« first day (2117 days earlier)      last day (2803 days later) » 

9:00 PM
@BalarkaSen Sigh, yeah I guess
 
@Danu Cool. What did you learn?
 
wait... what direction was pressure in the thermodynamic entity
 
@BalarkaSen Everything up to ch.4
Minus the Hopf degree theorem and everything in its section---I just looked at the results.
 
@Danu Oh, really?
 
I didn't do many exercises. I'm under very high time pressure.
 
9:03 PM
Danu is a speed reader
 
@Danu Ah, that explains it. Fair enough.
 
But the exercises don't seem so bad, tbh.
 
There are many cool ones.
 
I feel like I should be able to do most of them quickly
 
Well :) If you can, that's good.
 
9:04 PM
@0celo7 If only that were a thing for mathematics :P
 
Do you want a problem to think about? I have one which I haven't solved in full yet.
Not from G&P, but relevant to ch.2
 
@Danu Exercise: Solve the Riemann hypothesis.
 
Hello everyone, very quick and easy question regarding waves accross materials

someone hits the rod with a hammer and a wave propagates accross it:
www.imgur.com/0mGs3sI

on the second line, nex to the arrow you see $F=\Delta p - S ....$
I think both terms should be switched, because I think right now the force F will always be negative, and I am not sure whether that makes any sense. Could anybody concur?
 
@BalarkaSen what's the problem
 
Don't bother with it. I was just going to tell it to Danu in case he's interested.
 
9:09 PM
...why can't I hear it?
 
@0celo7 cuz he is probably in a different state or country as you
 
@user507974 Ha-ha.
He's on a different continent than @Danu , too.
 
I don't get the joke.
 
hear
you're far away so I cannot hear you
 
was there a joke?
c'mon guys I want to laugh as well
 
9:14 PM
@0celo7 That's not even a joke.
 
who are you speaking to?
 
I mean, neither are my jokes anyway.
 
@BalarkaSen tough crowd
@0celo7 at least i got one person who enjoyed it
 
@BalarkaSen I'd like to hear the problem
 
I'd like to hear the joke
 
9:16 PM
@0celo7 OK.
 
@trilolil Ed Witten's voice
 
It's the 4 dimensional smooth Poincare conjecture.
 
isn't that still out for grabs?
 
ok now that I have your attention:

very quick and easy question regarding waves accross materials

someone hits the rod with a hammer and a wave propagates accross it:
www.imgur.com/0mGs3sI

on the second line, nex to the arrow you see $F=\Delta p - S ....$
I think both terms should be switched, because I think right now the force F will always be negative, and I am not sure whether that makes any sense. Could anybody concur?
 
@trilolil I'm not a physicist
 
9:17 PM
@0celo7 yhea but I know u can solve it
u r that mathemagician guy
 
...who are you?
 
a student
who s trying to understand his textbooks
 
@BalarkaSen so what about the conjecture
 
it is the problem.
 
you're trying to prove it?
 
9:22 PM
yup
 
what're your thoughts on it
 
i am pretty close
@0celo7 can't tell you; it's a matter of fame and money
 
Last night dream is extremely QFT heavy in theme (yet when you actually read through it, it is actually more possibly, me trying to understand QFT subconsciously in my sleep, because it is nonsense when you cross check with actual QFT knowledge)

The dream begins with an expression floating in a white void and then the camera pan from left to right $\int d^3x \tilde{f}\partial g(x)$. It then fade into a scene where there is a bessel function like wave travelling to the right and with amplitude decaying exponentially as it passes thorugh the middle of a black horizontal line.
 
secrecy is important
 
@BalarkaSen are you trolling
 
9:23 PM
I was. But I gotta go now.
 
@Secret Jesus. Are you OK?
 
@0celo7 I am not sure, possibly it means it is a very bad idea to try to understand the LSZ reduction formula at 4:00 am in the morning...?
 
@BalarkaSen Tell me
I was just away
 
@Danu Take a submanifold $N$ inside a big manifold $M$. You're aware of the relation between self-intersection of $N$ and the tubular nbhd of $N$ in $M$?
 
No.
 
9:27 PM
If not, exercise (1) if tubular nbhds of $N$ is trivial in $M$, then $N$ has self-intersection (by which I mean the intersection of a perturbed copy of $N$ in $M$ with itself) is null.
 
What do you mean by a tubular neighborhood being trivial
A product?
 
Yes, it's the product of the disk with $N$. The trivial bundle.
Or equivalently normal bundle is trivial. Whatever you prefer.
 
Okay, that seems very straightforward
You know just perturb it inside the disk
 
@BalarkaSen oh come the fuck on
 
That's it.
 
9:29 PM
why wouldn't you tell me
 
Exercise (2) suppose $\dim M = 2\dim N$. is the converse true?
 
@BalarkaSen Not sure
If $\operatorname{dim}M=2\mod 4$, then do you have any example of something with a nontrivial tubular neighborhood?
Because if $\operatorname{dim}N$ is odd then it always has null self-intersection.
So that'd solve your question (in the negative)
 
@Danu Eh? Circle inside moebius band. Moebius band has dimension 2 (= 2 mod 4), circle has dimension 1, which is odd.
Or compactify that to RP^2.
 
Sorry, forgot orientability.
You need orientability
It's funny: I went through this line of reasoning 3-4 times in the past week
Every time I kept on thinking WTF MOBIUS BAND
and after a few minutes I remember orientability
So if $M,N$ are both orientable
You get a counterexample
Anyways, so you think it's true @BalarkaSen?
 
@Danu Why's this true, modulo orientability?
@Danu I don't. I have a counterexample, but I am not happy with it.
 
9:36 PM
@BalarkaSen G&P
 
Exercise (3) pull up the smallest dimensional counterexample you have.
 
Section 3.3
I don't have a counterexample
 
In section 3.3 they work exclusively with oriented manifolds.
 
I just gave you a perhaps simple way to find one
 
What are the dimensions of the klein bottle and RP^3 (the first being non orientable while the second is)?
 
9:37 PM
@Secret 2,3
Disregard 0celo7's comment: What I said is true.
 
@Danu Self-intersection being 0 for odd dimensions only works in the orientable case because the proof uses orientable intersection.
 
@Danu Are you sure? Oriented self intersection is different.
 
5 mins ago, by Danu
So if $M,N$ are both orientable
 
Then yes.
But you said that after the comment @BalarkaSen asked about.
 
And Section 3.3 explains exactly why it's true, modulo orientability
Stop trying to correct me?
 
9:41 PM
What do you mean by modulo orientability
 
Oh, of course it's true. Nevermind.
OK, yes, so I guess you can come up with a counterexample out of this. I hadn't thought of this.
But I still want to see a small dimensional counterexample :)
I have a ctrexample in dimension $4$, but with disconnected submanifolds.
 
How about a torus and a circle inside it (both orieintable, torus has dimension 2 while the circle has 1)?
 
Circle has trivial normal bundle.
There are no 2 dimensional example.
 
ok
 
@BalarkaSen Ah, you know that already?
 
9:43 PM
You can check that by hand.
 
How to do so for non-orientable?
I believe it for connected sums of tori
 
Non-orientable 2-manifolds are connected sum of RP^2's.
 
e.g. klein bottle is RP^2 # RP^2
 
I guess my disconnected counterexample descends to a counterexample in dimension 2, but that's not interesting.
 
@BalarkaSen You know I know that :P I want to know how you do it in RP2, of course.
 
9:46 PM
Any two circles in RP^2 intersect at a point.
That's by the cohomology structure of RP^2.
 
There you use the correspondence between intersection theory and cup products huh
 
Yup.
 
Fine
 
omg, this is the mother of all minor edits ever
 
@EmilioPisanty lmao
 
9:48 PM
nice
TeX purity is indeed a worthy goal
 
That must've started as an intention of editing something else.
 
Also, is there a 3-dimensional example? Can a surface have trivial self intersection in a 3-manifold if it has nontrivial tubular nbhd?
 
