I’m dissapointed in all off you

@Background Human  
Black holes are pretty great, though. Mind-bending. But as a whole, yeah, I’d say QM is weirder in that it seems to just have this whole zoo of things that don’t necessarily all flow from some single principle or three.

@Nittany Discord  
Speaking as someone with no dog in this fight, I think the two are about equal in terms of mathematical difficulty. QM is a bit more cumbersome, because of the larger number of variables involved, but it’s not really any harder conceptually. The biggest differences are that GR plays nicer with classical intuitions (you don’t have any famous physicists talking about how “weird” it is) and that QM plays nicer with known physical phenomena (it doesn’t break down the way GR breaks down around black holes). Beyond that, it’s really just a question of whether you prefer discrete or continuous math.

@Nittany Discord  
GR is differential geometry and tensor calculus. Its issues is quantization / being renormalized after being quantized. It doesn’t like that.
 
But I’ve read about perturbation theory being used in GR, so I know it’s possible - but maybe it’s only usable on a solution is what you’re referring to (ie, not generally)? - that, and it doesn’t account for back-reaction so it’s more deeply flawed in that sense as an approximation.

@Cirrus Light  
I think the mathematics of general relativity is more difficult than that of quantum mechanics, though I cannot say for sure not having seen graduate-level physics. The Dirac equation and equations for the standard model might be on the same level as the Einstein equation.
 
Another possible problem is that GR’s math doesn’t play nice with the same approximations as QM’s math. Like you can approximate solutions for standard model equations with perturbation theory but not GR’s equation(s). It’s what makes unifying the two theories so difficult.
 
GR isn’t really “weird” until you get to high accelerations (e.g. black holes). Then the physics freak out because the math for GR predicts nonphysical things to happen at the singularity (infinite gravity, which could imply one could gain infinite gravitational potential energy falling into a black hole, which could violate conservation of energy). There’s also gravity on tiny scales, where apparently GR doesn’t work or doesn’t make valid answers. I’m not sure there. QM, for all it’s craziness, appears to be well-enough understood that physicists can interpret the craziness that exists with confidence that it’s all physically plausible. The only mystery I know in QM other than gravity is the vacuum catastrophe.
 
I have seen some of the math of the loop quantum gravity theory, which is one of the leading “theory of everythings” that physics concocted trying to unify GR and QM, and that math is crazy. I think string theory’s math is equally crazy, but I don’t recall any of it right now.

The Sciencie!

@Cirrus Light  
Quantum started on electrodynamics, general and special relativity. These are the most useful building blocks we have.

Even Stephen Hawking can’t figure out Pikie Pie’s 4th wall breaking-level powers, so he just goes along with it. Nice :D  
It’s really sad to know one of the greatest minds of the world has passed away.

@Ninji  
Man. It’s funny how many physicists and sciency people in general I find who know this stuff about quantum but think GR is weird or hard. GR seems so simple to me (at least, fundamentally it all goes back to curvature and a curved surface), but QM is just a maze-like zoo of different oddities interacting in complex ways.

@Ninji  
Oh right. Non-straight path.
 
So the electron’s interactions with the Higgs field acts like that photon box?
 
Man. That’s crazy. I’ll have to read more about this next time I’ve got some time.

@Cirrus Light  
I knew it! Then free health care for all in the form of boops!

@Cirrus Light  
As for the resistance to acceration caused by confined lightspeed particles? That’s litterally E=MC^2 right there, it’s kinda hard to build a structured explaination when this video is so much more fun
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU

@Cirrus Light  
For someone not invested in the math ‘natural units’ are useful.
 
Well yeah. Electrons ‘evolve’, but no, they don’t stop. Everything travels at c, but electrons are incapable of taking a straight path because of the higgs field. Electrons with weak hyper charge don’t interact with electrons without weak hypercharge, and vise versa, the weak hypercharge comes from seemingly random excitation of the higgs field.
 
Electrons and photons move at c like everything else, but electrons keep getting bumped by the fuzz from the higgs field.

@Darth Sonic  
That remains to be seen.
 
@DatBookhorse  
Pinkie has literally ripped a hole in space/time, and the thing that worries you is Stephen Hawking shrugging?

@Ninji  
Setting c = 1 is really just tantamount to your choice of units; distance in light-seconds and time in seconds, time as the time it takes light to travel a meter and meters, years and lightyears, etc. Then on a graph of time vs distance, the the slope of light will be 1. 1 lightyear per year, 1 lightsecond per second, etc.
 
Hmm. So, since interactions take a non-zero time, these interactions cause the leptons to move slower than c? Do they stop while those happen? But in who’s frame?
 
And I don’t quite see how the photon box causes resistance to acceleration… well, the photon in the box would blueshift or redshift. If you have photons going both ways I wonder how the blueshift and redshift add up?
 
Man, if this quantum is what other physicists know, how do y’all think General Relativity is hard? Curved surfaces seem really easy compared to this :q
 

 
@Dust Rock  
We’ll, you’re making a whole lot of assumptions, it seems. For one, I’m not sure why people seem to assign something almost mystical to dimensions. Dimensions are just directions. They’re not other universes any more than right is another universe than up.
 
There’s the Everett multiverse, but I’m not sure you can get much from describing other quantum possibilities as other dimensions.
 
But to be frank, as much as I seem to know, I’m really just a student and not even I feel like I know close to enough to really make advances in the field, nevermind propose whole new theories, so if you don’t have many years of careful accredited study…

@Dust Rock  
Neither. It’s more of a practice, like medicine, but fun :p

 
watching

@Cirrus Light  
Would booping fall under theory or philosophy? Nose boop

@Dust Rock  
That’s not a theory. It always bothers me a little when people use that term so lightly. It’s an existential philosophy.
 
Theories aren’t just things people make up, or think up. It all ties back to empirical falsifiability and testability.

Basically what he had was a coroding spine. If i were him I’d use adrenal drugs, to stimulate the bulking of the CNS.
 
He lived a long life with bare minimum motor functionality, so I think he knew how to keep himself up. I’d put money down that he was cycling psychoactive stimulants, which are often used to maintain motor control.

@Edhelistar  
Ponka sounds like a rock version of pinkie xD

@Dust Rock  
Also is Ponka, you don’t have to explain anything.

@DatBookhorse  
I imagine Pinkie Pie did something that gave Hawkings a half cure, like how she sometimes stuff super tasty treats in ponies mouths and they suddenly jolt up with excitement? Probably that ^^;

@luna’s husbando  
Thats what I meant, but I’m not too good with words due to my spectrum​ autism (social autism)

@Dust Rock  
Solipsism doesn’t mean that no one else exists. Just that you can’t be 100% certain.
 
Common misconception.  
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/93