harmony5
- 73
- 1
atyy said:Please state the predicted value of the energy density and the observed value.
Predicted 1 Planck energy unit.
Observed 10^-120 Planck energy units.
atyy said:Please state the predicted value of the energy density and the observed value.
harmony5 said:Predicted 1 Planck energy unit.
Observed 10^-120 Planck energy units.
harmony5 said:I made a Poincare sections simulation as this small parameter was increased. Interpreting the results in terms of the KAM theorem I observed invariant tori disintegrating. The manner in which their disintegrated though, was unusual. First, they collapsed into themselves to form periodic orbits. If the parameter was increased slightly further the collapsed tori exploded into a sea of points. I concluded I was observing an unexpected route to chaos. As this parameter starts off at zero and is increased the motion is quasiperiodic; it then abruptly becomes periodic and if increased further chaotic. None of the professors in my department observed this before and this became the most prominent result of my research. Deriving this result taught me how to use computational methods to bring the theory I'm studying to life.
harmony5 said:@micromass , @Vanadium 50 @radium if any of you can answer this question I think I'll know how to write this. My biggest road block trying to keep this thing under 700 words but at the same time convincing the admission committee I had a profound research experience. Every time I try to talk about my research experience I always write to much. Because I write so much about my research experience I can't devote enough words to talk about other things. How should I describe my research experience?
atyy said:Once again, I'm a biologist, so don't take me too seriously.
I think your essay presentation is getting better. I think your biggest problems were (1) talking enough about your own research to show that you did understand the technical details. But this is much improved by the detail in the version in post #70 (2) you would like to move to a new field, but your descriptions of research in that field seem very inaccurate, making it doubtful that you understand even the problems in that field. For example, your description of the vacuum catastrophe problem seems wrong. Your statement of the Weinberg-Witten theorem in response to an earlier question of mine is also wrong.
Edit: Competition will probably be tough, because you have had no experience with QFT. Most of my physics friends who went on to do quantum gravity research did QFT before applying to grad school. So it doesn't help if by stating the problems inaccurately or at the level of a popsci book or less, you show that you really don't know any QFT. You need to at least understand enough QFT to state the problems accurately.
harmony5 said:"Quantum field theory predicts a very large energy density for the vacuum, and this density should have large gravitational effects. However these effects are not observed, and the discrepancy between theory and observation is an incredible 120 orders of magnitude. There is no generally accepted explanation for this discrepancy, although numerous papers have been written about it. "
Well given the current state of it I would be embarrassed to show my professors to be honest. It is indeed a mess. Quite possibly even the latest renditions are the worst SoP ever written on this forum. I would like to get a acceptable SoP first before I bringing it to my professors. Your right that is a massive hyperbole. But the gist is that I should emphasis I knew nothing about Nonlinear dynamics when I began my research. But after three semester I knew enough about nonlinear dynamics to successfully conduct research in it and the same will be of Cosmology and Particle physics.radium said:Why are you having people on reddit and here to read your statement? You should be asking your recommenders and older peers who have been accepted to grad school from your department.
"I should emphasis how I knew nothing about Nonlinear dynamics when I began my research. But after three semesters I knew more about it then the professors in the department. Is that what you mean?" Don't put anything like this in your statement. Not only is this very arrogant, it is almost definitely false. People who say these types usually do so because they do not know enough about whatever topic to know what they don't know, something like the Dunning Kruger effect.