1,222 reputation
1519
bio website
location Baltimore, MD (USA)
age 24
visits member for 2 years, 9 months
seen 11 hours ago

2nd year graduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Physics. I'm primarily interested in particle theory and mathematical physics. I have some interest in pure mathematics, especially geometry and topology, and outside of particle physics in other fields including cosmology, topologically protected phases in condensed matter physics, and information theory.

I haven't had much time for this site recently. It's rather difficult to use this site to ask research questions, and it seems there are many people here who are capable of and willing to answer the basic questions which are very common here. If someone starts a new research-level Q&A site about physics (either on SE or elsewhere) I'd be interested in participating.


Jul
12
awarded  Yearling
Jul
11
answered Direct Sum of Hilbert spaces
Jul
9
awarded  Enthusiast
Jun
14
awarded  Critic
May
7
asked What exactly is meant by the conformal group of Minkowski space?
May
7
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Feb
12
comment What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergodic hypothesis?
@josephf.johnson As for your answer, I haven't yet had a chance to read it, unfortunately. This question has not had any activity for the better part of a year, and the answers do a pretty good job at least at the level I was looking for, so to be honest I had totally forgotten about it. Your answer seems to be at a more advanced level and does explain things in more detail. I appreciate it, even if I don't get a chance to look at it any time soon.
Feb
12
comment What are the justifying foundations of statistical mechanics without appealing to the ergodic hypothesis?
@josephf.johnson Alas, while I used the words "justifying foundations," I must admit that particular turn of phrase is not my own, and I can't comment on the intent contained therein. The title of this question was copied from a question posed on the Area 51 proposal of the now-defunct Theoretical Physics site. I agree with you that the phrase "justifying foundations" is a bit strange, but it seemed imprudent to copy the idea for the question but change the title; instead I tried as best I could to maintain the intent of the original asker and cited the location which I had found it.
Nov
27
awarded  Caucus
Jul
12
awarded  Yearling
Jun
20
answered Liquid nitrogen and liquid helium
May
16
comment Does dark energy affect asymptotic freedom?
It seems to me the idea you are talking about is the Big Rip Hypothesis. In this scenario, quarks do eventually de-hadronize and quark confinement fails. As far as I know the idea is a bit out of favor, but not ruled out for our universe.
May
5
awarded  Nice Answer
May
4
awarded  Good Question
May
4
awarded  Nice Question
May
4
awarded  Nice Question
May
4
comment Will a stone thrown in space move forever?
I didn't -1, but this answer has issues even if it is technically correct. For me, black holes are incompatible with the OP's statement that "gravity is equal zero" (admittedly poorly phrased, but the idea is to ignore gravity, i.e. work in Minkowski Spacetime). Answering the question in a GR context is also tricky because of strange things like closed timelike geodesics, making both "forward" and "forever" difficult to define. But the basic idea is that "this is mostly still true in general relativity once we make sense of what that even means" which I think you mostly captured.
May
1
awarded  Quorum
Apr
26
comment If randomness doesn't exist, how come the universe isn't a perfect sphere with predictable distribution of matter?
Back to probability, I don't think there should be a consistent notion of a "random pick from [0,1]" in the way you are claiming. Such a thing is an abuse of language, as are random bit sequences. A Vitali set isn't an event, so there's no reason to expect it to have a probability. I don't see any paradox with that. It is true that this notion of probability and the physical one are somewhat different, but I don't see a problem with that. If you want to continue this discussion, let's move it to chat, because it's become entirely irrelevant to the topic of the question.
Apr
26
comment If randomness doesn't exist, how come the universe isn't a perfect sphere with predictable distribution of matter?
It is definitely not true that any ring I am interested in is countable; take for instance $\mathbb{C}^n$ with the direct product. Most of the explicit examples I'm interested in could be dealt with by countable choice, but for both categorical and practical reasons it it's far easier to just deal with all rings.