The h Bar - 2015-11-30 (page 3 of 4)

« first day (1852 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3081 days later) »

9:00 PM

@JohnDuffield Are you telling me that an electron is literally one single photon going round and round?

Just to be 100% clear here.

@JohnDuffield Furthermore, this is a typical photon? Like I could somehow "grab" a photon coming from my lamp here, spin it around and it would be a bona-fide electron?

@0celo7 : hmmn, that's too simplistic. But look at it this way: do you really think that in gamma-gamma pair production the photons magically pop out of existence whilst the electron and positron magically pop into existence. And then the reverse occurs in electron-positron annihilation?

Ignore pair production for now.

Let's look at the noninteracting theory first.

@JohnDuffield The photon does not have a charge and the electron does. How do you explain this?

In other words, what is electric charge in yout model?

@0celo7 : you need photons of more than 511keV photons to make it work, and two of them. Or a photon of more than 1022keV and a nucleus. What about the noninteracting theory? Are you talking about the assertion that photons don't interact with photons? Because they do. Look at the Breit-Wheeler process.

9:17 PM

@ACuriousMind Seriously, I can't help it.

@0celo7 : it's not "my model", I'm not some my-theory guy. I'm just a guy who read a lot of material across different fields of physics. As for what electromagnetic charge is, it's just a stable spin ½ configuration of an electromagnetic wave such that you end up with a standing wave. Standing wave, standing field. In atomic orbitals electrons exists as standing waves. There is no magic.

@ACuriousMind I just saw the notation $\hat Ricci(\xi,\xi)$ in a book. ::shudder::

Google on standing wave spherical harmonics.

What about free electrons?

Are they standing waves?

@JohnDuffield Unless you can find a respectable HEP researcher who says the same stuff, you kinda are a "my-theory guy".

There is no magic. An electron doesn't change its nature just because you separate it from a proton. Free electrons exist as standing waves too. That's why you can diffract electrons.

9:25 PM

If there's no magic, how do you explain how the photon goes "round and round"? Because that's magic.

@0celo7 : stop appealing to authority. Look to the evidence. I didn't invent spherical harmonics.

What the hell do spherical harmonics have to do with anything??

Stop moving the goalposts. Please explain what electric charge is.

@Danu Indeed, @JohnDuffield invited me to go find past examples of him moving the goal posts. However, I declined, because:

Photons don't have charge, electrons do. What gives, @JohnDuffield?

1) It's not fun.
2) I don't think it would change anything.

9:29 PM

@DanielSank If you want an example, note that he answers my question about electric charge with "I didn't invent spherical harmonics."

@0celo7 : I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm scoring goals. Spherical harmonics are a feature of a particular type of standing wave. Look it up.

You're the only one who thinks he's scoring goals.

I think so too.

@Huy trol

@0celo7 : as for how the photon goes round and round, it isn't magic. The 511keV photon ends up displacing its own path into a closed path. Because displacement current does what it says on the can. Wheeler was fumbling around this when he proposed his geon. Only he wasn't clear on the distinction between curved space and curved spacetime.

9:34 PM

> The 511keV photon ends up displacing its own path into a closed path.

Wow!

It goes round and round because it goes round and round!

@DanielSank Oh, damn, I thought you did accept that challenge :D

lol some random stranger just gifted me GTA5 on steam

@Huy You're welcome.

@Huy Seems legit

wasn't u

9:37 PM

@Huy Proof?

how should I prove it

not like I ran a screen recorder

You can't, therefore it's not true

ok

So I gifted it

Proof?

9:37 PM

@0celo7 at most it's undecidable

@Huy Not how this works

You can't, therefore it's not true

Wrong!

Using JD logic here

@0celo7 : a photon doesn't have charge because it's a field variation. It's typically depicted as a sinusoidal wave, but you will appreciate that field is the derivative of potential, as per the last picture on this answer. It's essentially a "hump" of 4-potential. Cut a strip of paper into a similar shape, like this:

user image

Now make a Moebius strip out of it.

You know, @JohnDuffield? Perhaps we can make a separate room for your physics explanations :)

9:40 PM

@0celo7: if you understand any Swiss German there might be proof

but you probably don't

since you don't even understand German

@Huy I'm more German than you.

du bist Bauschutt

That's a terrible insult. I can't believe I just spent $36 on you...

that's what I told ur mom

@JohnDuffield How?

9:43 PM

@0celo7 : think about two ocean waves. Make one a big wave, like an oceanic swell wave. Make the other one a little wave, and send it towards the big wave. The little wave goes up and over the big wave, then keeps on going. You might think there was no interaction, but that little wave changed direction when it went up and over the big wave. A wave makes a wave change direction.

