come from. Since uᵩ is built out of differentiable operations, we can compute uᵩₜ(x,t), uᵩₜₜ(x,t), uᵩₓ(x,t), uᵩₓₓ(x,t), at any input (x,t) we choose. Imagine a simple differentiable model written as a sum of nonlinear features uᵩ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ( wₖx x + wₖt t + bₖ ) + b₀. Then the derivatives are just chain rule uᵩₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖx uᵩₓₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖx)² uᵩₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖt uᵩₜₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖt)². So rᵩ(x,t) is an explicit computable number at every (x,t). For the damped sine-Gordon example, it’s the same story, just with one extra nonlinear term: rᵩ(x,t) = [uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t)] + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). A real PINN is a deeper composition of these same building blocks, but it’s still just a chain rule, and autodiff is the machinery that does that bookkeeping reliably for big graphs. Then we train by gradient descent on the total loss. Even if we use only physics for the moment, the update is conceptually just ᵩ ← ᵩ − η ∇ᵩ L_phys(ᵩ), with learning rate η. In practice we also include initial/boundary conditions or data, because PDEs aren’t uniquely determined without them L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ), where L_bc/ic(ᵩ) enforces things like uᵩ(x,0) ≈ u₀(x) and uᵩₜ(x,0) ≈ v₀(x), or boundary conditions at x = ±L. So Lecture 2’s punchline is simple: the PDE becomes a training signal. We keep differentiating uᵩ, measuring rᵩ, and updating ᵩ until the residual goes quiet across Ω. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #AutoDiff #Backpropagation #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

19,977 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Variational Autoencoder by hand ✍️ ~ 11 steps walkthrough below A VAE learns the structure of your data, the mean and variance of its hidden features, and then generates new data from that structure. A GAN only learns to fool a discriminator. It can make convincing fakes without ever knowing what the data is really made of. That is the difference, and it is the whole reason VAEs matter. In 2024 ICLR gave its first ever Test of Time Award to the VAE paper, "Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes" by Diederik Kingma and Max Welling, ten years on. How does it work? Goal: encode three inputs into a distribution, sample from it, decode it back, and read every loss gradient off the page. = 1. Given = Three training examples X1, X2, X3, copied to the bottom as their own targets. Reconstructing your own input is what puts the "auto", meaning self, in autoencoder. = 2. Encoder, layer 1 = Let us multiply the inputs by weights and biases, then apply ReLU, crossing out every negative. = 3. Mean and standard deviation = We multiply the features by two more weight sets. The first predicts the means μ of the latent distributions, the second their standard deviations σ. = 4. A random offset = Let us sample ε from a standard normal, mean 0 and variance 1, and multiply it by σ. This is a random step away from the mean, scaled by how uncertain each feature is. = 5. Mean plus offset = We add the offset back onto μ, and these become the decoder's inputs. Keeping the randomness out in ε is the reparameterization trick: it lets gradients flow straight through the sampling. = 6. Decoder, layer 1 = Let us multiply by weights and biases and apply ReLU again. Here -4 is crossed out. = 7. Decoder, layer 2 = We multiply once more. The output Y is the decoder's attempt to rebuild X from the sampled distribution. = 8. Gradient for the mean = Let us push μ toward 0. A lot of math, the SGVB estimator, collapses the KL gradient to simply μ itself. = 9. Gradient for the standard deviation = We want σ to approach 1. = 10. And its formula = That same math simplifies the gradient to σ minus 1/σ. = 11. Reconstruction gradient = We want the reconstruction Y to match the input X. Mean squared error simplifies its gradient to Y minus X. Takeaway: the two gradients you just calculated each sit at the heart of a modern method, so one VAE teaches you both. The KL divergence is the penalty RLHF like GRPO uses to keep a fine-tuned model from drifting off its base. The reconstruction loss, plain mean squared error, is exactly what trains a diffusion model to denoise. Draw one VAE by hand and you have quietly learned the core of both. 💾 Save this post!
0:31

Variational Autoencoder by hand ✍️ ~ 11 steps walkthrough below A VAE learns the structure of your data, the mean and variance of its hidden features, and then generates new data from that structure. A GAN only learns to fool a discriminator. It can make convincing fakes without ever knowing what the data is really made of. That is the difference, and it is the whole reason VAEs matter. In 2024 ICLR gave its first ever Test of Time Award to the VAE paper, "Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes" by Diederik Kingma and Max Welling, ten years on. How does it work? Goal: encode three inputs into a distribution, sample from it, decode it back, and read every loss gradient off the page. = 1. Given = Three training examples X1, X2, X3, copied to the bottom as their own targets. Reconstructing your own input is what puts the "auto", meaning self, in autoencoder. = 2. Encoder, layer 1 = Let us multiply the inputs by weights and biases, then apply ReLU, crossing out every negative. = 3. Mean and standard deviation = We multiply the features by two more weight sets. The first predicts the means μ of the latent distributions, the second their standard deviations σ. = 4. A random offset = Let us sample ε from a standard normal, mean 0 and variance 1, and multiply it by σ. This is a random step away from the mean, scaled by how uncertain each feature is. = 5. Mean plus offset = We add the offset back onto μ, and these become the decoder's inputs. Keeping the randomness out in ε is the reparameterization trick: it lets gradients flow straight through the sampling. = 6. Decoder, layer 1 = Let us multiply by weights and biases and apply ReLU again. Here -4 is crossed out. = 7. Decoder, layer 2 = We multiply once more. The output Y is the decoder's attempt to rebuild X from the sampled distribution. = 8. Gradient for the mean = Let us push μ toward 0. A lot of math, the SGVB estimator, collapses the KL gradient to simply μ itself. = 9. Gradient for the standard deviation = We want σ to approach 1. = 10. And its formula = That same math simplifies the gradient to σ minus 1/σ. = 11. Reconstruction gradient = We want the reconstruction Y to match the input X. Mean squared error simplifies its gradient to Y minus X. Takeaway: the two gradients you just calculated each sit at the heart of a modern method, so one VAE teaches you both. The KL divergence is the penalty RLHF like GRPO uses to keep a fine-tuned model from drifting off its base. The reconstruction loss, plain mean squared error, is exactly what trains a diffusion model to denoise. Draw one VAE by hand and you have quietly learned the core of both. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

17,011 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Quantum Mechanics Series Lecture 4 Lecture 1 established that ρ(x,t) = |ψ(x,t)|² behaves like a conserved probability density. Lecture 2 showed what drives that flow. We also saw that writing ψ = r exp(iθ) makes the probability current proportional to the phase gradient, making it clear that phase geometry literally steers the motion. Lecture 3 then showed that the centroid of that flow can move almost classically when the packet is tight and the external potential is smooth. However, that raises yet another question. If the centroid can look classical, why does the full wave still spread, bend, split, and interfere in ways no classical particle cloud would? This is because the wave is not driven only by the external potential. It is also driven by its own curvature. Write ψ(x,t) = r(x,t) exp(iθ(x,t)) with ρ = r². Then Schrödinger’s equation gives two coupled real equations. One is the continuity equation you already know. The other looks like a Hamilton-Jacobi equation, but with one extra term: Q = −(1/2m) ∇²r / r This is the so-called Quantum Potential. It depends entirely on how the amplitude bends across space. So, the wave is being shaped not only by V(x,t), but also by the geometry of its own envelope. In the animation, the upper surface is still |ψ| and its skin is still colored by arg(ψ). The glowing threads still trace the probability current. But now a second membrane hangs underneath. That lower membrane encodes the quantum potential Q itself. The porcelain bead marks the quantum centroid. The amber bead follows a classical centroid under the same external V. When those paths separate, the lower membrane tells you why. The difference is not magic but the extra term classical mechanics does not have. The math breakdown: Start from Schrödinger evolution in units with ħ = 1: i ∂ψ/∂t = [ −(1/2m) ∇² + V(x,t) ] ψ Write the state in polar form: ψ = r exp(iθ) Then ρ = |ψ|² = r² From the imaginary part, you recover probability conservation: ∂ρ/∂t + ∇·j = 0 with j = (1/m) Im(ψ* ∇ψ) = (ρ/m) ∇θ So the local velocity field is v = j / ρ = ∇θ / m Now take the real part of Schrödinger’s equation. That gives ∂θ/∂t + |∇θ|² / (2m) + V + Q = 0 where Q = −(1/2m) ∇²r / r This is the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation with one extra term. That extra term is what makes quantum motion locally different from classical motion. Take a gradient of that phase equation and use v = ∇θ / m. Then the flow obeys an Euler-like equation: ∂v/∂t + (v·∇)v = −(1/m) ∇(V + Q) In other words, there are really two forces in the problem. One comes from the external potential V. The other comes from the wave’s own curvature through Q. That is why Ehrenfest is only approximate. The centroid can still satisfy d⟨x⟩/dt = ⟨p⟩/m d⟨p⟩/dt = −⟨∇V⟩ but the internal shape of the packet evolves under the combined influence of V and Q. When the packet stays broad and smooth, Q is gentle and the motion looks more classical. When the packet develops sharp curvature or interference structure, Q becomes strong and the classical picture breaks down. That is what this scene is designed to show live. #QuantumMechanics #Wavefunction #SchrodingerEquation #BornRule #ProbabilityCurrent #ContinuityEquation #Phase #EhrenfestTheorem #QuantumPotential #Madelung #HamiltonJacobi #MathematicalPhysics #Mathematics #Physics
1:00

