35 karma · joined July 17, 2011
I'm currently exploring the idea of integrated-circuit spectroscopy, and have the physics/simulations down but the capital required to fabricate the chips and iterate on the designs is quite high.
One of the reasons that FCIQMC doesn't have nuclear motion is that the gradients from FCIQMC, and actually most QMC techniques, are really computationally intensive, so this means that creating the ab-initio surface for the nuclei to roll over is really hard. Perhaps you were considering some sort of FCIQMC approximation to the path integral, but it's not entirely obvious to me how this would work.
As for how DFT would work for this... It should work quite well for qualitative predictions. Actually, DFT does remarkably well for metals and functionals like asymptotically corrected PBE0 are providing remarkable physical insight. While I wouldn't trust the numbers that come from any DFT simulation to three decimal points, I'd certainly trust the physics that's captured.
That being said, metallic hydrogen should be a strongly multireference system, so I'd be interested in seeing how a green's function approach based in many-body perturbation theory (see GF2 from Zgid at U Michigan) would do, as it doesn't struggle with issues of references while still giving you coupled cluster level accuracy.
Disclaimer, I'm a physics PhD student at Harvard and go to seminars a lot with kids from MIT.
For me in physics? That came about when I started reading papers where people were doing stuff with differential geometry on manifolds. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why people would talk about a wedge product when a cross product would have sufficed until about 6 months later when it clicked that doing something in a coordinate agnostic framework allows you to prove things for any coordinate system and create general formulas that just need a few things "plugged in."
I'm not going to pretend to know that that's why elliptical modular forms are being used in your context but everytime something has seemed needlessly overcomplicated, I've come to realize after some thinking that it's done with a view towards generality.
Unfortunately, some of our prose is a bit obtuse because it's reasonably common for scientists to blow off their humanities courses because they're not science -- not realizing that most of our career will depend on the quality of our writing. You shouldn't confuse our incompetence with malice though.
For my AP humanities courses (APUSH, WHAP, APEng III, IV, etc), I'd tend to agree with the author in that those courses were largely a hurried survey with lots of busy work and perhaps not on par with what I could have take at my uni. This concern was ancillary to me as I went into university knowing that I wanted to double major in physics and mathematics so being essentially exempt from my humanities core allowed me to take 18 upper division math courses and 19 upper division physics.
I guess my conclusion is that the AP programme is good when used with an ultimately end goal in mind and, in a lot of cases, provides near identical treatment of materials, especially in the hard sciences.
Also, keep in mind that school is intended to teach you more than just history, math, etc. This is also where we learn to socialize. I guarantee you that my introverted self wouldn't have kissed a girl as early as I did if I wasn't forced to socialize with people for 170 school days a year. I learned how to make friends and how to balance my need for solitude with deeply fulfilling relationships -- something that would have taken much longer has I not been in school.
This isn't to say that my experience is biased towards the upper end of the achievement gap. In fact, while I'm in grad school in Boston, I'm volunteering at a charter school in its inner city and trust me, there are many problems with inner city education but the least of which is standardized testing. Traumatic home lives, poor materials, no cultural understanding of the value of education, etc represent far larger hurdles.
Indeed, I believe we should quibble about the standards and have a national discussion about what an educated member of society should know instead of debating the value of a standard at all. I believe that these standard have gone too far (plumbers probably don't need calculus, for example) but having a base-line of education is never a bad thing.