The 17 Equations That Changed The Course Of History

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

Politics is for now, an equation is for eternity.

- Abert Einstein

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Politics is for now, an equation is for eternity.

- Abert Einstein

Politics is for now? Einstein, you colossal dumbass.

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

Politics is for now? Einstein, you colossal dumbass.

I don't think he meant now as in "right now", but more like in a "short time" as opposed to a "very, very long time" (eternity).

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Tis a joke.

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

No joke, though the equations were highly selective to look pretty. OTHO, the equation describing the Standard Model is brutally ugly.

http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf

[The Skeletal Atheist]

:shock:

Holy fucking shit. Good thing you're versed in physics and math, because I have no idea what any of that says.

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

:shock:

Holy fucking shit. Good thing you're versed in physics and math, because I have no idea what any of that says.

The worse is that ugly equation describes the Standard model without gravity. Adding gravity to a quantum theory has not been accomplished yet, but who knows how much uglier that equation would become.

Worse than that, our theory only covers ordinary matter, which comprises about 5% of the universe - the rest, 20% Dark Matter, and 75% Dark energy, we have no theory (no math equations) to describe them.

Welcome to my world.

[Solitary]

And a very interesting world it is! Solitary

[aitm]

:shock:

Holy fucking shit. Good thing you're versed in physics and math, because I have no idea what any of that says.

Hey I think there is a plus that should have been a minus......

[Jason78]

I can't believe that the Mandelbrot set didn't make the cut!

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

A lot of important equations didn't make it. But I think that with chaos theory in there, the Mandelbrot set is a subset of it.
 
Mandelbrot set : x _{t +1} = x_t² + C
 
Chaos theory:  x_t+1 = Cx_t(1 - x_t)

[Plu]

I like the 2000 year gap between 1) and 2). Even though quite a lot of things happened in mathematics during that time.

(Also is there a reason #7 is not in the chronological order?)

[josephpalazzo (OP)]

I like the 2000 year gap between 1) and 2). Even though quite a lot of things happened in mathematics during that time.

And I don't think 2 is that important. Natural log and the number e would be a better choice but then Euler has already two equations up there.
 
Yeah, aside from the invention of algebra and the number zero, nothing much happened in that 2000 year interval.
 
 
 

(Also is there a reason #7 is not in the chronological order?)

You would think, numbers +  mathematician, how can you slip up? Probably was drunk. Either that or it's that new math...