« first day (2017 days earlier)      last day (2920 days later) » 
01:00 - 17:0017:00 - 23:00

1:33 AM
@DanielSank That's my specialty
 
1:52 AM
@DanielSank Now I know how Shostakovich made such good waltzes
@dmckee Can one dispute a close vote?
 
@BernardMeurer what about kinetics, depending on the topic i may know a few things
 
@user507974 Turns out he wanted to calculate the height of a skate maneuver using only a gyroscope and an accelerometer
 
2:08 AM
@BernardMeurer thats kinematics not kinetics
 
Dang it
you people and your words
 
and would take a little bit of handwaving
 
@BernardMeurer You can write a comment on the post explaining why you think any such votes are not well founded. And if you have 3k, then you can vote to re-open if it get closed.
IN fact I think you can vote to re-open your own question at lower rep than that.
 
It's my own question yeah, I just think someone voted to close it without reading my question
 
Here it is: at 250 rep.
 
2:21 AM
@BernardMeurer ?
 
@DanielSank You were the only person I thought would get this :(
 
@BernardMeurer Uh, is that Shastakovich on the right?
 
Yeah!
He looks just like Harry Potter
 
ok got it
 
2:45 AM
Just because it came up on the site again I give you ... ::drumroll::
33
Q: TagOverflow - an interactive graph of Physics.SE tags

Piotr MigdalI created a graph of tags from Stack Exchange sites (including Physics.SE), TagOverflow. I made an interactive version of Map of 64 Tags from Physics.SE, with always up-to-date data. Nodes represent the most popular tags, with their area being proportional to the number of questions with them....

 
vzn
3:00 AM
@yuggib strange/ perplexing/ seemingly non sequitur comment. what does ulta finitism have to do with experimentalists? were you guys talking about experimentalists?
 
vzn
3:25 AM
> An experiment suggests it might be possible to control atoms entangled with the light they emit by manipulating detection
poor physicists grasping at straws attempting to find words/ math/ apparatus to describe/ control a fundamentally local hidden variable theory of reality... viva la einstein & death to "spooky action at a distance"
 
@ChrisWhite I summon you!
 
user116211
3:40 AM
@berneard o/
 
@MAFIA36790 Heya
 
user116211
Damn, I never get the chance to talk with @daniel T__T
 
4:02 AM
@MAFIA36790 eh?
 
user116211
hey! o/
 
@DanielSank You know in Python how you can use a list of lists to easily store a group of pairs?
[[1,2],[2,3],[3,4],...] sort of thing
 
@BernardMeurer I don't understand the question.
Oh, it's not a question really.
Yes, I know that you can make lists of lists.
 
How can I replicate that structure in C++? I was thinking of using something like that to store [x, phi(x)] pairs
but a vector composed of vectors composed of numbers seems ugly
 
4:07 AM
Then just make a 2D array...
 
Yeesh, but I want beauty!
I want a solution that I can frame
 
Then make a vector of vector of numbers.
But don't do that.
Use an array.
The container type depends on trade-offs between memory use, performance, and is strongly influenced by how you will access the data in the container.
 
It's for that little test framework I'm writing
the csv solution worked nicely for 1-500
but now I want to add in some random very large numbers
pre-generated
and they're not enough to get a CSV of their own
 
Just use an array.
 
Alrighty
Thanks dan!
::uses vectors:: REBEL
jk, jk
 
 
1 hour later…
5:17 AM
Hi
 
Ah I wondered if you'd post in the chat.
 
Right now isn't a great time as it's six a.m. in the UK and all the American's are asleep. The chat is liveliest around 16:00-midnight UTC.
For the record I agree 100% with Scott Aaronson, and I also think relativity should be taught starting with the metric.
 
Interesting
Why would someone disagree with him?
Other than just tradition
 
But these approaches require (a) some mathematical sophistication and (b) some pretty unintuitive ideas.
The historical approach is slower and probably harder in the end, but it's easy to get started as the initial learning curve is shallower.
 
5:21 AM
Interesting
 
user116211
@JohnRennie Most introductory courses follow that.
 
I'm really more into GR than QM, and in relativity it's easy to start with light clocks and calculate time dilation.
You don't even need calculus for that.
Whereas starting with the metric is effectively teaching basic differential geometry.
 
I think the limited undergrad relativity, I got the point more than undergrad QM
In undergrad QM I computed a lot of eigenvalues etc.
 
@ZacharySelk Unless you understand the role of the metric in SR you haven't got the point - trust me on this :-)
 
@JohnRennie I've studied a little bit of Riemannian geometry, but just from a mathematical perspective
 
5:25 AM
@MAFIA36790 Realistically you couldn't do an introductory course using an axiomatic approach. It would just take too long.
@ZacharySelk ask anyone who has studied GR what they think of the "light clock approach" to SR, but stand well back as you do so :-)
 
@JohnRennie Is there a QM text that approaches it through the way Aaronson does?
haha I will do that
 
user116211
@ZacharySelk: You know representation theory?
 
@ZacharySelk I'm sure there must be, but I don't know the QM teaching literature very well - or at all really.
 
@MAFIA36790 I studied representation theory a bit in undergrad abstract algebra
 
user116211
Generally undergrad QM books just highlight the theories without delving into representation theory... but once you go to the advanced undergrad courses and grad courses, representation theory would play a decisive role.
 
5:30 AM
@MAFIA36790 Interesting. Both undergrad QM and representation theory didn't seem to click with me
@MAFIA36790 The one interesting thing coming from it was generalized Fourier analysis
But anyway, my question for future readers is about scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html Scott Aaronson's post
Why would one approach QM through a historical approach or a generalized probability?
 
user116211
@ZacharySelk Come at noon when most of the users are here..... John's given time above.
 
@MAFIA36790 I will.
I just want to have it here before I leave in case someone replies
bye
 
user116211
o/
 
@MAFIA36790 annoyingly no-one ever taught me representation theory, and I still don't really understand it.
 
@JohnRennie Hello dear Jhon. Do you have time?
 
5:44 AM
@lucas Hi Lucas. Yes, I have a few minutes. What did you want to ask?
 
@JohnRennie Thank you because of your attention. May you see my answer and tell we where is my mistake please?
-1
A: Balancing forces on a liquid

lucasUse below free body diagrams and note that $P_2=\rho gh_2$ and $h_2=h+y-x$ and y is lower piston displacement. Note that volume of the displaced water for 2 pistons are equal.

I read the other answer but I couldn't get.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie hahahaha.... I would be studying on this for the months left before my undergrad classes begin; and I'm getting some good advices from @yuggib also. I know it's too overambitious to self-study abstract algebra.... but there is nothing bad in it ;)
 
user116211
Just grab a good book.... and start reading ;)
 
user116211
Maybe Bourbaki ;/
 
user116211
Of course, you are quite a learned man... you'd have no problem except the time factor :(
 
5:49 AM
@MAFIA36790 the problem with self-study is that it's inefficient. If I'm teaching someone SR I can adapt my approach in response to what they find difficult. With a book there isn't that responsiveness.
You just have to plough on and hope it eventually all makes sense.
 
user116211
yeh... I just need to get an insight on this... as it would be the core of most of the studies on QM and ultimately on QFT.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie The books I'm following are some of the self-contained introductory books on the topic.... I know it's different to get taught from a book and that from a prof... but I'm really in need of a good insight...
 
@MAFIA36790 if you haven't started university yet, study what you find fun to study. I wouldn't worry too much about how relevant it will be to your course.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie yep... that's my point.
 
6:24 AM
@lucas I haven't got time to go through the question properly, but if I understand you correctly you're saying $\rho gh_2$ is the pressure difference between $S_2$ and the top of the narrow pipe. I don't see how this helps.
If the pressure at $S_1$ is $P_1$ and the pressure at $S_2$ is $P_2$ then $P_2 - P_1 = \rho gh$. The force on the top plate is $P_1 S_1$ and the force on the bottom plate is $P_2 S_2$. That should be enough to solve the problem.
 
@JohnRennie What is the $P_1$?
It is the atmosphere pressure.
 
No, $P_1$ is less than the atmospheric pressure. That should be obvious because without the spring the plate would accelerate downwards i.e. there is a net force downwards.
 
"you're saying $\rho gh_2$ is the pressure difference between $S_2$ and the top of the narrow pipe" No, I say the pressure acting on $S_2$ by water is $P_2$
@JohnRennie "there is a net force downwards" I agree. But I showed it by $kx-P_0S_1$
@JohnRennie Are my free body diagrams correct?
$P_0$ is the atmosphere pressure and $P_2$ is the water pressure acting on bottom surface.
 
@lucas in your first diagram you omit the force due to the pressure in the liquid $F = P_1 S_1$. The pressure $P_1$ on the liquid side of the plate is less than the atmospheric pressure $P_0$ on the air side of the plate.
 
@JohnRennie Did I forget any force in free body diagram?
 
6:34 AM
@lucas yes, in the first diagram you omitted the upwards force $P_1 S_1$
 
@JohnRennie But there is no liquid on that surface.
 
The bottom side of the top plate is in contact with the liquid and the pressure of that liquid is $P_1$. So the liquid exerts a force on the plate $P_1 S_1$.
 
@JohnRennie Liquid is free to go down.
So it doesn't exert force to top surface.
The liquid is fixed not moving.
Statics not dynamics.
 
The space between the two plates is sealed so the liquid can only move away from the top plate by leaving a vaccum in between the top of the liquid and the bottom of the plate.
 
@JohnRennie I agree. So, what?
 
6:42 AM
@lucas Does that happen?
 
@JohnRennie And there is not vacuum after equivalency.
The water will fill the vacuum.
 
Your free body diagram assumes that a vacuum is created, but you've just admitted that no vacuum is created, so your free body diagram is wrong.
 
@JohnRennie There is no vacuum after equivalency. The water will fill it.
@JohnRennie On the other hand, If there is vacuum under the top surface, then my free body diagram is valid yet.
Vacuum doesn't exert a force.
The forces that act on the top surface are $P_0S_1$ and $kx$
If there is a vacuum, then the spring must break finally.
@JohnRennie My recent sentence (If there is a vacuum, then the spring must break finally) is not true. But as I said, my free body diagram is valid even we have a vacuum under the top surface.
 
7:01 AM
Your free body diagram is valid only if we have a vacuum under the top surface
 
@JohnRennie Not only.
 
@JohnRennie If there is no vacuum, then free body diagram is valid yet. Because there is no water on the top surface.
@JohnRennie Am I right?
Liquid pressure is $\rho g z$ and $z=0$ for top surface.
 
7:17 AM
@JohnRennie Are you here yet?
 
If your first free body diagram was correct then it tells us $kx + P_0 S_1 = 0$. Yes?
 
@JohnRennie yes
Sorry no
$kx-P_0 S_1=0$
 
So the extension $x$ is independent of the mass $m$. Yes?
 
@JohnRennie I cannot say it quickly. I should think about it.
 
@lucas you don't need to think about it: your diagram says $kx-P_0 S_1=0$ so $x = P_0 S_1/k$.
 
7:23 AM
@JohnRennie Yes.
 
So you are predicting that $x$ is the same whatever mass $m$ is hung from the bottom surface.
 
@JohnRennie It is a new thing. I didn't care it before. You right $P_0$ is a ambient feature and it is independent of our system.
@JohnRennie No problem. I agree with this "So you are predicting that $x$ is the same whatever mass $m$ is hung from the bottom surface." It doesn't change the result.
 
It should be obvious that $x$ isn't independent of the mass $m$. Is that not obvious to you?
Are you really claiming that $x$ is independent of $m$?
 
@JohnRennie $m$ is appear in $P_0=P_2+\frac{mg}{S_2}$
So I think $x$ depends on $m$.
I said I should think.
 
A free body diagram shows all the forces on an object so it is all we need to describe the motion of the object. If the top plate is stationary your free body diagram says $x$ is independent of $m$. Since this is obviously not the case your first free body diagram is wrong.
 
7:37 AM
@JohnRennie $x=\frac{P_0 S_1}{k}$ and $P_0=P_2+\frac{mg}{S_2}$ so $x=\frac{(P_2+\frac{mg}{S_2})S_1}{k}$ i.e $x$ depends on $m$.
@JohnRennie $x=\frac{P_0 S_1}{k}$ is the mathematics of solution but it comes from the physics of the problem.
@JohnRennie I agree that $P_0$ and $S_1$ and $k$ are constants. But we write this equation ($kx-P_0 S_1=0$) for this problem not other problem.
 
@JohnRennie Am I right?
 
I've spent the last 1 hour and 24 minutes telling you that your first free body diagram is wrong. You choose to disagree. That's your perogative.
 
@JohnRennie Forgive me if I bothered you dear John. My English is terrible. Did I make you upset?
I don't want to disagree.
Please forgive me.
I just want to know my mistake.
@JohnRennie Are you angry because of me?
I am sorry. Please forgive me.
@JohnRennie Are you here yet?
@JohnRennie I had to go for bringing my sister from her exam. May we keep on 45 min later? Do you want to keep on the discussion?
 
8:31 AM
@JohnRennie I came back dear John.
@JohnRennie May we continue our discussion?
 
Mornin
 
user116211
8:53 AM
Hullo!
 
you know I actually remember a guy here who pretended to understand renormalization
He said something like it wasn't actually about sweeping infinities under the rug but reparametrization or something
 
user116211
@Slereah Not ACM, I guess ;P
 
Where is that guy
 
9:12 AM
@vzn I was just saying that I've seen more than one experimentalist (at least three) doubting about existence of unbounded/infinite stuff; in a way that resembles a lot the position taken by finitists or the alike
 
I don't think anyone believes in measurable infinite quantities
 
 
2 hours later…
10:51 AM
for fuck sake
I tried answering a question and it gets deleted when I answer it
 
user116211
@Slereah :(
 
11:26 AM
I would appreciate it if someone could explain-to-OP/mediate/step-in/vote-to-reopen/vote-to-close here.
 
Can't vote to close now!
Pretty close though
17 points left
I need to ask a really good question for that
A bullshit question that would get plenty of votes
 
user116211
@Slereah How to explain renormalisation to a a seven years old/toddler?
 
user116211
This would definitely work.
 
nah
The layman doesn't know what renormalization is
It should be either something of your daily life or a science thing that has been in the news
 
user116211
@Slereah Who cares.... these sort of questions rock the hot question table...
 
user116211
11:31 AM
@Slereah Thinking
 
One thing I actually do wonder about G-waves is
There's a 70's paper about how to generate G-waves using EM waves on a cavity
And for the era, it was a huge fucking quantity of energy
I wonder if nowadays, it would be doable
With current sensitivity of G-wave detectors
 
 
1 hour later…
12:34 PM
1
Q: Why does thawing Coca-Cola generate force and expand the can as it thaws?

Mark MillerIf I take a warm unopened aluminum can of Coca-Cola and place it in the freezer and let the Coca-Cola freeze solid, then take the can out of the freezer and let it thaw unopened in a typical room, the lid of the aluminum can will invert and be pushed upwards as much as approximately one inch abov...

^here's a good crowd pleasing question
 
user116211
@Slereah hmm....
 
user116211
I once came before the question:
 
user116211
> Why the moon doesn't look brighter when it's closer?
 
user116211
And yeh... I liked it.
 
user116211
BTW, hasn't the mobile site changed its appearance?
 
12:44 PM
^ yep
better now
 
user116211
@yuggib yeh, much better looking than the previous dull look.
 
user116211
Hmm.. why they don't make a Windows app T__T
 
1:01 PM
because windows is evil...
 
user116211
@yuggib hahaha.... well, yeh...
 
@ZacharySelk : be a little cautious about what Scott Aaaronson says. He's a self-publicist who will write an authoritative-sounding article suggesting to you that he's some expert in something. But when you find a real expert, you will find out that Scott Aaronson isn't.
 
1:24 PM
Hello. May someone help me to know how can I talk with a moderator?
 
user116211
@lucas Just present your query... DavidZ is here.
 
@MAFIA36790 Thank you because of your attention. But I don't see him here?
 
user116211
Okay, if it's important, you can ping him.
 
@MAFIA36790 I want to edit one of my answers. But I am not allowed. Because I edited 5 answers and it says that I must wait for tomorrow. I want to ask a moderator to let me.
@MAFIA36790 Did you go?
@MAFIA36790 Are you here yet?
@DavidZ Hello dear DavidZ. May I have a request?
@AccidentalFourierTransform Hello dear friend. May you help me?
 
1:46 PM
@lucas Perhaps you should stop saying "dear X" to everybody---it's not a standard way to address people in English.
 
@Danu May you please guide me? My English is terribel.
What should I say?
 
Just "X" is fine.
 
But I think I should be polite.
My age is little than many people that are here.
I must respect to them.
 
1
Q: Can black holes grow via accretion of dark matter particles?

DarthPlagueisI'm assuming that the answer to the question in the title is a resounding yes. Since Baryonic matter and dark matter interact via gravitational forces. If this is the case how is information not lost if, as is presumed, dark matter does not interact via the electromagnetic force?

Wait a moment
That question is asked by Darth Plagueis
I don't trust that guy with dark matter
 
@lucas No, that's not really a common point of view here.
 
2:00 PM
US people are more informal
Just say "Hey asshole!"
"How about some help"
Maybe challenge them to a fistfight, too
 
2:15 PM
@MAFIA36790 for the record, I'm always going to show up as being in the room, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm actually available
 
@DavidZ May I have a request?
 
@lucas you just did :-P
 
@DavidZ I need your permit to edit my answer.
 
If you're talking about the 5-edit restriction you mentioned above, I can't do anything about that. You just need to wait.
 
user116211
@DavidZ What I wanted to tell is that when you are being pinged, you respond... I know that no one is available all the time ;)
 
2:20 PM
Well, yeah, I do usually make a point of checking on pings whenever I first come into the chat
 
@DavidZ Ok. I thought you can. Thank you because of your attention:)
 
No worries
Also, I was going to say that it's up to you how you want to address people, but most of us here believe your age is irrelevant, and in particular we don't believe there is any need to be more respectful to someone who is older than you, or more experienced than you, or any such thing. We simply expect everyone to show basic civility to everyone else.
 
I want to show basic civility to everyone so I say dear.
 
"dear" is much more than basic civility.
 
@DavidZ Excuse me I remember a thing just now. That question is closed. If you open it for a while I can post another answer.
 
2:25 PM
That one I'm not going to do.
 
@DavidZ You cannot do?
 
Well
Your age is irrelevant unless you are under 13
 
@Slereah No I am near 30.
 
Then it is especially irreelvant
 
@DavidZ Can you open a closed question? Or you don't have permit?
3
Q: Balancing forces on a liquid

santhe My reasoning is as follows Atmospheric pressure = $P_{0}$; Spring stretch = $x$; Pressure under top piston = $P$ Balancing forces on top piston $kx + P S_1 = P_0 S_1$ Balancing forces on bottom piston $(P+h \rho g) S_2+ mg = P_0 S_2$ Solving the two equations gives $x= \frac{g S_1(m+h\rho S_2)}...

 
2:29 PM
@lucas Moderators have the ability to reopen closed questions, yes.
 
@DavidZ Then, may you do this?
 
Usually we prefer to leave the reopening process to the community, but occasionally if it's very clear that the issues that caused the question to be closed in the first place have been addressed, we'll reopen it.
For the question you linked, that is not the case. There has been no significant change to the question since it was put on hold.
 
@DavidZ I don't want to open it for ever. Just 10 min. My answer is ready and I need to copy and paste it and add some figures.
 
If the question contains a scan of the homework, that is usually not a good sign
 
@lucas that is the worst possible reason to want to reopen a question :-P What I mean is that temporarily reopening a question so that someone can post an answer invalidates the entire point of closing the question in the first place. We will never temporarily reopen a question.
 
2:34 PM
@DavidZ Ok. Leave it. May you see my answer and tell me where is my mistake?
 
If you want to post your answer (or a summary of it) here in chat, I can take a quick look at it, sure.
 
I answered it some days ago. May you take a look to it?
@DavidZ My answer exists now under the question.
 
Oh, gotcha. I didn't notice.
Wait... if your answer is already there, why did you want the question temporarily reopened?
 
@DavidZ Because I explained it much for clarifying.
 
In general, you should probably edit your existing answer rather than posting a new one
(even if you have to wait)
 
2:42 PM
@DavidZ I am not allowed today.
@DavidZ I think my answer is correct and I wanted to explain it much.
@DavidZ May you say your opinion about my answer?
 
It's hard to understand. For starters, you use some variables $P_2$ and $h_2$ which you don't define.
 
Can you understand or I explain it?
$P_2$ is the pressure caused by water on the lower piston.
$h_2$ is the height difference between two pistons after doing experiment.
@DavidZ Are my free body diagrams correct or not?
 
@lucas OK... well, nothing happens in the situation described in the question, though. The pistons never move. So I'm not sure what the significance of $h_2$ is.
You would have to describe what you want to change, if you're going to use $h_2$. Even so, I don't think it's necessary to consider anything changing to solve the problem.
 
"The pistons never move" why?
 
Because the system is already in equilibrium.
 
2:52 PM
Yes. But the pistons had moved before.
So, you say $x=0$?
 
It doesn't matter that the pistons had moved before. The question isn't asking about what happened while they moved.
(in fact it's possible that the system was constructed in equilibrium, so that the pistons hadn't moved)
 
Question is: "We have a container is shown in the problem description above. There is water inside the container. Lower piston is fixed by an external force before experiment. The spring is in its free length at this situation. We remove the external force slowly and wait until system achieves to equivalency. We want to determine displacement of the upper piston."
If this was the question, then my answer is true or not?
 
Well, the answer to that question is going to be the same as the answer to the question posted.
I do notice you're missing a pressure force on the upper piston, by the way.
 
What force?
What does exert this force?
 
The water underneath the piston
 
2:59 PM
How can it exert a force on the upper piston?
 
By pushing on it
...I'm not sure I understand. Let me ask you this: why would you think the water wouldn't exert a force on the piston?
 
Ok. Assume that the upper piston doesn’t exist. So, what was happened?
The water was flowed to the outside of container from narrow pipe
Right?
 
@lucas I don't understand
 
@DavidZ If upper piston doesn't exist, then water will go down to outside of container. Is it right?
 
No, the water is still contained, even without the upper piston
 
3:03 PM
how?
 
By the walls, and the lower piston
 
The lower piston isn't fixed.
The lower piston will go down and water too.
 
Oh, sure, if the lower piston isn't fixed then it will go down and the water will follow it.
 
Ok?
@DavidZ Hence, as the water want to go down, it cannot exert a force to the upper piston in the top direction (the water cannot push the upper piston).
Is this correct?
 
You said there is no upper piston
 
3:07 PM
No, I want to explain why the water doesn't exert a force to the upper piston.
 
Yes, but you were just talking about a situation where there is no upper piston. Do you now want to go back to the situation where the upper piston exists?
 
Like friction force. Until there isn't tendency of motion, there isn't the friction force.
The water want to go down. Even if the upper piston exists.
@DavidZ Is my last sentence correct?
@DavidZ Are you here yet?
 
@lucas That's true, but it doesn't stop the water from exerting a force on the upper piston
 
@DavidZ May you explain how the water can push the upper piston?
We talk about statics not dynamics.
 
It's the same way anything exerts a force on anything else in statics
 
3:17 PM
But water is free for going down. The lower piston isn't fixed.
How water can move against the gravity?
 
It doesn't move against gravity. But I'm not sure why you think it would. All I'm saying is that it exerts a force on the upper piston, not that it is trying to move toward that piston.
 
So, define that force please.
Is a pressure force?
 
Yep, it is
 
What pressure?
The water pressure?
 
Yes, the water pressure.
Maybe this will help: imagine for a moment that the spring doesn't exist.
 
3:22 PM
Ok. But we know for stationary liquids that $P=\rho g z$ and for the upper piston $z=0$.
 
Actually $\Delta P = \rho g\delta z$
 
$\Delta z =0$
$0-0=\rho g (0-0)$
There is no water on the upper piston.
@DavidZ Are you here yet?
@DavidZ If the spring doesn't exist, equivalency will never establish.
@DavidZ Are you thinking?
 
3:37 PM
I'm also working on some other things
I'll get back to you
 
@DavidZ Sorry. Forgive me for bothering.
 
4:20 PM
@lucas ok, that's just saying that the pressure at the top of the water differs from the pressure at the top of the water by zero
 
@DavidZ May you write a equetion that give us that pressure?
 
I suppose you could. It's determined by external factors.
 
Why do you think that the water exerts a force upward to the upper piston? Is it because of Pascal's Law?
"imagine for a moment that the spring doesn't exist"
If your meaning is the Pascal's low, consider that our water isn't a confined liquid.
@DavidZ May you explain me why do the water exert a force upward to the upper piston?
 
Hello to everyone. Since I don't know how to formulate this to a question, may I ask for any references on the subject of Thermodynamics on QFT scattering or Thermodynamics of Quantum Fluids and Scattering procedures. Thanks.
 
@lucas You could think of it as a reaction force to the part of the external air pressure on the piston that is not supported by the spring
 
4:32 PM
@DavidZ But free liquids doesn't have any normal reaction.
Our liquid isn't confined.
 
That's not true
 
May you explain more?
 
Not really
 
@DavidZ Why?
"that is not supported by the spring" If it happens, spring will break finally and equivalency will never establish. As, I said before, if the spring doesn't exist, then the water will leave the container.
Lower piston isn't fixed.
 
01:00 - 17:0017:00 - 23:00

« first day (2017 days earlier)      last day (2920 days later) »