@ACuriousMind I just realized I've never verified that the Dirac Lagrangian has classical chiral symmetry. We make the substitutions $\psi\rightarrow \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\gamma^5\alpha}\psi(x)$ into the Lagrangian. So how does $\bar\psi$ transform and once I have that and plug it into the Lagrangian, how do I deal with the gamma matrices in the Dirac operator?
@yuggib - It caught my attention while setting my username. I thought I should invert my real name and use that as a username, but then decided against it, thinking that I shouldn't underestimate people's intelligence!
Scrolled through the user tab to check if anybody did use an inverted username. Yours was a candidate :P
I would like to ask if there is a room for questions regarding physics and philosophy:
1) On an epistemological basis
2) On a purely philosophical basis, that is, questions about the connection of physics with philosophical thinking(for example a question about consciousness and Martin Heidegge...
alright so I'm trying to replicate a latent infection graph which I almost got it but somehow ... I don't understand why the zombies go flat when they are supposed to increase
hmm all the edits are mine... but the base code is the author.. I have a paper project that is about replicating the graphs and then writing it in my own words.
ok there... yes I know the title is wrong on the graph... I was reading the wrong label but the graph is almost similar to the paper but ... a. mine is narrower.. b. why is the zombies at a constant after the time is 10? The zombies should go UP!
the humans going from up to down is correct but the zombie part is up to constant which should be up all the way
so the first zombies code with the original data has already been tackled and I do see the two lines red for zombie on the bottom and blue for human which was SZR
but now I want to include the I so it's SIZR... but of course I have to put l(i) because i(i) crashes everything
what I'm doing is modifying the original code to include the infection ode and introducing rho
my prof told me that if s(i) < 0 there are no humans. and if z(i) < 0 there are no zombies... so z(i) > N which N =500 in the code means that the zombies are greater than 500
so obviously the l(i) > N will work because infection > 500 zombies of course because increased army of zombies... but wait if l(i) < 0 the infection isn't present and there's a fixed number of zombies.. . or humans are still living
I have found this question about potential energy What is potential energy truly?. I can not make comments.
Can I ask a question supplementary to this question?
Thank you.
Statistical mechanics is a subject with a particularly rich history. I think of the early debates of Boltzmann and Loschmidt, the rather confusing differences between the approaches of Gibbs and Boltzmann, the philosophical efforts of E.T. Jaynes to phrase entropy in terms of information theory, ...
I've spent a very long time trying to work this out, but some websites seem to conflict the information - or I'm completely missing the point.
I have a rechargeable battery:
2600mAh
4.2V max charge voltage
9.62Wh energy
It is to charge from a vehicle 12V or 24V (battery runs through a circuit b...
In another question sobebody has indirectly refuted this post, saying that since the lever formula applies here ($F_a*d_A = F_b*d_b$) the same force/energy is needed at the end of the door (say 1 m from the hinge) and at 0.0001m from the hinge. At the hinge the door does not move, but the increase of force/energy is not progressive as you move toward the end, the change is abrupt. How does one falsify that? What type of lever is that? — svetlana9 hours ago
@ACuriousJim, Thanks,. .I am playing no game, unfortunately I am fighting for survival. But, are you sure you are referring to the right post? it's no post, it's a comment by DavidZ, and it is bang against your conclusion here. I quoted you, but so far nobody was impressed. Only ja72 gave me a helping hand. If you do not want to openly contradict your friends, you might at least tell that/if my post is flawless. Thanks anyway — svetlana3 mins ago
I told him to step up his game, clearly he's trying
Wow! He's encouraging people to refute my post because he misunderstood my explanation
At least, I hope it's a misunderstanding, but it's more likely just shit-disturbing
Wow, I'll bet he thought he had me with that last one. No dice. I let him get close and then pull away. It's like fishing
Give 'em some slack, then reel them in
OK, thanks, I'll delete my comments, since I have quoted this post lots of people are coming. Thanks again, I regret that reading my post you got the impression I am sstirring trouble — svetlana33 secs ago
So yeah. That's like saying "Well, I've made sure people come here to argue with you, so I'll delete the evidence of my manipulations and deny them"
I heard quantum gravity was now in trouble. What is happening?