Dunno, broski
 
That is le problem.
 
The real question is
whether I can breeze through ch. 4 of G&P in 1-2 days :P
 
9:50 PM
You're being an 0celo reader.
 
@Danu If you know how to integrate forms, that's most of it.
@BalarkaSen Huh?
I read GP over ~3 weeks and did like 40 exercises.
@BalarkaSen Do you know anything about locally constant presheaves
 
No. But what do you want me to know?
 
I figured it out.
 
I wish I had more time to do math.
 
is there any relationship in regard to your question if I have a torus and I pick a trefoil knot in it (since the trefoil knot can never be unwind into a circle)?
 
9:58 PM
It self-intersects trivially.
Just translate it a bit along the meridian.
 
@BalarkaSen The worst of insults :P
 
Apparently I'm now an insult
 
@Danu I know!
 
"now" :P
 
@Danu You're being a bully again
 
10:00 PM
@BalarkaSen Principles go out the window when thesis supervisors ask things
Gotta go sleep now---bye
 
True, I understand.
Bubyes.
@Secret I misspoke: what I meant to say is, it has trivial tubular neighborhood (hence obviously self intersects trivially).
Working with torii and stuff would be of no use.
Things will always have trivial tubular nbhd there.
You want something which doesn't have trivial tubular nbhd yet still self intersect nontrivially.
 
@BalarkaSen We've talked about that "differential algebraic topology" book, have you looked at it any?
Not that I need it
Just wondering what it's about
 
10:22 PM
@EmilioPisanty lol
 
@0celo7 A gen-ed descriptive astronomy class that I'm having to make up as I go, the first semester of our algebra/trig based intro class for non-majors (at night), and modern physics for the juniors.
Should be a busy, but fun time.
 
three classes?
I can't imagine a prof at my school teaching three classes
 
@0celo7 It is a teaching school.
Major research places typically have 1/2 -- 2/3 of the load I teach.
That's one of the things that makes it hard for me to get much research done.
Trying to get the astro class sorted out has pointed out the degree to which I am not an astronomer.
There is a lot of implicit knowledge about interconnection in the subject that goes into planning courses, and I've having to work it all out explicitly. Ugh.
 
dumb question, but how do you do hep-ex research at a university which doesn't have a dedicated lab for it (presumably)
 
On a toy scale. And I'm trying to branch out a bit.
These projects are as much learning environments for the students as science for its own sake.
 
10:36 PM
@BernardMeurer I need your advice
 
@0celo7 IN the re-model that is currently going on we're going to get a tiny little lab space for the four of us to share. But its better that what we had before (i.e. no lab space).
 
Yikes
@dmckee We share a lab with some people and we want to kick them out because our group is getting larger
11 people for 6 desks is not good
But they have equipment that cannot be moved, so it's not going to happen
 
@dmckee Given that, I guess I shouldn't mention that I'm currently working in a lab that's been converted into a theory office, then.
Has a big shiny "Laser Active" warning light on top of the door and everything.
 
Hi, everybody.
 
@DanielSank Hello
 
10:48 PM
Hey, I wanna understand how to actually use path integration to do stuff.
 
@peterh Do not use the edit button in the close review queue (as you did here) unless your edit changes the question in a way that makes the close votes obsolete. It's stupid that this option is even there, and even more stupid that it single-handedly completes the review, but you shouldn't use that edit button unless you address the reasons for closure, cf. e.g. this answer by Shog9.
4
 
The closest I've found to a not terrible book is Altland and Simons.
Anyone have a better?
I really want something that explains the mathematics thoroughly, but not necessarily with every epsilon and delta.
 
@ACuriousMind I don't see what the issue is.
 
@ACuriousMind Yeah, seriously, that option works in unexpected ways.
 
@DanielSank Depends which stuff. I know you can do stuff with it on lattices, or you can do stuff with it for non-equilibrium theories, and possibly more...
 
10:49 PM
What does "single-handedly completes the review" mean?
 
In all cases the techniques used to evaluate the integral are rather different
 
@ACuriousMind Mostly I want to be able to understand the way that Caldeira and Leggett describe the effect of coupling to an environment.
 
@DanielSank Honestly, it sounds (a bit) like you're asking for the Moon on a stick there
 
Generally, when entering into a new area like this, I prefer to lock in the mathematics first.
@EmilioPisanty I doubt that.
 
@0celo7 It means that instead of the close votes or three reopen votes to take the question out of the queue, the close vote review is stopped immediately after the edit
 
10:51 PM
@0celo7 It normally takes three "leave open" votes to remove a question from the close review queue while leaving it open. The edit option bypasses that.
 
@DanielSank Are we talking about a path integral in QM or in QFT
 
@ACuriousMind I remain unconvinced that this really matters.
 
@dmckee You can leave a question open by simply editing it?
 
but we can start with QM
 
@DanielSank Maybe give Schulman a spin?
 
10:51 PM
@DanielSank In QM you can find a mathematically rigorous foundation with nice analogies to e.g. Brownian motion. In QFT no rigorous foundation is known.
So it matters a lot
 
@0celo7 You are suppose to fix the problem with it. Editing without fixing the problem is very poor form.
 
Infinite degrees of freedom really are a bitch to integrate over :P
 
@EmilioPisanty Looks nice.
Cheap too.
@ACuriousMind Really?
 
10:52 PM
@dmckee so you can no longer close it once it's edited?
 
@DanielSank Yeah, it's worth a shot with not a lot to lose
I can't say I've used it that much though
 
@DanielSank I'm filling my glass early.
 
@ACuriousMind I can show you a lot of math lacking in rigorous foundation but which still makes sense and works.
 
@0celo7 You can, but it is no longer in the review queue until someone casts a new close vote on it manually.
 
I did find his treatment of a particle on a ring quite amusing, though
 
10:53 PM
@0celo7 I have no idea what that means.
@EmilioPisanty Well that's a good endorsement XD
 
@DanielSank hang on, I'll find it
 
@DanielSank The issue is more that it's so ill-defined that no one could tell you how to compute a generic QFT path integral. But for any specific case, you'll find a lot of people knowing the correct trick to reduce it to a better defined integral.
 
@ACuriousMind That is all I care about!
I am perfectly happy to use fundamentally ill-defined tricks as long as they make sense.
 
> The degree of pathology exhibited by this Green's function is entertaining, especially in view of the elementary nature of the example.
 
Switching limits without justification? No problem! This is physics!
 
10:55 PM
@DanielSank Getting books on sale while the getting's good even though I won't open them for a while
 
@DanielSank Yeah, but the point is that there's - at least to me - no pattern to these tricks. You're not learning things about the path integral, you're learing things about the specific physical situation you're evaluating. Which surely also is nice, but I wouldn't say that qualifies as "explaining the mathematics throughly"
 
@EmilioPisanty ~sigh~ no access.
 
@DanielSank Well, it is a Sunday
 
@ACuriousMind Well, my relatively uninformed opinion is that you're wrong.
 
have you got Phys Rev access through Google?
 
10:57 PM
@EmilioPisanty I believe that is done in Shankar
(path integral for spin)
 
I estimate that there is intuition to take away from these tricks.
 
@0celo7 That's not my main interest in that paper TBH. I was after the Fourier series for the propagator.
 
@DanielSank I like how you give a physical notion to nearly every step of the maths, which does help alot in visualising what compelx contour integration is doing
 
@EmilioPisanty Not quite. Google has company-wide access to IEEE and similar, but not APS. We have a specific setup to access APS but it hasn't worked in a while because of some issue with our network configuration.
 
Turns out it's really, really badly behaved.
 
10:58 PM
It's annoying.
@Secret Thank you. Are you aware, by the way, that contour integration is just a special case of Stokes's theorem and/or the divergence theorem for vectors?
I have written about this before, and can find the link if you like.
 
@DanielSank Do you mean Cauchy's theorem is?
/residue theorem
 

« first day (2117 days earlier)      last day (2803 days later) »