Quantum Mechanics Series Lecture 4 Lecture 1 established that ρ(x,t) = |ψ(x,t)|² behaves like a conserved probability density. Lecture 2 showed what drives that flow. We also saw that writing ψ = r exp(iθ) makes the probability current proportional to the phase gradient, making it clear that phase geometry literally steers the motion. Lecture 3 then showed that the centroid of that flow can move almost classically when the packet is tight and the external potential is smooth. However, that raises yet another question. If the centroid can look classical, why does the full wave still spread, bend, split, and interfere in ways no classical particle cloud would? This is because the wave is not driven only by the external potential. It is also driven by its own curvature. Write ψ(x,t) = r(x,t) exp(iθ(x,t)) with ρ = r². Then Schrödinger’s equation gives two coupled real equations. One is the continuity equation you already know. The other looks like a Hamilton-Jacobi equation, but with one extra term: Q = −(1/2m) ∇²r / r This is the so-called Quantum Potential. It depends entirely on how the amplitude bends across space. So, the wave is being shaped not only by V(x,t), but also by the geometry of its own envelope. In the animation, the upper surface is still |ψ| and its skin is still colored by arg(ψ). The glowing threads still trace the probability current. But now a second membrane hangs underneath. That lower membrane encodes the quantum potential Q itself. The porcelain bead marks the quantum centroid. The amber bead follows a classical centroid under the same external V. When those paths separate, the lower membrane tells you why. The difference is not magic but the extra term classical mechanics does not have. The math breakdown: Start from Schrödinger evolution in units with ħ = 1: i ∂ψ/∂t = [ −(1/2m) ∇² + V(x,t) ] ψ Write the state in polar form: ψ = r exp(iθ) Then ρ = |ψ|² = r² From the imaginary part, you recover probability conservation: ∂ρ/∂t + ∇·j = 0 with j = (1/m) Im(ψ* ∇ψ) = (ρ/m) ∇θ So the local velocity field is v = j / ρ = ∇θ / m Now take the real part of Schrödinger’s equation. That gives ∂θ/∂t + |∇θ|² / (2m) + V + Q = 0 where Q = −(1/2m) ∇²r / r This is the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation with one extra term. That extra term is what makes quantum motion locally different from classical motion. Take a gradient of that phase equation and use v = ∇θ / m. Then the flow obeys an Euler-like equation: ∂v/∂t + (v·∇)v = −(1/m) ∇(V + Q) In other words, there are really two forces in the problem. One comes from the external potential V. The other comes from the wave’s own curvature through Q. That is why Ehrenfest is only approximate. The centroid can still satisfy d⟨x⟩/dt = ⟨p⟩/m d⟨p⟩/dt = −⟨∇V⟩ but the internal shape of the packet evolves under the combined influence of V and Q. When the packet stays broad and smooth, Q is gentle and the motion looks more classical. When the packet develops sharp curvature or interference structure, Q becomes strong and the classical picture breaks down. That is what this scene is designed to show live. #QuantumMechanics #Wavefunction #SchrodingerEquation #BornRule #ProbabilityCurrent #ContinuityEquation #Phase #EhrenfestTheorem #QuantumPotential #Madelung #HamiltonJacobi #MathematicalPhysics #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

20,456 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

I took a Jacobi Theta divisor, Θ(z,t) = ∏ⱼ θ₁(z - cⱼ(t) | τ(t)), and let it breathe across a torus, with the small spheres marking its moving zeros... the precise points where Θ(z,t) vanishes.
0:56

I took a Jacobi Theta divisor, Θ(z,t) = ∏ⱼ θ₁(z - cⱼ(t) | τ(t)), and let it breathe across a torus, with the small spheres marking its moving zeros... the precise points where Θ(z,t) vanishes.

Mathelirium

42,906 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This is Ken Wheeler I would say probably the most knowledgeable person alive on par with Eric Dollard when it comes to Electromagnetism.. This video will go over a lot of peoples heads but what’s within it so vital to understanding the physics of our world. Notice how the wave pattern is the same as the caduceus, Hermes double snake (Kundalini) What we’re talking about here is do we live in a universe of particles bouncing around all over the place or do we live in a universe of electro magnetic wave propagation where what we think of as electrons are really pulse perturbation I.e pulse disturbances in the Ether? When Ken refers to compression and rarefaction he is referring to contraction and expansion of the longitudinal wave which is really a spiral in 3D vs a “wave” The pulse is like the heart beat of the longitudinal wave it is where the magnetic and electric waves intersect. The implications of understanding how these waves work simultaneously gives us the equation to God Consciousness and Zero Point Energy…
1:30

This is Ken Wheeler I would say probably the most knowledgeable person alive on par with Eric Dollard when it comes to Electromagnetism.. This video will go over a lot of peoples heads but what’s within it so vital to understanding the physics of our world. Notice how the wave pattern is the same as the caduceus, Hermes double snake (Kundalini) What we’re talking about here is do we live in a universe of particles bouncing around all over the place or do we live in a universe of electro magnetic wave propagation where what we think of as electrons are really pulse perturbation I.e pulse disturbances in the Ether? When Ken refers to compression and rarefaction he is referring to contraction and expansion of the longitudinal wave which is really a spiral in 3D vs a “wave” The pulse is like the heart beat of the longitudinal wave it is where the magnetic and electric waves intersect. The implications of understanding how these waves work simultaneously gives us the equation to God Consciousness and Zero Point Energy…

🧬Maxpein🧬

18,601 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Final Lecture of our Statistical Mechanics Series. Lecture 2 showed how we move from the Full Phase-Space Density ρ(q₁, …, qₙ, p₁, …, pₙ, t) to smaller statistical objects by integrating out variables we do not want to keep. That gives reduced descriptions like the One-Particle Density f₁(q₁,p₁,t) and the Two-Particle Density f₂(q₁,p₁,q₂,p₂,t) This was the simplification. Now comes the catch. If the Full Density obeys Liouville’s Equation, the reduced densities do not evolve independently. The equation for one level depends on the next one and this is referred to as the BBGKY hierarchy. The One-Particle Density depends on the Two-Particle Density. The Two-Particle Density depends on the Three-Particle Density. And the chain keeps going. That happens because particles interact. Once one particle feels the rest, one-particle information is no longer enough. Correlations enter, and the lower level is fed from above. If the full Hamiltonian is H = Σᵢ pᵢ²/(2m) + Σᵢ U(qᵢ) + (1/2) Σᵢ Σⱼ≠ᵢ Φ(qᵢ − qⱼ) then reducing the full density does not make the interaction terms disappear. It leaves behind coupling to higher-order reduced densities. So, schematically, ∂f₁/∂t + transport of one particle = interaction term involving f₂ and more generally the heirarchy is such that ∂fₛ/∂t + s-particle transport = interaction term involving fₛ₊₁ Therefore, Lecture 3 is really about the price of reduction. We simplify the description, but the information we remove comes back as coupling to higher-order correlations. So, how do you actually compute anything if every level depends on the next one? This is the so-called Closure Problem. To make the hierarchy usable, you need an extra assumption that cuts the chain. You replace the exact higher-order object by an approximation in terms of lower-order ones. The most basic example is a factorized closure at the pair level, where the exact correlated Two-Particle Density is replaced schematically by a product of One-Particle Densities: f₂(q₁,p₁,q₂,p₂,t) ≈ f₁(q₁,p₁,t) f₁(q₂,p₂,t) That approximation is not exact. It throws away part of the correlation structure. But it gives you something the raw hierarchy does not... a closed equation for the lower-level description. That is why closure matters so much. Without it, the hierarchy is exact but open. With it, the theory becomes approximate but usable. Thus, the combined point of this final Statistical Mechanics post is simple. First, reduced descriptions are not closed because interactions generate correlations across levels. Second, if you want a workable Kinetic Theory, you must close the hierarchy by approximating those higher-order correlations. It is the bridge from formal many-body mechanics to equations people can actually solve. In the render, that is exactly the story you are seeing. The first part shows the hierarchy itself: one reduced level feeding the next, with lower descriptions inheriting structure from higher ones. The second part shows the closure step where the exact correlated pair level is replaced by a factorized ansatz, and that approximation gives back a closed one-particle description. That is, the animation moves from dependence to approximation, and from approximation to solvability. #StatisticalMechanics #BBGKY #ClosureProblem #KineticTheory #PhaseSpace #ReducedDistribution #HamiltonianMechanics #MathematicalPhysics #Mathematics #Physics
1:35

Final Lecture of our Statistical Mechanics Series. Lecture 2 showed how we move from the Full Phase-Space Density ρ(q₁, …, qₙ, p₁, …, pₙ, t) to smaller statistical objects by integrating out variables we do not want to keep. That gives reduced descriptions like the One-Particle Density f₁(q₁,p₁,t) and the Two-Particle Density f₂(q₁,p₁,q₂,p₂,t) This was the simplification. Now comes the catch. If the Full Density obeys Liouville’s Equation, the reduced densities do not evolve independently. The equation for one level depends on the next one and this is referred to as the BBGKY hierarchy. The One-Particle Density depends on the Two-Particle Density. The Two-Particle Density depends on the Three-Particle Density. And the chain keeps going. That happens because particles interact. Once one particle feels the rest, one-particle information is no longer enough. Correlations enter, and the lower level is fed from above. If the full Hamiltonian is H = Σᵢ pᵢ²/(2m) + Σᵢ U(qᵢ) + (1/2) Σᵢ Σⱼ≠ᵢ Φ(qᵢ − qⱼ) then reducing the full density does not make the interaction terms disappear. It leaves behind coupling to higher-order reduced densities. So, schematically, ∂f₁/∂t + transport of one particle = interaction term involving f₂ and more generally the heirarchy is such that ∂fₛ/∂t + s-particle transport = interaction term involving fₛ₊₁ Therefore, Lecture 3 is really about the price of reduction. We simplify the description, but the information we remove comes back as coupling to higher-order correlations. So, how do you actually compute anything if every level depends on the next one? This is the so-called Closure Problem. To make the hierarchy usable, you need an extra assumption that cuts the chain. You replace the exact higher-order object by an approximation in terms of lower-order ones. The most basic example is a factorized closure at the pair level, where the exact correlated Two-Particle Density is replaced schematically by a product of One-Particle Densities: f₂(q₁,p₁,q₂,p₂,t) ≈ f₁(q₁,p₁,t) f₁(q₂,p₂,t) That approximation is not exact. It throws away part of the correlation structure. But it gives you something the raw hierarchy does not... a closed equation for the lower-level description. That is why closure matters so much. Without it, the hierarchy is exact but open. With it, the theory becomes approximate but usable. Thus, the combined point of this final Statistical Mechanics post is simple. First, reduced descriptions are not closed because interactions generate correlations across levels. Second, if you want a workable Kinetic Theory, you must close the hierarchy by approximating those higher-order correlations. It is the bridge from formal many-body mechanics to equations people can actually solve. In the render, that is exactly the story you are seeing. The first part shows the hierarchy itself: one reduced level feeding the next, with lower descriptions inheriting structure from higher ones. The second part shows the closure step where the exact correlated pair level is replaced by a factorized ansatz, and that approximation gives back a closed one-particle description. That is, the animation moves from dependence to approximation, and from approximation to solvability. #StatisticalMechanics #BBGKY #ClosureProblem #KineticTheory #PhaseSpace #ReducedDistribution #HamiltonianMechanics #MathematicalPhysics #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

10,970 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

My dad bet me $100 I couldn't make money on Polymarket without predicting a single outcome... I didn't predict anything. I just found two markets that move together - but one is 4 minutes late. Last month: +$22,400. He still owes me the $100. Polymarket has 500+ active markets. Most traders pick one and guess. I don't guess. I measure. Two markets. Same underlying event. Different prices. One reacts to news in 90 seconds. The other takes 6 minutes. That gap is pure math: ρ(X,Y) = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)(yᵢ - ȳ) / √[Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² · Σ(yᵢ - ȳ)²] Pearson correlation. When ρ > 0.85 - they move together. But "together" doesn't mean "at the same time." Cross-correlation at lag k tells you how many minutes one trails the other: R_xy(k) = Σ X(t) · Y(t+k) I'm use for copytrade bots: I found 14 pairs with ρ > 0.87 and lag between 2–11 minutes. The slow market hasn't repriced yet. The fast one already moved. You buy the slow one before it catches up. Z-score tells you when the spread is stretched enough to trade: z = (spread - μ) / σ |z| > 2.0 - entry. |z| 2.0 Average hold time: 23 minutes Max drawdown: 3.1% +$22,400 in 31 days. Starting capital: $500. My roommate asked me to explain the math. I wrote the full breakdown - Pearson correlation, cross-correlation lag detection, Z-score entries, Kelly sizing, and the 3 pairs that printed the most.
0:26

My dad bet me $100 I couldn't make money on Polymarket without predicting a single outcome... I didn't predict anything. I just found two markets that move together - but one is 4 minutes late. Last month: +$22,400. He still owes me the $100. Polymarket has 500+ active markets. Most traders pick one and guess. I don't guess. I measure. Two markets. Same underlying event. Different prices. One reacts to news in 90 seconds. The other takes 6 minutes. That gap is pure math: ρ(X,Y) = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)(yᵢ - ȳ) / √[Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² · Σ(yᵢ - ȳ)²] Pearson correlation. When ρ > 0.85 - they move together. But "together" doesn't mean "at the same time." Cross-correlation at lag k tells you how many minutes one trails the other: R_xy(k) = Σ X(t) · Y(t+k) I'm use for copytrade bots: I found 14 pairs with ρ > 0.87 and lag between 2–11 minutes. The slow market hasn't repriced yet. The fast one already moved. You buy the slow one before it catches up. Z-score tells you when the spread is stretched enough to trade: z = (spread - μ) / σ |z| > 2.0 - entry. |z| 2.0 Average hold time: 23 minutes Max drawdown: 3.1% +$22,400 in 31 days. Starting capital: $500. My roommate asked me to explain the math. I wrote the full breakdown - Pearson correlation, cross-correlation lag detection, Z-score entries, Kelly sizing, and the 3 pairs that printed the most.

Lunar

26,265 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

The Elusive Concept of Time. Your instincts treat time like a background meter the whole universe shares. Relativity does not take time away, it forces you to earn it operationally. Events are points. Motion is a curve through them. A clock is not a metaphor, it is a worldline with a number attached to it. Two observers can disagree on which distant events are simultaneous, and nothing contradictory happens, because causal structure is still pinned down by light cones and invariants. Even in weak gravity the rule shows up. A clock deeper in a gravitational potential ticks more slowly relative to one far away. Near a compact object the difference becomes hard to ignore. Add rotation and spacetime itself picks up a twist. That twist is frame dragging, not a new force, just geometry telling you that time and angle are coupled in a rotating spacetime. In the animation You are watching a geometry lesson disguised as a black hole scene. The fabric is a visualization of the field shaping clock-rates and the paths light can take. The ripples are driven by local proper time, so their phase visibly slows as you approach the horizon. The accretion disk is lensed through Kerr ray tracing, and its brightness is pushed by redshift and beaming so the approaching side can flare while the receding side dims. Beacon points at different radii pulse at different rates, so you can see time dilation without any labels. The bead ring is a redshift tracer, with intensity scaled by a g³ proxy so deeper emission arrives weaker and shifted. The math breakdown Start with what a clock actually measures. Proper time τ is the accumulated time along an observer’s worldline. In special relativity, the invariant interval is ds² = c² dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² Along a timelike path, dτ = (1/c) √(ds²) = √( dt² − (1/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²) ) If the observer moves with speed v, so dx²+dy²+dy²+dz² = v² dt², then dτ = dt √(1 − v²/c²) That is time dilation as geometry. The moving clock accumulates less τ between the same pair of events. Now add gravity. General relativity replaces the flat interval with a metric gᵤᵥ that depends on position: ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ For a stationary clock in Schwarzschild geometry (mass M), the time component is g_tt = −(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) If the clock sits at fixed r (no spatial motion), ds² = g_tt c² dt², so dτ = dt √(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) Closer to the mass means a smaller factor, so the clock ticks more slowly relative to a clock far away. That is the rule used to drive the fabric phase in the animation. Now connect time to light. A gravitational field shifts photon frequency. Between an emitter at rₑ and an observer at rₒ, f_obs / f_emit = √( (1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) / (1 − 2GM/(rₒ c²)) ) For a far-away observer rₒ → ∞, f_obs / f_emit = √(1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) Deeper emission arrives redshifted. Lower frequency. Lower energy per photon. In the render, the disk intensity uses a Kerr-derived redshift factor g (clipped for stability). The bead ring uses a simple radiative proxy I_obs ∝ g³ I_emit to make that effect visible. Finally, why rotation looks like a twist. A rotating black hole is Kerr geometry. The key structural change is a nonzero g_tφ term, which couples time to angle. That coupling is frame dragging in equations. Near the hole, being stationary is not the same notion everywhere, because the local inertial frames are being pulled around the spin axis. So the moral stays clean. Time is not a universal substance flowing everywhere at one rate. It is what clocks accumulate along worldlines. Light cones constrain what can influence what. Invariants are what everyone agrees on. The rest is operational detail that only feels universal because our daily corner of the universe is slow and mild. #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #FrameDragging #BlackHoles #Spacetime
1:00

