Rochelle's Avatar

Rochelle

@uberwensch.bsky.social

like if Just Some Guy was a girl

1,408 Followers  |  436 Following  |  6,867 Posts  |  Joined: 26.11.2024
Posts Following

Posts by Rochelle (@uberwensch.bsky.social)

its a great dress

02.03.2026 05:00 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

holy shit heyy haha

how was your birthday??

02.03.2026 04:28 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

🫡 more napping

02.03.2026 04:27 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Yeah, but I don't think I have symptoms of long covid. I have always been fatigued.

02.03.2026 04:27 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

There are a few conversations from last week I am going to circle back to after tomorrow

(I have a deadline to make 😇)

02.03.2026 04:26 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

trying to discern the games you're playing, in a normal way

01.03.2026 19:33 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

photo elides slides

01.03.2026 19:32 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

i keep drawing copies of the 'Stupid Idiot Loser' somehow??

01.03.2026 19:31 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

tarot reading with mugs would be..
a challenge, i would think.

it definitely does portend evil, though, when you pick up your mug upside down

01.03.2026 18:53 — 👍 5    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

im sure your knowledge of calculus is paying dividends

01.03.2026 18:52 — 👍 5    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

kick the ball as hard as you can

01.03.2026 18:49 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

this pic is shrouded in mystery

01.03.2026 18:48 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

It's Sunday afternoon, and you know what that means. Form a single file line and please submit your #MathCoffeeSelfie for inspection.

01.03.2026 18:20 — 👍 22    🔁 4    💬 11    📌 0

surely i can fix this by simply powering through

01.03.2026 17:33 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

I'm not sure

01.03.2026 04:58 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

well, yeah, sometimes i do go catatonic thinking about particles

01.03.2026 04:57 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

i find thinking very tiring. i get exhausted trying to understand something and then i take a nap.

01.03.2026 04:34 — 👍 4    🔁 0    💬 4    📌 0

idk i just feel so scattered, and forgetful, and unfocused. things that were clear become confused again. i read something and forget what i read. i don't know how else to account for how much energy has been expended making such little progress.

01.03.2026 04:32 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

i think i have a learning disability

28.02.2026 22:54 — 👍 10    🔁 0    💬 3    📌 0

suppose two regions of space were identical. it still matters whether one or both were between you and I; it controls how long it takes for me to reach you. so these otherwise identical patches are seemingly distinct at least in number. again, idk how to do away with space (in favor of objects, etc)

28.02.2026 20:20 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

extremely on-point of him to have removed some of the content from the story

28.02.2026 17:47 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

I am sort of given to the idea that spacetime points have identity, maybe only because this makes things easier on me. I do not understand how to understand spacetime as being just relational. You unroll the carpet first; then you put your toys on it.

28.02.2026 17:43 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

I wonder what Leibniz would say about the dollars in my bank account

28.02.2026 17:38 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

Yet for motions in space, the symmetry group also acts on these and it seems (to me) like they should be identified; the universe could not have been 5m to the left.

28.02.2026 17:37 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

i do feel you. i wonder if spacetime points are non-identical indiscernables. Minkowski spacetime has a transitive symmetry group, so if you quotiented by symmetry you would get one point; thats definitely inappropriate.

28.02.2026 17:37 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0
Post image Post image

There is a discussion in Schwartz that indicates the positronium states are single-particle states. On the other hand, then it is obscure in what sense it is made out of a positron and an electron.

27.02.2026 04:54 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

are the positronium states in the single-particle or two-particle sector?

27.02.2026 01:31 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

right, but I kind of expect the positronium state to be a single-particle state (parameterized by one momentum). Is that correct? Do they have their own raising, lowering, & number operator, and Fock sector?

Does S-Matrix theory really only work when there's a correspondence fields <-> particles?

27.02.2026 01:31 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

Do you know how I can write these creation-annihilation operators?

(I'm also confused about the connection imaginary mass <--> unstable particle)

26.02.2026 22:36 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

Even in QED, though, we don't only have electrons, positrons, and photons; we also have positronium. Does positronium get its own Fock space factor within H_out?

26.02.2026 22:26 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0