Do you not see that you're telling me to perform magical acts?

hm, I don't see a way to view when I became friends with someone on Steam

otherwise I could prove it

@0celo7 : how what? When a wave interacts with a wave, it changes direction. If this is sufficient to send that wave into itself, it interacts with itself. Then it keeps on changing direction. There is no magic.

@JohnDuffield Ok, so we need two waves?

Also, I'd love some equations for this!

Surely someone has calculated this effect.

@0celo7 : yes you need two waves. One wave can't interact with itself. Not unless you believe in magic. Like this: "A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".

If you think a 511keV photon can spontaneously morph into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron in defiance of conservation of energy, which then morph back into a single 511keV photon in defiance of conservation of momentum, and that despite this the photon can keep on propagating at c, then I've got just the club for you.

@0celo7 : they have. But they're struggling to get it past peer review.

user image

Image courtesy of Nick Kim!

9:54 PM

Ah, so there's a conspiracy against real physics!

I blame Obama

Let's change subject...which one do you prefer:

the von Neumann universe

the Gödel constructible universe

or the Grothendieck universe

?

I have a question too

I want to find a discontinuous, bijective homomorphism from $(\mathbb{R},+)$ to itself. Is this possible without using AC?

@yuggib Grothendieck because I don't need to know anything about those pesky ordinals or logic formulae to understand its definition ;)

@ACuriousMind but the existence of Grothendieck universes (apart from a couple of trivial ones) is equivalent to the existence of large cardinals...

:-P

10:01 PM

@yuggib Why should I be bothered by large cardinals?

but a nice property of the Grothendieck universe is indeed that it is a set

@0celo7 : it's not so much a conspiracy as professional jealousy. When some guy considers himself to be the expert in the field, he doesn't take too kindly to some upstart explaining why the old boy has been talking out of his hat for fifty years. However when this happens, we call it scientific progress. LOL, I have to go. Night all.

@Huy AC?

Axiom of Choice.

@ACuriousMind because you would like that for each set there is a universe containing the set

10:02 PM

Edited : there is no evidence for the multiverse. But there is evidence for the wave nature of the electron.

@yuggib Yes, I like that. So each universe is contained in a larger universe. I'm not bothered by that

@Huy what's that

@ACuriousMind but that is equivalent to the existence of large inaccessible cardinals

Axiom of choice

In mathematics, the axiom of choice, or AC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that the Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty. It states that for every indexed family of nonempty sets there exists an indexed family of elements such that for every . The axiom of choice was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo in order to formalize his proof of the well-ordering theorem. Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of bins, each containing at least one object, it is possible to make a selection of exactly one object from each bin...

please explain it

10:03 PM

2 mins ago, by ACuriousMind

@yuggib Why should I be bothered by large cardinals?

:)

Checkmate, set theorists!

the way to find such a map I know requires looking at $\mathbb{R}$ as a $\mathbb{Q}$ vector space

this requires Zorn

They can exist all they want, and also be inaccessible. Fine with me

I'm wondering if there's such a map without using Zorn/AC

@ACuriousMind but you can't prove their existence

10:05 PM

@Huy Oh god, the proofs that something needs to use the AC are usually quite horrible

I can only imagine, that's why I'm hoping to find an example without it

Ba-dum-tssss @0celo7

@yuggib But I can assume their existence to make my life easier, right? It certainly shuts up all those set theorists bothered by "small" and "large" categories.

@Danu What?

I deleted that because it's not in the spirit of this chat.

No need to get banned again.

@ACuriousMind Well, I suppose so...their existence may conflict with some other axiom (not the ones of ZFC, but some additional one maybe)

I recall to have once read something about those big cardinals and continuum hypothesis but I can't recall that

10:07 PM

This is probably well known, but Zorn is German for anger or rage...which describes perfectly the feeling this thing evokes in many who need to use it

@ACM: what about Hardy-Littlewood

I like big cardinals and I cannot lie.

2

remember: "the axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering theorem is obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma"

@Huy Never seen that in my life

it was a joke

10:09 PM

usually they are accompanied by Sobolev

but the last one makes the joke less funny

wow I wasn't even born when that song was released

what is the well ordering theorem

every set has a well-order

^^google it

wells can be ordered

10:10 PM

good luck in well-ordering the reals though...

@Danu google what

@yuggib is that hard

@0celo7 Simple questions, before asking

@0celo7 let's say it fails to be constructive

@Danu well now I'm staring at PhD level set theory

:(

@Danu bfy.tw/3346 wat

10:12 PM

so there is a well-ordering, but you can't constructively define it

@Huy hurr durr

@0celo7 Trace back a few words you don't get, such as the definition of a well-order

@0celo7 this is not PhD level set theory

@Danu I know what that is

for you anything in set theory is PhD level :-D

why do you assume I don't know what that means

10:15 PM

Because you don't know a lot about set theory.

@Danu so?

So it's reasonable to assume that you don't know the meaning of [insert set-theoretic terminology]

no

you can assume I don't know PhD level set theory

@0celo7 @Danu, why don't you guys point it out to him? Some times people don't realize they're making logical errors like that. If you point it out carefully and politely it's possible JD will learn something.

I have to confess a freshman asked me for assistance with Analysis today and I am so proud of myself I managed to compute an integral within 30 minutes!

10:16 PM

well ordering is pretty simple

@DanielSank Hah, hah, hah.

@DanielSank I did, multiple times.

@0celo7 Oh, I promise you, you don't know a lot of non-PhD level set theory as well :P

@Danu exactly

AoC, Zorn, etc.

1 min ago, by Danu

So it's reasonable to assume that you don't know the meaning of [insert set-theoretic terminology]

10:17 PM

I don't know any of that PhD stuff

@DanielSank You clearly don't come around here enough :P

elementary set theory is not PhD level :-P

I have in no way a PhD-level knowledge of set theory

axiom of choice PhD level confirmed

casual

@yuggib I don't disagree

but this is not elementary...

10:19 PM

Except it is!

it's PhD level

Look at e.g. Halmos' book Naive Set Theory

It's a standard for undergraduate set theory

@Danu why should I

To see that you're wrong.

The axiom of choice is completely standard in an introductory treatment at undergraduate level.

@Danu no, why should I learn set theory

10:20 PM

You shouldn't.

@Danu everyone should

Or at least I'm not saying you should

@yuggib why

you should learn FA

But you also shouldn't say that things are "PhD level" when they're clearly not :P

10:21 PM

@Huy fourier analysis? football association?

functional analysis

Fertility Awareness

@0celo7 because set theory is the basis of all mathematics

@yuggib has set theory ever increased GDP

yes

10:22 PM

@0celo7 for sure

explain

@0celo7: a more important question: have you ever increased GDP

@Danu maybe for you

this book has been sold:

@Huy probably not

10:23 PM

wow

springer.com/us/book/9783540440857

trol

e.g. to me

so it has increased the GDP

of US and/or Germany (depending which branch of Springer produced and sold it)

bah, selling books is not really GDP

@0celo7 look at the definition of GDP

10:24 PM

I know what GDP is

eco101

@Huy I have credit for that

I love those intro classes

I had to compute intersection of lines

Ok, GDP-{books, related things}

those were the difficult problems

10:25 PM

"Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the value of all final goods and services produced in period of time " --- first line of wikipedia entry

@Huy dude I have no clue how to do that

the book was produced, therefore it increased the GDP

GDP-{books, related things}

assume Hilbert, then apply incidence axioms

Hilbert?

10:26 PM

German mathematician

fun fact: Hilbert submitted a paper on GR 5 days before Einstein, equivalent to Einstein's theory, but it was published after Einstein's. Hilbert however never claimed authorship of GR because he's a cool guy

@Huy it seems there is a controversy on the subject

einstein and hilbert raced for the result

@yuggib this

Zee says that Einstein was mad at Hilbert

and gave a talk that attacked Hilbert or something

there is an accurate account on scientific american

the last one or the one before

@yuggib how do u know it's accurate

u weren't there

detailed

sorry, english mistake

10:31 PM

isn't all of history an appeal to authority?

Scientific American

what do Americans know about history

no offense

of course it is

it's not reproducible

@Huy more than the Vietnamese

not like u won a war or something

but history as a platonic universal is true

10:32 PM

casuals

we've been over this

the public's heart was not in it

einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol8a-doc/274

if we had to wipe out a country we could, why would anyone deny this

here's Hilbert's letter not claiming authorship

after Einstein did

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol8a-doc/273
here's Einstein's claim

@Danu If you really think that then why bother discussing this at all? If you're really convinced that JD will not change his mind about anything then block him in chat and move on.

This ongoing dissing of people without a good faith effort to exchange information and progress in some way is useless, bad for the site culture, and annoying.

I realize I'm guilty of this too, by the way. I think we all can do better.

user54412

10:43 PM

30

A: Did Hilbert publish general relativity field equation before Einstein?

1915 On November 25, nearly ten years after the foundation of special relativity, Einstein submitted his paper The Field Equations of Gravitation for publication, which gave the correct field equations for the theory of general relativity (or general relativity for short). Actually, the G...

user54412

I particularly like the conclusion:

user54412

> Einstein and Hilbert had the moral strength and wisdom - after a month of intense competition, from which, in a final account, everybody (including science itself) profited - to avoid a lifelong priority dispute (something in which Leibniz and Newton failed). It would be a shame to subsequent generations of scientists and historians of science to try to undo their achievement.

that's what my original message was

And yet Einstein went down as the greatest physicist of all time but Hilbert is some mathematician that no one has ever heard of. Lol.

LOL

10:47 PM

@0celo7 ???

never seen you trolling that much

@yuggib Not an argument.

that's like saying "and yet Taylor Swift is the greatest singer of all time but Pink Floyd is some band no one has ever heard of. Lol."

@0celo7 many people have heard about Hilbert

There this great anecdote where someone lectured on Hilbert spaces and Hilbert politely asked at the end: "Excuse me, but what is a Hilbert space, really?"

10:49 PM

tbh I'm pretty scared that 0celo7 isn't trolling for once and actually has never heard of Hilbert

@Huy Never listened to Pink Floyd. Taylor Swift is definitely a competitor for best singer. I don't see the issue.

ok so it's troll after all

@yuggib Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that the average person has never heard of Hilbert.

@Huy ...I fear he might never have listened to Pink Floyd...

user54412

Or he thinks Einstein is only known for GR. That cat figured out atomic emission, brownian motion, and a whole bunch of other things.

10:50 PM

@ACuriousMind I have not.

@ChrisWhite TO THE AVERAGE PERSON

@0celo7 Your loss. Your staggering loss. You poor, poor thing.

because popularity is what science is all about

@0celo7 I had someone in my class in school named after him and neither of his parents were mathematicians (or anything near that).

-Perelman

user54412

@ACuriousMind That would explain the hair length issues.

10:51 PM

@ACuriousMind The hell?

@ChrisWhite lol

@ChrisWhite What?

Now I'm being attacked.

@0celo7 And a frequent response to him introducing himself as "David Hilbert" is indeed "Like the mathematician?"

@dmckee Doubtful. Rock is pretty bland and boring.

Get the pitchforks, people!

The tar is on me this time, everyone bring their own feathers.

10:53 PM

@ACuriousMind What the hell, seriously? How many random people off the street know of Hilbert the mathematician?

You have to be a mathematician or physicist for that. Maybe a chemist.

@0celo7 In my impression, the average educated person knows that David Hilbert was a mathematician. They probably don't know what he did, but they know of him.

@ACuriousMind What the hell?

the average educated person also doesn't really know what Einstein did

Rather than calling for torches, I'm just going to say that Pink Floyd was bagging on helicopter parents two decades before the phrase became popular. Even if you find the music unsatisfying (how?!?) the social commentary make their work an important part of the cannon of 20th century art.

just some $E = mc^2$ magic

10:55 PM

The average educated person?

@0celo7 probably not the US average educated person

@0celo7 The average European educated person, probably :P

@yuggib Apparently everyone I know is retarded.

@0celo7 sorry

I would bet $100 that I could go to the nuclear engineering department and none of the professors would have heard of him.

10:56 PM

@dmckee I didn't mention torches...

ok let's bet

Why would they have heard of him?

even my EE friends know him

@ChrisWhite That's a touch ironic, given that GR is the least accessible of all those theories for the average person.

And before you say they're stupid, many of them are European.

@HDE226868 Not really.

Brownian motion is probably the most advanced.

10:57 PM

not really

@0celo7 You can see that under a microscope.

Ito calculus is far worse than any diff geo.

@ACuriousMind Can't have pitchforks without torches. It would be like have scones without tea. Uncivilized.

user54412

^^^ Proof ACM does know about experiments

@0celo7 Ito calculus is not an Einstein contribution

10:58 PM

The statistical description may be sophisticated, but the concept of "jittering around randomly" isn't that complicated - and you can see it, even if you cannot calculate it

@0celo7 It's the most abstract, although special relativity is perhaps just as bad. But the math is simpler.

Yeah, and spacetime is a rubber sheet. Every child gets it.

user54412

Albert Itô Einstein. Genius.

@dmckee Oh, only civilized mobs allowed in here? I'll show myself out then.

@dmckee Do you agree with ACM's assertion on Hilbert?

10:59 PM

@ChrisWhite Shocking, I know. Sometimes I just cannot hide it.

@DanielSank I agree on the chat-component (see my earlier comments); I do think it's important to point out this stuff on the main site.

« first day (1852 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3081 days later) »

Transcript for

Nov '1530

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile