They waffle a bit around the topic, but I believe by now it is somewhat consensus that list questions are disallowed - leaving a comment "This seems like a list question" and voting to close as too broad has never really gotten any disagreement that I would have noticed.
There's also this in the dont-ask page: "your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”"*
The question you linked already presents a way to solve the problem.
I now anticipate that you will point out that one could avoid that point by essentially making the question worse by omitting the method cited, @DanielSank ;)
Assume the following situation. You're in an office in Vienna. It's time around lunch and normally one greets each other with "Mahlzeit". You go to a toilet and suddenly meet your boss there. How should one properly greet in such situation (as you can't just silently ignore him/her)?
Most of usu...
The questions about Du vs. Sie are also funny, especially when they have to state there's this range where neither knows what to call the other and both just awkwardly dance around it :D
Fortunately, one is often trying to eliminate the stochastic part (either by taking an extra derivative or making assumptions of the variables such that it cancels entirely) so the "random" bit is rather minimal
As a middle aged newbie on this site at first I was enthusiastic about it. I studied physics years ago and wanted to refresh my understanding and learn more and maybe even contribute to the community here.
Than I noticed it is very common that answers and questions are allowed by the system to b...
The normal force obviously always has direction perpendicular to the surface of contact, but I'm a bit confused about its sense: is it going 'up' or 'down'? I've seen articles on the web that describe the normal force as going either way.
My own reasoning would tell me that since force of fricti...
I think I have a different problem- If a ball bounces at a table at an angle, why is it that the table cannot just push back at the ball at that same angle?
GNU is a three-letter self-referenced acronym meaning: GNU's Not Unix. STFW ! (Search The F***ing Web!) — perror7 hours ago
user54412
3:36 AM
So I always thought pronouncing the thing "ga-nu" was just CS types diplaying some sort of mass illiteracy. Turns out it was the illiteracy of some 80s kids show producers behind it all.
@dmckee : there's crystal clear evidence that there's inappropriate voting being directed at me. I refer to the hard scientific evidence and to the papers, and I get downvoted, see for example this. This is not a case of "many people think I'm wrong". It's a case of malice from people who don't know as much physics as me, and can't bear to be corrected.
@StanShunpike Ah, that is...an interesting question! In our discussion so far, there is no need to have "a gauge field".
In fact, in the generality of "superfluous coordinates" I've spoken of, there is no such that as a gauge field, in general.
The significance gauge field arises from the need to construct a gauge-invariant action: The motivating case is that we have one field which transforms under a gauge transformation as $A \mapsto A + \mathrm{d}\chi$, and some other matter field $\psi$ that transforms as $\psi\mapsto\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi}\psi$.
We want to write the kinetic term for the matter field. If it's a scalar, that would just be $\partial^\mu\psi\partial_\mu\psi$. But if you now do the gauge transformation, and the $\chi$ is not constant, the product rule hits us and the kinetic term is not invariant!
@ACuriousMind : I'm afraid Bosoneando doesn't understanding electromagnetism and is "clinging to ignorance". Google on Duffield Bosoneando Stack Exchange for examples.
Therefore, to restore gauge invariance, one must make these terms somehow "vanish". It turns out that the correct way to make them vanish is to replace $\partial_\mu \mapsto \partial_\mu - \mathrm{i}A_\mu$ (don't hold me accountable for the sign! ;) )
In this way, the gauge field $A$ appears in every derivative of fields that transform under the gauge transformation. Even if you had not started with $A$, but only with the transformation of $\psi$, you would have had the extra terms, and would have to introduce something to cancel them to get an invariant action. That something would've been exactly the gauge field $A$ again, and the transformation law $A\mapsto A + \mathrm{d}\chi$ follows then from the form of the terms we want to cancel.
In the TV program , Professor Michio Kaku had told that singularity can be defined as the rotation of the neutron . I'm searching whether the insist was right or wrong . How does the quantum mechanics or string theory define the singularity ?
I didn't tell my supervisor because I couldn't see how saying "Hey, so this is what I was actually doing instead of working on my project" would be at all a good thing
Yeah, in your case, it's more impressive than detrimental. But just remember that in the future, they'll know about it and will be able to catch you spending time on here when you should be working
@0celo7 1) Hold it in and do a dance. 2) find a bathroom elsewhere. 3) wet yourself and when he comes out scream "See! That's what happens! This is all on you!"
I forgot, 4) pick the lock and barge in saying it's a bathroom emergency. 5) Designate an emergency toilet for use in emergency situations only and then pick an object to pee in
Suppose you needed to dispose of a large carcass for one reason or another while in the backcountry... what would be the best way to dispose of it in the woods so that it wouldn't be discovered? You always hear stories of people burying bears that they've had to shoot, but I can't imagine digging...
I'm recently facing a bit confusion regarding the friction between two bodies. Suppose there's two bodies, one placed on another. There is frictional force $ f $ between the base body and floor and frictional force $ f' $ between the two bodies. Let the upper body is pulled with a force $ P $ gre...
@0celo7 T does depend on the metric. It's related by the Field Equations. T is equal to G divided by k. I would suggest thinking through your comments a little more. — Horus3 hours ago