Say goodbye to the fat me!

Raleoxilevz · May 9, 2012

Say goodbye to the fat me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9FSZJu448

Raleoxilevz · May 9, 2012

Say goodbye to the fat me!

Congratulations this post gave me a feel

baletki · May 9, 2012

Say goodbye to the fat me!

the best known example and the first one to be studied is the duality between type iib superstring on ads5 × s5 (a product space of a five-dimensional anti de sitter space and a five-sphere) on one hand, and n = 4 supersymmetric yang–mills theory on the four-dimensional boundary of the anti de sitter space (either a flat four-dimensional spacetime r3,1 or a three-sphere with time s3 × r). This is known as the ads/cft correspondence, a name often used for gauge / gravity duality in general.
This duality can be thought of as follows: Suppose there is a spacetime with a gravitational source, for example an extremal black hole. When particles are far away from this source, they are described by closed strings (i.e., a gravitational theory, or usually supergravity). As the particles approach the gravitational source, they can still be described by closed strings; also, they can be described by objects similar to qcd strings, which are made of gauge bosons (gluons) and other gauge theory degrees of freedom. So if one is able (in a decoupling limit) to describe the gravitational system as two separate regions — one (the bulk) far away from the source, and the other close to the source — then the latter region can also be described by a gauge theory on d-branes. This latter region (close to the source) is termed the near-horizon limit, since usually there is an event horizon around (or at) the gravitational source.
In the gravitational theory, one of the directions in spacetime is the radial direction, going from the gravitational source and away (toward the bulk). The gauge theory lives only on the d-brane itself, so it does not include the radial direction: It lives in a spacetime with one less dimension compared to the gravitational theory (in fact, it lives on a spacetime identical to the boundary of the near-horizon gravitational theory). Let us understand how the two theories are still equivalent:
The physics of the near-horizon gravitational theory involves only on-shell states (as usual in string theory), while the field theory includes also off-shell correlation function. The on-shell states in the near-horizon gravitational theory can be thought of as describing only particles arriving from the bulk to the near-horizon region and interacting there between themselves. In the gauge theory, these are "projected" onto the boundary, so that particles that arrive at the source from different directions will be seen in the gauge theory as (off-shell) quantum fluctuations far apart from each other, while particles arriving at the source from almost the same direction in space will be seen in the gauge theory as (off-shell) quantum fluctuations close to each other. Thus the angle between the arriving particles in the gravitational theory translates to the distance scale between quantum fluctuations in the gauge theory. The angle between arriving particles in the gravitational theory is related to the radial distance from the gravitational source at which the particles interact: The larger the angle the closer the particles have to get to the source in order to interact with each other. On the other hand, the scale of the distance between quantum fluctuations in a quantum field theory is related (inversely) to the energy scale in this theory, so small radius in the gravitational theory translates to low energy scale in the gauge theory (i.e., the ir regime of the field theory), while large radius in the gravitational theory translates to high energy scale in the gauge theory (i.e., the uv regime of the field theory).
A simple example to this principle is that if in the gravitational theory there is a setup in which the dilaton field (which determines the strength of the coupling) is decreasing with the radius, then its dual field theory will be asymptotically free, i.e. Its coupling will grow weaker in high energies.
Click to expand...

tldr

remstation · May 9, 2012

Say goodbye to the fat me!

I think you need to calm down, no need to get crazy in here!
Click to expand...

^watchout your comments bro
Click to expand...

Having perused this digital tome of prosaic banality, I am resigned to the notion that the consumate linguistic capacity of this forum is tantamount to that of a hebetudinous tunicate

jailynn24hb · May 9, 2012

Say goodbye to the fat me!

okay well honestly i dont like your splits at all..by all means if it suits you well then continue but you asked for my opinion..if your only goal is to lose your love handles the most important thing would be making sure your calories in is less than calories spent..i guess it is good to experiment with different exercises at this point and see what suits you best. adding in Hiit cardio is always helpful to fatloss or any cardio..and i would personally add more protein to my diet but then again i dont know any of your stats because of the helpful picture you posted lol.

i mean if your goal is just to lose the love handles then it really doesnt matter what exercises you do at the gym or how you do them so just eat less calories then u burn and thats bout it bro

Say goodbye to the fat me!

Raleoxilevz Well-Known Member

Raleoxilevz Well-Known Member

baletki Well-Known Member

remstation Well-Known Member

jailynn24hb Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Say goodbye to the fat me!

Raleoxilevz Well-Known Member

Raleoxilevz Well-Known Member

baletki Well-Known Member

remstation Well-Known Member

jailynn24hb Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches