12:04 AM
@0celo7 and?

@DanielSank That's a crazy long time.

12:19 AM
^

@0celo7 Wat?

12:36 AM
@DanielSank you're very confused
@obe know QM yet

12:57 AM
How are you supposed to get the legendary badge with the way the rep cap works? Seems like you have to write 150 dope answers on separate days.

1:53 AM
@0celo7 Idk.

1 hour later…
3:10 AM
@DanielSank Yeah. Something like that. It is a little easier on big sites, but even on Stack Overflow it is a hard badge to get.

3:59 AM

3 hours later…
6:33 AM
A Higgs Boson particle walks into a church, but the preacher says "You are a fake! A disgrace! You call yourself the 'God particle' when there is only one true God! Blasphemy! You don't exist!" The Higgs Boson replies "Well if I don't exist, how can you have mass?"

7:14 AM
crickets chirp

8:01 AM
(You can still have mass from the strong interaction)
(that is where most mass is from)

8:19 AM
@Slereah lolol

Thank you I'll be here all night

3 hours later…
11:47 AM
@Slereah is married?

12:02 PM
@0celo7 does not know bad comedy from olden days

@Danu Yesterday I thought I would have had a nice discussion on the use of the full axiom of choice in physics; sadly you started the discussion but never responded...

@DanielSank : re what I was saying yesterday, see this. Maybe that appeared on an HNQ list too.

12:34 PM
@StanShunpike : boom boom! However the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter. And it isn't responsible for the mass of the Higgs boson. Check out Matt Strassler's article.

1 hour later…
1:53 PM
@DanielSank Ask JohnRennie, he has it.

2:03 PM
John Rennie is an anomaly.
Speaking of anomalies, I should read some Weinberg.

2:35 PM
@ACuriousMind You think fermions are normal particles? What is wrong with this generation...

@0celo7 Do you think fermions are somehow unnormal?

@ACuriousMind Uh, photons going around a Dirac belt = unnormal
Also how can you think spinors are normal?

@0celo7 Because they make up, like, all matter?

@ACuriousMind Dark matter is made of fermions?
::calls Sweden::

2:59 PM
@yuggib The thing is that I don't really know anything about it; I don't have much to contribute to the discussion...
The best I can do is: I want physics to not depend on it :P

@Danu Why?

@ACuriousMind Seriously, is dark matter fermionic?

@0celo7 We don't know.

^that

We expect it to be...

3:04 PM
Ok, that's what I thought.

heavy particles
but it's unclear what kind
or no, haha sorry I got it wrong, not baryonic---that's what we typically use for the stuff we do know

We all make typos

In other news, the tikz-cd package is da bomb

3:24 PM
In other other news, all the professors I want to talk to are either at lunch or just gone.

3:43 PM
@Danu :-D ok got it...Unfortunately, I am afraid it could depend on it. Anyways, a lot of mathematical things may change in a world with or without uncountable choice; how many of them are physical I do not know. As I said, the algebra of CCR is one of those non-separable spaces very relevant in physics, and maybe a physical necessity for uncountable choice

Yeah, it sounds like a good point.
I tend to stick to finite-dimensional things whenever I can :3

@Danu You have to think bigger ;)

3:58 PM
@ACuriousMind Classical, finite dimensional things are comforting :)

@Danu You should look at the constructivst/intuitionistic mathematics then...there is a book by bishop where he reproduces a part of standard analysis by means of constructivist proofs. No axiom of choice there...just constructing mathematical objects from scratch :-D

@yuggib I don't find the premise of constructivism very convincing

4:28 PM
You know what I hate? When people capitalize Words They Think Are Important.
It's like an instant crank/stupidity alert

@Danu Me neither; but I like infinite (dimensional, uncountable, etc ) sets very much ;-) In logic and proof theory, if it was for me I would even allow for proofs of uncountable length :-D

@yuggib That sounds like a terrible idea :P

@Danu Gödel capitalized the numerical realization of meta-mathematical concepts...
e.g.: "There are PROPOSITION-FORMULAE $a$ such that neither $a$ nor the NEGATION of $a$ is a PROVABLE FORMULA.
form his famous 1931 paper...
@Danu :-D probably....but it would be terribly fun
Theorem. $T\vdash \sigma$
Proof. ::uncountably infinite sequence of symbols::

4:57 PM
@yuggib Not just one letter? ALL-CAPS is even worse

1 hour later…
6:20 PM
@JohnDuffield cringe The original post is not grammatically an English question, yet there's a question mark at the end of it.
@dmckee Seems like a good challenge.
...but i need a cool 50 rep and my loan shark is outta town at the moment.