How to apply long-range real particles entangment to virtual pairs and hawking radiation?
@ACuriousMind The SUSY proof of the index theorem is...interesting. The goal is to put the index in the form $\operatorname{Tr} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H}$, and express it as a Euclidean supersymmetric path integral. This integral is then evaluated in the steepest descent approximation. (I didn't work out all the details, the proof is over 10 pages long.)
@Danu The only other people I've heard claim that there is only one objective concept of justice are very religious, so maybe that's why it sounds so similar?
Frankly, until we discover a law of nature that dictates what the true justice of a situation is, it'll have to be defined by the collective body of people that enforce justice, which by definition makes it subjective and not objective. However, I suspect that nature doesn't care about or event have a concept of justice. So there may be no natural, non-society-defined concept of justice.
Unless he meant a supernatural law defining the concept of justice. But damn it man, I'm a doctor physicist, not a theologist. I spend my life discovering the natural world, so that's what I'm sticking to unless shown otherwise.
Try to read
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/04/double-slit-experiment-in-heisenberg.html?m=1
for my treatment of the double slit experiment in the Heisenberg picture.
@ACuriousJim "it'll have to be defined by the collective body of people that enforce justice" Let's put that to the test. A collective body of people decide that punishing the innocent is 'justice'. On your view, that would be legitimate. On my view, such 'justice' is objectively unjust.
@AlfredCentauri You are putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make my argument seem ridiculous. If the society in question views the specific case of punishing those it deems innocent as justice, then that is what is just to them. I am from a society that does not deem this just. To me, that would be unjust.
That shows how the nature of justice is subjective. They think it is just, we think it is not
I may think a painting is beautiful, you may think it is hideous. It is subjective.
Unless there is a systematic way described through the laws of nature that can determine what is just, then the very fact that we can disagree on what is just means that is must be subjective
Now, if I said the moon didn't exist, you could point me to it and say it did. If I said putting hot air in a balloon would make it fall, you could show me the natural laws that say it must rise. But there is no natural system, law, or object that can be shown that dictates any objective justice. It is defined by the people. Just because you are appalled by the justice another society has defined doesn't mean yours is objectively correct. It literally means it is subjectively correct
@ACuriousJim punishing the innocent is objectively unjust. To suggest otherwise by, for example, using 'art is in the eye of the beholder', is beyond the pale.
Not objectively unjust, unjust in our system. That's subjectively unjust
It's clearly not unjust in all systems if that hypothetical one feels it is just. And without any irrefutable reason from nature to classify them as outright wrong, that means even if we find it terrible, it's still just to them. So justice can't be objective
For instance, in that system, they may believe that if you kill someone, their loved ones get to kill one of your loved ones to inflict the same pain on you as you on them. To us, that is vengeance, not justice. But to them, it is justice. Pain in equal measure would be their justice. It seems wrong to us, so we tend to then say it is wrong no matter what, but it is only wrong to us, not to them. That makes it subjective. There is no scientific reason to claim it is wrong according to nature.
It's wrong to us, it's right to them. That is, by definition, subjective
And it's arrogant of us to assume that just because we think it's wrong, that makes it wrong
Maybe in our eyes, but that doesn't make justice objective. That enforces its subjective nature
If it is truly a fact and it is objective, then there must be some natural process that determines the justice of a situation. There must be a physical set of laws and interactions that determines justice. Something that is not a part of any of the societies out there. If not, then it is dependant on how societies define it. If so, point me to it. If I am right now saying the Moon does not exist, then show me the Moon that I may see my error with my own eyes.
@ACuriousJim i see you've discovered moral relativism. alfred, i find your position untenable - the concept of justice varies between cultures and throughout ages, does it not?
I say the universe doesn't care what we do. Our sense of morality; of right and wrong; of justice are all creations of our minds in an effort to coexist in a mutually beneficial way with others in our societies. As such, that necessitates that justice be dependant on what the society deems to be mutually beneficial behaviour. Thus, justice, which usually ensures said behaviour, must be subjective along with that. It must fit the needs of the people that use it
Even saying it tries to ensure mutually beneficial behaviour is subjective to us. A civilization that thrives more on mutually detrimental behaviour (I know not how), must have a different system of justice. It cannot be and is not an objective concept
Though having recognized a spectrum of ideas about justice, we're still to decide whether to tolerate that spectrum, or whether to insist upon some normative ideal of justice, to which every society ought to adhere. The latter is the position of e.g. the Pope.
@acuriousjim I don't think societies "chose" their values or ethics. I'd say the structure of the economic relations in a society determines the laws, ethics, morality, justice, culture etc (i.e. superstructure).
@innisfree Maybe not "choose" explicitly. But usually it evolves over time due to the needs and trends of the people. Nobody sits down and says "this will be justice for us", but through its own natural tendencies and cultural quirks, each society chooses
@innisfree the concept of justice varies between cultures and throughout ages of course, but this doesn't suggest that justice is subjective in fact. Our conception of gravity has changed over time but the actual nature of gravity hasn't.
@ACuriousMind Wow, that might take a while. I'll start with this and then I have to go work in the yard the rest of the afternoon. First, one must recognize this essential fact: *"every living human being is an end in him/herself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others...".
@AlfredCentauri Then show us the laws of nature that dictate justice. Nature dictates gravity and its effects. Thus, it is possible to be wrong about how we define gravity. If nature dictates justice, I will concede and forever admit justice is objective. But you need to show one scrap of evidence at very least that nature is what dictates justice
Does a photon get justice for losing its entangled partner?
Or is it just those with a consciousness that are subject to justice?
If so, then that right there is a red flag that waves and shouts "Hey, it just may have something to do with the mind of those subject to justice" and "Maybe we should look for what defines it there and not elsewhere"
@acuriousjim hmm justice and laws evolve to the needs of *some* people, usually a dominant ruling class, which is why you get copyright law here, sweatshops there, and epidemics of curable diseases somewhere else etc.
i don't think there is a normative idea of justice (be it from science or god). we're free to choose (individually), but of course are choices are probably shaped by our own experiences. my feelings about justice would differ if I'd been born a king or a pauper.
@innisfree Yes, that is very true. But no matter who benefits, I'll wager the majority of the population accept their justice as just. Whenever they don't, you find uprisings and revolutions. Major changes to address injustices
i think that's a bit simplistic and panglossian. i think their are billions of powerless, helpless people who are desperate to improve their lives and don't think their lot is just at all. here's 400 of them bbc.com/news/world-africa-32311358
@innisfree change doesn't happen immediately. I'm sure there are many people who believe their lot unjust. When it becomes a majority of the society and with a smattering of time, change happens. And there will always be some that think their society is unjust
@ACuriousJim Just being the majority and believing your lot is unjust isn't enough. You must also believe you have the power to change things...and actually have the power to change things.
i just don't think that's true though; you seem to be assume that everybody has equal power - "when it becomes a majority...", that's just not the case though. economic, military, intellectual/media/cultural power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority.
That's true, thus the time it takes. Power to change is often held in the hands of a minority. Hell, look how long it took to oust the suppressive autocracies across the globe.
you still seem to be presenting a fairly Whiggish view - history is going to be a gradually triumph, a march towards liberalism and prosperity, look how far we've come! - whereas to me that's just not the case. some things are getting better, but some worse. it's not clear to me that ethically, we're improving much at all, and if we are, it's fairy steps, when what we need is great running leaps
@innisfree What, no. I don't make any predictions. I just think it evolves. I think it will change, I don't know how. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I'm not one to make predictions without hard evidence. Morality is like language and biology; it evolves and changes with time, but there's no telling what will happen, what is right or wrong, and what it means for us
Besides, whatever it ends up as, I'm sure somebody will think it was a progression of improvements and somebody will think the opposite
On a different note, I have a mystery I can't figure out
An hour ago, I had 13766 rep. Now I have 13764. I did no downvoting, my rep-o-meter hasn't logged any downvotes on my posts, there was no user removed
oh i see. i guess the scanning software has some algorithm for deciding whether an unrecognised word is a proper noun it doesn't know or an incorrectly scanned word, to be replaced with a close match in the dictionary. and it gets Pauli wrong
No, my rep has ended in a 6 for the last week about
But still, I might not have noticed if I hadn't had meta and main site open at the same time and refreshed the main site to see it was off by 2 points from what meta said
I don't keep track of what exactly shows up in the rep notification and what doesn't, but I can't think of anything that would cause a loss of 2 rep without you doing something and wouldn't show up in the notifications
So today something weird happened while I was doing my daily business on Physics.SE. I'm not too worried with my rep, but I love numbers and my rep has ended with a 6 for the last week or so. I'll not bore you with details, but essentially today I noticed out of the blue that I lost 2 rep arbitra...
The only thing I can think of that causes you to not be notified of a rep change is when an answer you downvoted gets deleted. But even then, that's a positive change and you still see the +1 in the top bar, I think
I have been careful to review the text and title and to exclude the litigious case of computational simulation possibly masquerading as theoretical models. Could you please tell me in what way this can be opinion based, to a larger degree than any other general question, of which many are accepted.? That includes some about the role of physics in computation theory.
My question is specifically asking for "facts [and] references". If I asked similarly whether results of group theory are relevant, you would not consider it opinion based. What difference?
One of the people who voted closing did vote to reopen. I have no clue as to what could still be a problem.
Let's get the density of diamond 3.5 g/Cm^3 and the density of graphite 2.25 g/Cm^3. now I Have:
m=mass , v= Volume , D= Density
For diamond: $3.5=D=m/V=3.5/1$
so a 3.5 g of diamonds has 1 cm^3 volume.
for graphite (The mass doesn't change during the reaction) $d=2.25=3.5/V$
therefor my V of...
@AlfredCentauri I agree with you, but in this day and age the moral policy of self-interested utilitarianism combined with a disbelief in objectivity has taken hold in response to unjustified dogmatism. Kant is too unpalatable for most people ;)
@Danu Well, if you call reason a higher authority, then yes, but the deontologists like Kant mostly do believe in objective morality without believing in any higher authority than their own reasoning.
I would like to ask if there is a room for questions regarding physics and philosophy:
1) On an epistemological basis
2) On a purely philosophical basis, that is, questions about the connection of physics with philosophical thinking(for example a question about consciousness and Martin Heidegge...
I've spent a very long time trying to work this out, but some websites seem to conflict the information - or I'm completely missing the point.
I have a rechargeable battery:
2600mAh
4.2V max charge voltage
9.62Wh energy
It is to charge from a vehicle 12V or 24V (battery runs through a circuit b...
I heard quantum gravity was now in trouble. What is happening?
How to apply long-range real particles entangment to virtual pairs and hawking radiation?
Try to read
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/04/double-slit-experiment-in-heisenberg.html?m=1
for my treatment of the double slit experiment in the Heisenberg picture.
Let's get the density of diamond 3.5 g/Cm^3 and the density of graphite 2.25 g/Cm^3. now I Have:
m=mass , v= Volume , D= Density
For diamond: $3.5=D=m/V=3.5/1$
so a 3.5 g of diamonds has 1 cm^3 volume.
for graphite (The mass doesn't change during the reaction) $d=2.25=3.5/V$
therefor my V of...
