Red Mosquito • View topic

washing machine · **Posted:** Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:44 pm

Quote:

Instantons in UV SYM theory are SU(Q5) gauge fields A6,7,8,9(ξa; x6, ..., x9) with field strengths which satisfy F=∗4F, where ∗4 is the epsilon in M4 and ξa are the moduli parameters. The dimension of moduli space for Q1 in scalar decoupling SU(Q5) is 4k

Is this a clever equation that comes off as gibberish to anyone without an inclination towards (quantum?) physics? For as long as I can remember, I've wondered about this signature. What does it mean? What are it's implications? Is it a joke? Is it the secret to life?

washing machine · **Posted:** Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:46 pm

Unfortunately, when you google the equation, you get only one hit:
viewtopic.php?f=7&p=2630733

px · **Joined:** Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:38 am **Posts:** 18049

washing machine wrote:

Quote:

Instantons in UV SYM theory are SU(Q5) gauge fields A6,7,8,9(ξa; x6, ..., x9) with field strengths which satisfy F=∗4F, where ∗4 is the epsilon in M4 and ξa are the moduli parameters. The dimension of moduli space for Q1 in scalar decoupling SU(Q5) is 4k

Is this a clever equation that comes off as gibberish to anyone without an inclination towards (quantum?) physics? For as long as I can remember, I've wondered about this signature. What does it mean? What are it's implications? Is it a joke? Is it the secret to life?

I think that signature must imply that he's smarter than all of us.

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

px wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Quote:

Instantons in UV SYM theory are SU(Q5) gauge fields A6,7,8,9(ξa; x6, ..., x9) with field strengths which satisfy F=∗4F, where ∗4 is the epsilon in M4 and ξa are the moduli parameters. The dimension of moduli space for Q1 in scalar decoupling SU(Q5) is 4k

Is this a clever equation that comes off as gibberish to anyone without an inclination towards (quantum?) physics? For as long as I can remember, I've wondered about this signature. What does it mean? What are it's implications? Is it a joke? Is it the secret to life?

I think that signature must imply that he's smarter than all of us.

Why does he have to rub our noses in it though?

px · **Joined:** Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:38 am **Posts:** 18049

Wes C. Addle wrote:

px wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Quote:

Instantons in UV SYM theory are SU(Q5) gauge fields A6,7,8,9(ξa; x6, ..., x9) with field strengths which satisfy F=∗4F, where ∗4 is the epsilon in M4 and ξa are the moduli parameters. The dimension of moduli space for Q1 in scalar decoupling SU(Q5) is 4k

Is this a clever equation that comes off as gibberish to anyone without an inclination towards (quantum?) physics? For as long as I can remember, I've wondered about this signature. What does it mean? What are it's implications? Is it a joke? Is it the secret to life?

I think that signature must imply that he's smarter than all of us.

Why does he have to rub our noses in it though?

I don't know. If I really applied myself (I'm not planning on it!) I could probably figure out what that signature means, though. Just sayin..

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

px wrote:

Wes C. Addle wrote:

px wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Quote:

Instantons in UV SYM theory are SU(Q5) gauge fields A6,7,8,9(ξa; x6, ..., x9) with field strengths which satisfy F=∗4F, where ∗4 is the epsilon in M4 and ξa are the moduli parameters. The dimension of moduli space for Q1 in scalar decoupling SU(Q5) is 4k

Is this a clever equation that comes off as gibberish to anyone without an inclination towards (quantum?) physics? For as long as I can remember, I've wondered about this signature. What does it mean? What are it's implications? Is it a joke? Is it the secret to life?

I think that signature must imply that he's smarter than all of us.

Why does he have to rub our noses in it though?

I don't know. If I really applied myself (I'm not planning on it!) I could probably figure out what that signature means, though. Just sayin..

Because you are a computer nerd/geek. :-p

px · **Joined:** Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:38 am **Posts:** 18049

....is my own equation relevant somehow....?

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:56 am

I bet you thought this post would be an answer.

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:57 am

Buffalohed wrote:

I bet you thought this post would be an answer.

i dont fall for that kinda shi

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:01 am

I do particularly like this sig. I think I'll keep it.

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:17 am

i've never liked it

but it reminds me of gybe

probably for a multitude of reasons

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:24 am

Why don't you like it?

Dev · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:27 am

humans

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:29 am

Buffalohed wrote:

Why don't you like it?

not appealing to my senses i guess

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:38 am

Dev wrote:

humans

wrong thread

Dev · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:49 am

Buffalohed wrote:

Dev wrote:

humans

wrong thread

.lol

washing machine · **Posted:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:01 pm

Buffalohed wrote:

I bet you thought this post would be an answer.

If I thought you would actually answer it, I would have PM'd you.

Buffalohed's sig

Who is online