@Phonon Right now, it's not more articulate than "What the hell was that about?" - but it seems to me he is essentially saying that we can compute non-perturbative amplitudes without ever actually doing anything that remotely resembles quantum physics in spacetime
It's intriguing, reducing physics to geometry
and it also seems like a somewhat natural progression from topological field theories and string theory amplitudes (the moduli spaces that the first guy asking a question mentions)
@Phonon Well, they leave Earth with a 3 stage rocket, and then they leave a planet with 160% Earth's gravity with just the 3rd stage-module-thing. The planet was orbiting a large BH -- there have been explanations about the slingshotting necessary to leave that grav pull; however it's hard to explain escaping a planet with so less fuel
Is magnetic declination greater near the equator than at higher latitude or otherwise? (See Quito, New Delhi and New York). Its magnitude decreases from Quito(located close to equator) to New Delhi and increases as we go further north.
Is there any dependence of declination on the latitude ?
Along the lines of the discussion (poll) on expletives on SE sites, what is the policy for them in chat? In my mind, there is a very large difference between proper SE site content (posts and comments) and chat. Chat far more fluid than the "fixed content" of the site, and the occasional explet...
I am trying find $\int_{all space} d^{3}q \delta^{3}(\vec{q})\frac{(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{q})^2}{q^{2}}$ where $\vec{p}$ is some fixed vector.
Here is my solution, please comment.
Let's align $q_{z}$ with $\vec{p}$, so we measure $\theta$ wrt $\vec{p}$. Since there is no $\phi$ dependence so I can...
I closed that somewhat instinctively but in light of the answers, maybe some discussion is warranted... the only thing approaching a question that I see is "Here is my solution, please comment", which is not really a question. Any thoughts from others?
Do some concrete evidences exist that the physics.SE site offers any help with researches? (Note that researches on physics may not be confused with theoretical physics, that is a specific thing.) Were new works published there that later obtained recognition from the professional scientific comm...
@DavidZ I agree that the questionl, as it stands, isn't really a question, and that even if formulated as a question, it is likely to be just "I did this, where's my error?". Many people struggle with such delta functions though, and it is a rather typical things that comes up in physics...
@Danu yeah I know, did you get to watch the link to Nima's talk? me and acuriousmind gave it a shot, I fell off my chair after 10 mins and passed out, and acuriousmind was so puzzled afterwards don't think he's had any sleep since then ;DD
@Phonon I've already seen numerous talks by Nima on this topic
...and am similarly baffled. THis is slightly less surprising than @ACuriousMind's bafflement, since I do not really know much mathematics to begin with
I got interested in it when the papers originally came out
@Danu yeah I see, cool that you knew bout his work. well I guess now you're kinda in the right path with your chosen program, I mean it's a start to make up for the seemingly lack of mathematical knowledge you think you may have. As for me, all the math I deal with in CMP is basically variational principles, functionals (for DFT), some group theory and that's kinda it,
@DavidZ : After the edit, is the question more clear now? I guess there implicitly are two questions: 1. What is the integral? 2. Why does OP's method fail?
Hi guys. Just wondering if there is anybody around who's concerned with heavy-ion collisions etc. and can help me with this question of mine.
The complete Physics picture of these heavy-ion collisions remains unclear to me. Also, I can't find any book or review article where these are surveyed :(
@DavidZ - your profile says you work in high-energy physics. You have any leads regarding this?
@Qmechanic I still don't think so. Or to be more precise, the original reason I closed the question, namely that it doesn't appear to be actually asking anything, still seems valid to me.
@UserAnonymous let me see if I can think of something (but in the meantime I'll make some edits to your question)
@DavidZ - Thanks. I'll greatly appreciate any leads whatsoever. :)
@DavidZ - Thanks for your edit, but doesn't a bulleted list list everything as items, whereas with arrows (->), I wanted to show a transition through all these stages? Anyways, you know what works on this site better than me, so it is OK. :)
@Qmechanic it was wrong to unilaterally(!) close this question in the first place, and after the improvements it should really be reopend, so why dont you just do this?
@UserAnonymous well, I guess that's mostly because I'm not a fan of ASCII-arrows except in fixed-width text. Feel free to change it back if you like.
@Qmechanic That edit does address my complaint about it not asking a question, so I'll reopen it.
But the question as a whole still kind of rubs me the wrong way. If you consider the two parts individually, they are (1) "what did I do wrong?" and (2) "show me how to do this", both of which are categories of homework-like questions that we routinely close as off-topic (with good reason IMO)
I think there must be some way to phrase the question such that it wouldn't bother me, though I can't think of it right now.
@DavidZ Not all. Thanks, and please do post if you come across any such resource. :)
BTW, what is so star-worthy about the two comments regarding editing some post which has been closed/reopened? I don't get it at all. Unless the starrer is the OP of that question :P
Oops. Minor typo in the preceding post. Read "Not all" as "Not at all". :(
Weird, it's not doing that for me. I guess it must be because I'm a moderator, but I didn't think that had an effect on the ability to edit chat messages.
BTW @DavidZ unilaterally closing good technical questions AFTER Qmechanic (who is the most physics knowledgeable mod and probably did NOT think the question should be closed) has given a nice answer is implicitely a rather brutal violent act of overruling him. Generally, other very physics knowledgeable people may have good reasons to disagree with your opinion or about what rubs you the wrong way concerning technical questions. I generally wished Qmechanic s POV would be more respected
In any case, don't despair just yet. There seem to be a number of physicists who check in every once in a while looking for things that are right up their alley.
They don't make the same impression on the site as the regulars, but I think there are more of them and when they do post it's usually good stuff.
I wasn't talking about anna specifically; I count her as a regular. She's retired now and I don't know that she every did heavy ions as such, though her interests are wide ranging so she might have the answer you're looking for.