The Elusive Concept of Time. Your instincts treat time like a background meter the whole universe shares. Relativity does not take time away, it forces you to earn it operationally. Events are points. Motion is a curve through them. A clock is not a metaphor, it is a worldline with a number attached to it. Two observers can disagree on which distant events are simultaneous, and nothing contradictory happens, because causal structure is still pinned down by light cones and invariants. Even in weak gravity the rule shows up. A clock deeper in a gravitational potential ticks more slowly relative to one far away. Near a compact object the difference becomes hard to ignore. Add rotation and spacetime itself picks up a twist. That twist is frame dragging, not a new force, just geometry telling you that time and angle are coupled in a rotating spacetime. In the animation You are watching a geometry lesson disguised as a black hole scene. The fabric is a visualization of the field shaping clock-rates and the paths light can take. The ripples are driven by local proper time, so their phase visibly slows as you approach the horizon. The accretion disk is lensed through Kerr ray tracing, and its brightness is pushed by redshift and beaming so the approaching side can flare while the receding side dims. Beacon points at different radii pulse at different rates, so you can see time dilation without any labels. The bead ring is a redshift tracer, with intensity scaled by a g³ proxy so deeper emission arrives weaker and shifted. The math breakdown Start with what a clock actually measures. Proper time τ is the accumulated time along an observer’s worldline. In special relativity, the invariant interval is ds² = c² dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² Along a timelike path, dτ = (1/c) √(ds²) = √( dt² − (1/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²) ) If the observer moves with speed v, so dx²+dy²+dy²+dz² = v² dt², then dτ = dt √(1 − v²/c²) That is time dilation as geometry. The moving clock accumulates less τ between the same pair of events. Now add gravity. General relativity replaces the flat interval with a metric gᵤᵥ that depends on position: ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ For a stationary clock in Schwarzschild geometry (mass M), the time component is g_tt = −(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) If the clock sits at fixed r (no spatial motion), ds² = g_tt c² dt², so dτ = dt √(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) Closer to the mass means a smaller factor, so the clock ticks more slowly relative to a clock far away. That is the rule used to drive the fabric phase in the animation. Now connect time to light. A gravitational field shifts photon frequency. Between an emitter at rₑ and an observer at rₒ, f_obs / f_emit = √( (1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) / (1 − 2GM/(rₒ c²)) ) For a far-away observer rₒ → ∞, f_obs / f_emit = √(1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) Deeper emission arrives redshifted. Lower frequency. Lower energy per photon. In the render, the disk intensity uses a Kerr-derived redshift factor g (clipped for stability). The bead ring uses a simple radiative proxy I_obs ∝ g³ I_emit to make that effect visible. Finally, why rotation looks like a twist. A rotating black hole is Kerr geometry. The key structural change is a nonzero g_tφ term, which couples time to angle. That coupling is frame dragging in equations. Near the hole, being stationary is not the same notion everywhere, because the local inertial frames are being pulled around the spin axis. So the moral stays clean. Time is not a universal substance flowing everywhere at one rate. It is what clocks accumulate along worldlines. Light cones constrain what can influence what. Invariants are what everyone agrees on. The rest is operational detail that only feels universal because our daily corner of the universe is slow and mild. #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #FrameDragging #BlackHoles #Spacetime

Mathelirium

150,112 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation
0:33

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation

Mathelirium

22,170 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Erwin Schrödinger’s 1926 equation changed the game by turning Quantum Mechanics into wave dynamics. That move gave Physics a new way to think. Instead of forcing a particle onto one sharp path, it lets a complex wavefunction evolve in time, with its shape and phase holding the structure of the phenomenon. What makes this so striking is that Schrödinger’s equation does not start from vague mystery. It starts from a precise and daring idea The state of a particle is a complex field ψ(x,t), and the dynamics must push ψ forward in a way that preserves total probability.
0:33

Erwin Schrödinger’s 1926 equation changed the game by turning Quantum Mechanics into wave dynamics. That move gave Physics a new way to think. Instead of forcing a particle onto one sharp path, it lets a complex wavefunction evolve in time, with its shape and phase holding the structure of the phenomenon. What makes this so striking is that Schrödinger’s equation does not start from vague mystery. It starts from a precise and daring idea The state of a particle is a complex field ψ(x,t), and the dynamics must push ψ forward in a way that preserves total probability.

Mathelirium

54,894 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

String Theory makes an ambitious proposal: Quantum excitations and Spacetime geometry may arise from the same extended objects.
0:40

String Theory makes an ambitious proposal: Quantum excitations and Spacetime geometry may arise from the same extended objects.

Mathelirium

32,499 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce