@DanielSank thx for effort will look it over, am behind filesharing firewall at moment. :( ... while lots of interest feel like there is also already too much criticism of the informal prj & ppl putting words in my mouth, my instinct is to do less when criticized rather than more aka "double down". think that avoiding criticism will be impossible esp as prj gets "larger". think the current ad has its flaws but is acceptable to start, dont want to see current effort wasted, still not at 6v. :|
@DanielSank am not against the criticism, just do not feel it all requires immediate action. am taking all feedback into acct. plz do not criticize my demonstrably proactive attitude.
Above diagram showed how I understood the cheap renewable energy resulting in over subsidy of the government issue https://www.newscientist.com/article/2088303-why-cheap-green-energy-could-derail-the-renewable-revolution/
@DanielSank have been on SE a long time now close to ~½ decade. see how things go around here. want to focus on something achievable/ short term not pie-in-the-sky.
PARAPHASE So if there are so many solar cells producing energy in surpass of demand, the threshold before people think electricity is expensive drops, thus it becomes harder to sell. Therefore governments have to pay these investors an extra amount of money in order for them to maintain profit (hence not a free market) this could be a serious economic problem that can bring the renewable revolution to a halt as this put pressure to the government and they have to cut the subsideries. Therefore in order to maintain profit when subsideries drop, the installation of solar panals have to contin…
The analogy of this with thermodynamics: The reservoir is always dropping, yet the demand in the general sense (demand for work in the heat engine, the need to press down the cost of solar cells further for the block diagram that showed the interaction in the market) keeps on rising
Eventually both systems will reach a point where the demand cannot be satisfied anymore and they will halt and no more desirable products (profit for the block diagram, work for the heat engine)
By the way, @vzn, so far your proactivism has consisted mostly of complaining in the chat room and posting the community ad that I drew. Your statements that you're being all proactive and everyone else is not is absurd.
I hope you will reconsider you communication style.
@DanielSank just dont feel like dealing with every item immediately ok? otherwise it will never happen. we are all volunteers, this is getting very timeconsuming :(
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544212001934 Ok it appears there exists such thing, thermoeconomics, but it is not considered as mainstream for economics people
I will say there is something to be said for just doing stuff - if you wait for plans to fully come together, you can be waiting a long time. That being said, planning does help improve the chance of success.
In any case, this interview/AMA/whatever is up to you all to organize. All I'm saying is that, when it comes time to happen, you can ask a mod to advertise it in the site sidebar and/or create a chat event.
what does a bijection onto a set actually do to the set? Say $\tau: \omega \to \omega$ where $\omega = \{1,2,...,n\}$ lets say $\tau(1) = 3$ does that mean $\tau$ replaces the 3 with a 1 and vice versa if $\tau(3) = 1$?
It is very well known that an inflated balloon in fly without tearing will not change its surface topology, the elastic deformations in its surface will be like "smooth transformations" in its surface hence its surface topology will remain constant.
Then if an observed object in fly have Variabl...
@Obliv $\tau (1)=3$ means $\tau$ maps 1 to 3. Since it is bijective, it means there exists $\tau^{-1}$ that can reverse it. Since $\tau$ is an element of the symmetric group $S_{\Omega}$, its inverses are also in $S_{\Omega}$
:29866923 What? a "permutation of a set" is just another name for a "bijection of a set onto itself". You just asked if a bijection of a set onto itself leads to a bijection of a set onto itself...
The elements of permutation are like maps from one element to another. They can be cyclic like 1 -> 2, 2->3, 3 -> 1, or some of these can map back to themselves e.g. (12) means 1->2, 2->1 and 3->3
The elements of a set with n elements are written $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ in this notation, and the permutation denoted by the cycle $(2 4 6)$ does $2\mapsto 4,4\mapsto 6, 6 \mapsto 2$ and is the identity on all other elements.
@Obliv ...finishing the introductory section before running off and asking questions is always a wise move :P
@ Acuriousmind ...speaking about permutations, I actually found a way to visualise them as some kind of digraphs (and showed that it works by using it to reproduce the product of permutations, and also proving the transposition decomposition identity of cycles)
But I will show this later, as despite its robustness, I have not run the test through the more abstract cases yet thus it will only confuse others
@DanielSank I haven't looked. Like I said (or at least meant to say), I'm mostly staying out of the planning. It's up to vzn and you and whoever to work out the details.
Remember I'm also technically on vacation this week :-P
*Brain temporary shut down, currently reading it to see if it is sensible or exaggerated or crank* http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407916309046
(and yes, for some reason, newscientist has a sciencedirect page)
comments 1. I don't buy the argument that free will is an axiom, it seemed grossly unjustified 2. Chaos is deterministic 3. I don't understand the argument of the non physical existence of real numbers. what about complex numbers, then? 4. His notion of flowing time requires the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics 5. If free will is what decide what the system to collapse into under the copenhagen interpretation, then how do all the collapses induced by all the free will of all observers in general come together to provide a unified, determinstic looking reality that we all perce…
(P.S. Brain shut down because I am a massive fan of flowing time and free will) The comments do showcase how I often have to deal with my pet theories produced from my anticipation of things I like, and the result is the more I want something to be true, the harsher my attitude to it in trying to shot it down
@0celo7 http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/new_features/maple2016/Physics.pdf Maple currently has the largest database of EFE solutions (971). If it can be obtained by academic license in your insitution, you might consider doing experiments with it
@innisfree Ad is an interesting idea, though I'd still need a place to take feedback on the physics. If that's not appropriate on main Q&A where do you suggest the discussion takes place?
@DanielSank Something we're done with really disruptive users in the past is aggressively delete comment threads where they've been talking physics and insist that they put such ideas in a post where they can be subject to both up and down votes.
All cities had walls in ancient Greece to stop them being attacked and looted. See you might think the moderation is harsh on the PSE but at least they don't slaughter you and take your womanfolk as slaves.
@ACuriousMind I mean the chat search function. Could you search for "ext" and get the phone number 3075 sent me a while ago? I don't want to have to explore my email to find it :v
@3075 I got one of those email failed to send responses O.o
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
science@waterloo.ca
Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain waterloo.ca by mail.waterloo.ca. [199.212.48.51].
"For every x, y in F, there is some element z in F such that z ≤ x and z ≤ y. (F is a filter base, or downward directed) For every x in F and y in P, x ≤ y implies that y is in F. (F is an upper set, or upward closed)"
@DanielSank Depends what you mean by "working". It prevents them from using Physics as a platform to push their snake oil. Usually they get angry and go away, but I don't think that is a desirable outcome in this case. Nor do I think that is the emost likely outcome.
@FrancescoS I'm not sure why there is an additional $\partial_\mu\pi(x)$ term in your transformation of $A'$.
Are you transforming both the $\pi(x)$ and the $A$ in $A' = A+\mathrm{d}\pi$? That's not how it works.
After the gauge transformation, $A'$ is still a gauge field, the $\mathrm{d}\pi$ term doesn't know that it once belonged to another field, $A'$ still transforms as $A$, if you insist on using the gauge symmetry
I worry more why you want to do this "inverse" transformation
The point of the transformation (that lets the gauge field "eat" the Goldstone) is that you have fixed a gauge in which the gauge field is no longer a gauge field but a massive vector field, but in which the Goldstone field has disappeared (into the third d.o.f. of the vector field).
@ACuriousMind why $\partial\pi$ doesn't know that it transforms like the $\pi$? I don't see the point. I understood the wrong thing was the derivative piece…
The point it that: If I have the lagrangian in the unitary gauge and i want to restore the coupling with the goldstone bosons, I should just undo the transformation. You told that in the unitary gauge the gauge field is no longer a gauge field, but a massive vector field. Why? So, does not it transform under gauge transformation?
@FrancescoS In the transformation $A\mapsto A' = A+\mathrm{d}\alpha$, setting $\alpha=\pi$ does not somehow magically endow the $\alpha$ with the transformation behaviour of $\pi$. You are choosing an $\alpha$ that is as a function at every point equal to $\pi$, but this does not mean that $\alpha$ transforms like $\pi$ afterward.
@FrancescoS It's massive in the effective theory you get when you expand the Higgs field around its VEV - you'll see mass terms for the $A'$ emerge rather straightforwardly". If you don't expand the Higgs, you keep gauge invariance, but then you have no reason for choosing the unitary gauge to begin with.
@ACuriousMind But, when you use the Equivalence theorem you need to restore the couplings with the goldstone bosons. During the lectures, my professor used to undo the gauge transformation in order to restore the couplings with the goldston bosons… but if you tell me that the $\pi(x)$ now is a function and not a field… why do you can use it to compute s-matrix elements?
@FrancescoS What's the "Equivalence theorem"? And yes, you can undo the gauge transformation (since your extra $\partial_\mu$ field is not there), I just don't see the point.
And there is no difference between a function and a field, I'm not sure what your issue is.
The $\alpha=\pi$ is, for all purposes, the same as $\pi$, except that it doesn't transform under the $\mathrm{U}(1)$.
Ok, maybe because the transformation properties is defined for the higgs doublet and not for the goldston bosons? In the sense… I should not transform the GB but the higgs doublet. It is right?