The h Bar

2:42 AM

What's the deal with really old questions/answers going into the low quality queue?

physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/23343

And, why are my choices limited to "looks good", "edit", or "delete"? What if it doesn't look good but I don't have edits for it and it's just plain wrong or unclear so it isn't justified to delete it?

At least on First Posts I can up/downvote but LQ I can't.

At least that one I can recommend deleting since it makes no effort to answer the question...

ManishEarth

3:08 AM

@tpg2114 someone flagged it as VLQ (NAA also works)

@tpg2114 "Looks Good" = "Don't delete"

I open in a new tab and whack it with a DV

tpg2114

I guess it's not like our queue is flooded with things all the time, but the questions/answers that pop up are odd sometimes

like somebody is going through questions > 1 year old looking for something to do

ManishEarth

There have been a bunch of NAA flags recently, from the same user, not all of them correct

This particular flag was from a different one though

tpg2114

Only 270 more too I can VtC! Come on easy questions...

ManishEarth

ha!

tpg2114

I guess 275 so I have some freedom to downvote without losing my voting rights...

Kinda sad my time in the chat room spikes on Saturday

ManishEarth

3:16 AM

@tpg2114 Mine too

I also apparently don't sleep

tpg2114

I definitely don't sleep -- which is why I'm here now

user54412

7:08 AM

WTF is this technical-sounding rambling that's gotten so much attention???

UV-D

@ChrisWhite it is quite an essay...

user54412

"But this is not the reality. The QCD vacuum that we inhabit is filled with a sea of non-trivial bundles and the whole quantum structure of the laws of nature are bundle-theoretic at its very heart."

user54412

Those links all go to the same site, which if not quite crackpot has certainly ventured far into the deep end

UV-D

meanwhile I am struggling a bit

can I get your view on something?

ManishEarth

Urs Schreiber

3.8k 5 23

See profile

user54412

7:11 AM

@UV-D if it's quick - i can only stay a minute

UV-D

is there anything wrong with this answer physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47832/…

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Could you please flag that post or ping DZ about it? I'm a tad busy.

There are ten theorems, all called "Cauchy's <something>" that I need to remember

#$&@ Cauchy

3

user54412

@ManishEarth Meh I think it's mathematical stuff that's nonsense when applied to physics, but string theorists salivate over this sort of thing, so i guess we have to throw them a bone every now and again

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite ah

aight, np

hadn't had a look at the answer

user54412

@UV-D looks right to me - i recall reading something about that stuff once (but of course I can't vouch for the validity of the actual numbers used)

UV-D

7:18 AM

good, I know it is just partial answer to address the comment in the question that the weighing factors being fake (when they are not)

I was clipped by a car today... could have sworn it bounced

user54412

@UV-D that seems to address basically the whole question I think?

user54412

I mean, presumably all one does is multiply the spectrum of light reaching the ground with the weighting function you showed?

UV-D

potentially, mind you I was just focusing on that part of the answer... a positive unintended consequence perhaps

user54412

though I guess I have no idea why the UV index can change so dramatically day-to-day

user54412

is the optical depth of the ozone layer really that chaotic?

UV-D

7:21 AM

it is also due to the aerosol optical depth

that is a major source of uncertainty (the basis of my PhD and 4 papers)

user54412

mmm - I can see that changing pretty easily, especially in cities that are only periodically cleared out by wind

UV-D

in Tokyo on a still day, the aerosol optical depth approached 0.7-0.8, far worse elsewhere

smoke haze can apparently drp the uVI by a point or two

political banter can also send the UVI down a few notches

I once did a brief experiment where I measured UVI - the location was right on the Tropic of Capricorn in the local summer.

the values I was getting between 11am and 2pm were almost consistent at an extreme 17-18, except when smoke haze was noted - quite heavy, and dropped the UVI to 13-14

user54412

7:38 AM

ok, after browsing for enough (too much) time I've decided to put ncatlab on my personal list of crackpot sites

user54412

maybe they know something about (an infinitesimal branch of) pure math, but they show one of the classic signs of physics crackpottery: desperately trying to convince the world that they can explain all of nature with their grand unified theory of everything, without showing any sign that they have studied physics along the way

ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Hm. Do they qualify as crackpot under the site guidelines?

Doesn't look like it. I'll have a closer look though.

But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

user54412

7:54 AM

@ManishEarth no, it's just lots of math with no content

user54412

@ManishEarth sigh

ManishEarth

-_-

We're not calling him a crackpot, we're just wondering if his work is mainstream

user54412

Well, the more I hear from string theorists, the more I want to call them all crackpots

3

user54412

(yes I just said that - sue me)

ManishEarth

> Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.

By that definition I think it's OK for the site

user54412

7:57 AM

the way they all back each other and take offense if you question anything of theirs - quite unscientific

ManishEarth

The distinction between some parts of TP and P is similar to P and Chem. The certainty at which people "accept" things is different

For example, monopoles. Experimentalists say they don't exist, but TPists are conviced they do because they pop out of mathematically beautiful equations.

Both sides have a point.

user54412

what's really intriguing is the user who asked that question - for the past several months all they've done is ask basic EM questions like you'd expect from a freshman in college, and now "I've seem the notion of bundles, fiber bundles, connections on bundles and so on being used in many different places on Physics" - just where at that level does one see bundles?

user54412

guess it's a mathematician learning physics?

ManishEarth

Probably. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57754/…

user54412

@ManishEarth I'm a theorist at heart, but I tear apart theories I think are wrong - you should see me discussing astro-ph papers :P

ManishEarth

8:02 AM

Actually I'd prefer not to discuss people in chat too much, given that I just wrote this answer

heh

ManishEarth

8:26 AM

1

Q: How the Lorentz transformation affects the metric tensor?

After performing a Lorentz transformation, the orthogonal coordinates will become askew, as in the following figure: and in such coordinate system, according to this Wikipedia article, the metric will have off-diagonal non-zero elements: $$g_{ij}=\mathbf{e}_i.\mathbf{e}_j$$ which is not that ...

special-relativity metric-tensor

Could do with a more intuitive/fundamental answer, explaining the difference between a transformation and a change of metric.

Up for grabs (I'll see if I can write one, but got to study Cauchy first)

Crazy Buddy

9:16 AM

@ManishEarth Hmm... Okay, I'm the wrongdoer..!!! Arrest me :P

Crazy Buddy

I had a thought

The barycenter of our solar system lies somewhere near the photosphere and varies accordingly with the motion of Jupiter (Ehm... other planets too)

@Everyone -- for a graph of the movement of the solar system center-of-mass, see: timingsolution.com/TS/Study/cm — Johannes Sep 10 at 19:53

So, there's a chance for Earth to face the Sun

I mean, "directly" when the center-of-mass is behind it...

It means that the sun gets closer to us, about a distance equal to its radii -- Right??

(any effects on this?)

Physics Meta

10:21 AM

0

Q: How to offer bounty to a person who answers my question?

I have a question and i want to offer bounty, how do I do it. And what exactly is bounty?Is it giving away your reputation to somebody

support bounty

Urs Schreiber

Hey Chris White, I am not sure yet if I understand what troubles you. If anyone points out a mistake in what I say, I'll readily admit it and will fix it. Concerning the explicit sentence about the instanton sea vacuum that you cite: I gave the citation, this is neither my personal idea nor that of "string theorists". This is instead a basic fact in standard QCD.

ManishEarth

12:09 PM

@UrsSchreiber I think the troubling thing is that he finds a similarity with other non mainstream stuff, and you're linking to the same site (which is also linked to in your profile). Though @ChrisWhite knows better than me on what's so troubling about it.

The answer seems OK to me, however note that an answer that has multiple links to the same site is the first indicator of something non mainstream. It does not in any way imply non mainstreamness, just that most of the NM answer's I've come across are like that

Anonymous

12:34 PM

@ChrisWhite: REALLY? nCatLab is crackpot? Urs Schreiber is a crackpot? What's wrong with you?! It's an extremely intuitive and interesting answer, and to criticise it baselessly can be nothing but bad faith. By the way, it does not mention strings at aell, and it obviously isn't nm. And, @ManishEarth, what do you mean by "But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV"? Do you mean to say that string theory is crackpot?

Anonymous

+1 to Urs Schreiber's answer, by the way.

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS He said it could be

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Not saying that ST is crackpot

Anonymous

@ManishEarth REALLY?

Anonymous

> WT* is this technical-sounding rambling that's gotten so much attention???

ManishEarth

however, what is accepted by the ST community is not always accepted by other communities, giving the perception of crackpot

Anonymous

12:35 PM

> But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS scroll down.

Anonymous

That is NOT the def. of crackpot.

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS not saying it is crackpot. You're putting words into my mouth

Anonymous

@ManishEarth How many times do I need to quote that message?

Anonymous

56 secs ago, by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS

> But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

ManishEarth

12:37 PM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Are you even listening to me?

"Probably mainstream under the string theory POV" does not imply "crackpot elsewhere"

Anonymous

@ManishEarth Yes. I know you're referring to:

Anonymous

1 min ago, by ManishEarth

however, what is accepted by the ST community is not always accepted by other communities, giving the perception of crackpot

Anonymous

BUT

ManishEarth

Yes

Perception

It looks crackpot at first glance

Anonymous

1 min ago, by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS

That is NOT the def. of crackpot.

ManishEarth

12:37 PM

Perception

Perception is not being

Anonymous

I've replied to that already^.

Anonymous

Huh? That's not even related.

Anonymous

You said "perception", but

ManishEarth

I'm saying that it's easy for something in ST to seem crackpot to a non STist.

Anonymous

that doesn;'t mean that one may say that it is. as

ManishEarth

12:39 PM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS That's why Chris said "personal list of crackpot sites"

Anonymous

CW had said:

Anonymous

6 hours ago, by Chris White

WTF is this technical-sounding rambling that's gotten so much attention???

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Yes, out of initial indignance. Read down

Anonymous

And by the way, when I called obvious crackpottery "crackpot", it's considered as rude; whereas when CW sais it, it's all right, and a personal preference ? .

ManishEarth

Knowing that Urs is a longtime contributer, I doubt that it's anything close to crackpot/NM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Did he?

Anonymous

12:40 PM

@ManishEarth Yet your meassage:

Anonymous

searching, one sec.

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: I don't see anything wrong in Chris White's phrase...

It's just meant for fun :)

Don't take it seriously :D

Anonymous

5 hours ago, by ManishEarth

We're not calling him a crackpot, we're just wondering if his work is mainstream

Anonymous

and

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS wondering

Anonymous

12:41 PM

5 mins ago, by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS

56 secs ago, by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS

> But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

ManishEarth

When it's a matter of site policy, we do have to make sure

Which means that it's a legitimate thing to discuss

Anonymous

the point is that "wondering" is just a

Anonymous

polite way of saying that "we're sure and we'll now act on it".

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: sigh (Can't you discuss something instead of throwing the transcripts) -_-

Anonymous

@CrazyBuddy Because it's pointless. I don't need to repeat everything I've said (Which is ignored, blatantly.)

ManishEarth

12:43 PM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS You had a very very abrasive way of going about and commenting "crackpot, crackpot" on posts. These comments have no purpose. They don't add anything constructive to the discussion. While Chris started off a bit indignant, he was discussing the mainstreamness of the answer, something which is necessary.

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Well, if you want to put words into my mouth feel free. But I'll just not continue the discussion.

Anonymous

@ManishEarth Urs Schreiber's answer is perfectly fine, not crackpot.

Anonymous

@ManishEarth I need to quote again:

Anonymous

1 min ago, by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS

polite way of saying that "we're sure and we'll now act on it".

Anonymous

polite way

Anonymous

of saying.

ManishEarth

12:44 PM

That's what you think

Anonymous

Pretty obvious, anywhay.

ManishEarth

I did not intend to mean that

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: Meh.... Boring -_-

ManishEarth

We were wondering

Does not mean we were sure

If we were sure, that ans would have been deleted by the policy.

Think about it

Wondering = "Let's look into this further"

Anonymous

In the context that you posted (6th time I'm posting : (...)

Anonymous

12:46 PM

5 hours ago, by ManishEarth

But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS I explained that

Anonymous

,

Anonymous

It's pretty obvious that

Anonymous

from the previous two

Anonymous

lines,

ManishEarth

12:47 PM

9 mins ago, by ManishEarth

"Probably mainstream under the string theory POV" does not imply "crackpot elsewhere"

Anonymous

Look at the context in which you had posted the "5 hours ago" message.

ManishEarth

"Doesn't look like it"?

That was at first glance

Anonymous

Does your "9 minutes ago" message still make sense?

Anonymous

@ManishEarth Yup, "Doesn't look like it", then "BUT yeah,...".

ManishEarth

sigh

what's your point here?

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS I explained that already.

Anonymous

12:49 PM

Except that that explanation makes no sense. Note the capitalised "BUT", in my message. By the way, I'm bored of posting the same transcript repeatedly, so I'm just posting the timestamps.,

Anonymous

........

Anonymous

......

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS I basically meant that at first glance, it didn't look mainstream to me, but it probably is obviously mainsteam to an STist

I'm agreeing with your initial point there; I'm saying that while it may look crackpot to both me and Chris, it is considered legitimate by STists.

Anonymous

@ManishEarth That makes no logical sense. You said "It seems fine, BUT,..."

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS I said "It seems crackpot, BUT it's probably OK"

Anonymous

12:50 PM

@ManishEarth You just, inverted the entire message.

ManishEarth

Oh oops

sorry

5 hours ago, by ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Hm. Do they qualify as crackpot under the site guidelines?

5 hours ago, by ManishEarth

Doesn't look like it. I'll have a closer look though.

5 hours ago, by ManishEarth

But yeah, probably mainstream under the string theory POV

Anonymous

Exactly, It was "It seems fine, but...".

ManishEarth

But yeah is what I used

Not just but

I use "but yeah" a lot

"I'll have a closer look, but yeah, I think that it won't be crackpot to STists"

Anonymous

@ManishEarth Take, for e.g., "Well, it's blue, so it can't be a book. But yeah, it's probably a book.". Which means that you finally agree that it's a book. Now replace book with crackpot.

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS "Well, it looks blue, but I'll have to check. But yeah, probably blue"

Sorry if I was unclear

But that's what I meant

Anonymous

12:55 PM

Oh, no, stop inverting the message : ( ...

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Look, that's what I meant. Sorry if I misspoke

And but yeah is used like that. At least, that's how I use it. Often

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: I'll tell precisely (if you still don't get it). Chris White comes in, sees the answer, notices a lot of links pointing to the same "homemade" site, brings it in chat as he suspects (for a few seconds) whether it might be personal-productivity... Are we clear?

ManishEarth

As a moderator, I won't make a judgement about a post without enough info. I might guess what the verdict will be, and that's what I did.

Anonymous

Furthermore due to the "POV' word. But if you refuse to have meant it that way, nothing can be done.

ManishEarth

What's your point, anyway?

Anonymous

12:57 PM

@CrazyBuddy No, makes no sense. nCatLab is well-known, even adamant wikipedia admins acknowledge it to be a reliable source.

ManishEarth

Aside from "Urs' answer is legitimate physics" (which I fully take into consideration)

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS It seemed homemade to him. Seemed homemade to me too at first glance.

On further checks it was OK.

Anonymous

@ManishEarth That. the. the. post. was. not. crack. pot. And. that. all. the. messages. by. you/. and. cw. were. meaning.less.

ManishEarth

But I've seen way too much of similar-looking sites on other non mainstream answers (Really NM, not possibly NM). So I was wary, and thought it merited some checking.

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Sure. Not crackpot. Taken into consideration

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS What if I'm ignorant about you people? If I don't know motls.blogspot, then I'd definitely say it as crackpot (iff the whole essay-ish post points to the same location)..!!!

ManishEarth

Not meaningless, though. We thought it could be crackpot. Which means that we need to do some checking. That's all.

Crazy Buddy

1:00 PM

To be true, I don't know about the site anyway :D

No offense to my dear Lubos motl (just an example though)

Urs Schreiber

Maybe the following information helps: Part of the motivation behind the nLab site is that there are many important developments in mathematical physics these days which are rooted in recent progress in homotopy theory but for which practicing physicists will have a hard time tracking down the relevant entry points or of which practicing physicist will have a hard time even becoming aware of (as maybe this dicussion here shows).

Crazy Buddy

(Well I do have to fear whether you people would complain in his blog -- the exact opposite phrase of what I've said here...)

Urs Schreiber

Notice that the nLab is widely cited on Matheoverflow (the mathematics SE discussion group with, if I may say this, a good bit higher average quality than the current Physics.SE site, notably Mathoverflow has lots of active bigshot mathematicians participating); it is referred to as a standard cite to turn to before asking questions (see here: web.archive.org/web/20130606040144/http://mathoverflow.net/…).

ManishEarth

@UrsSchreiber Yeah, I came to know that after some digging :)

Urs Schreiber

I understand that some string theoretic considerations can get on people's nerve's from time to time (even though I think it shouldn't) but in the case at hand where the discussion is about basic concepts of 20th centure physics -- the role of fiber bundles in physics, to wit,

which was born together with differential geometry as the language for gravity and gauge theory at the beginning of the last century -- I think every physicist with some basic education should have an easy time confirming that my message reviewed the broadly accepted state of the art, pointers to modern reviews including.

Crazy Buddy

1:04 PM

@UrsSchreiber: I'm clear... Thanks for popping up BTW ;-)

Urs Schreiber

In fact the content of my message was to a large extent duplicated in the second reply that appeared in this thread. Now that my message had links to more information for each technical keyword appeared, while the other message is hardly to be used against it, is it? I think the whole Physics.SE site would benefit from people providing more details on the actual definition and usage of technical terms.

There is so much confusion in physics with people handling terms, specifically in field theory, which they only associate a vague understanding with. We can all improve on that, if only we show a minimum tolerance for mathematical language. Because, like it or not, that is the language is which physics is formulated.

Anonymous

And by the way, @ManishEarth, as you refuse to admit to have called the answer crackpot, I'll try to assume that that;'s true ., but by the way, you need to see the other nCatLab posts too, and you'll see how great (and mainstream) it is! .

ManishEarth

@UrsSchreiber Which is fine. The issue is that when a site you've never heard of is linked to, one gets suspicious

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS Yes, I did

Like I said, I thought it could be crackpot, but now I'm pretty sure it isn't

Crazy Buddy

From the continuous starring, I can blindly say that it's Dimension doing the naughty work...

Anonymous

@ManishEarth And yet, one could be suspicious ? .

Crazy Buddy

1:06 PM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: Can you please stop that? Because, users can see the posts (they aren't invisible) O_O

ManishEarth

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS You seem to forget the time axis here

I was suspicious. Not anymore

Anonymous

@CrazyBuddy Welll, I am the one starring, but I'm not doing it blindly, unlike what you say.

Anonymous

Oh wait

ManishEarth

During that discussion I was busy and had not checked everything. That's why I told Chris to flag, so someone could check on it later

Anonymous

you doidn't say that.

ManishEarth

1:07 PM

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS you're starring everything. Don't do that

6 hours ago, by ManishEarth

@ChrisWhite Could you please flag that post or ping DZ about it? I'm a tad busy.

Crazy Buddy

@ManishEarth: And, don't forget to remove those... :P

Anonymous

No, I've already removed some of my stars to prevent that.

ManishEarth

@UrsSchreiber All in all, I apologize that this discussion had to happen at all. Hope you don't feel slighted by it. (As for ChrisWhite's rationale, I'll let him reply)

Urs Schreiber

Hm, it's hard to transmit a message here, with these tiny paragraphs allowed. The message which I had tried to post above but which got truncated can be found here

here: ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/message+to+the+h-bar

4

If anyone would like to further discuss with me, we need to find some other venue than this here.

Crazy Buddy

@UrsSchreiber: And, don't take anything seriously. It's just a rough, chaotic discussion which happens often... :P

where people often have misunderstandings ;-)

Anonymous

1:15 PM

@UrsSchreiber Thank you for writing that. It really puts an end to all the allegations that certain people have put.

ManishEarth

@UrsSchreiber ah, thanks

Crazy Buddy

@DImension10AbhimanyuPS: BTW, please, you should calm down. It's not like we don't like specific people here. (Don't ever have a thought like that)

We're friendly. Whenever you come and quarrel, we're there. Whenever you argue about something, we're still there.

But still, you're not satisfied with us. You always misunderstand some minor point (or maybe a joke), and burn the whole issue into flames...

(This is for @Dilaton too..!!!)

Crazy Buddy

Found a question tweeting and figured out it's a duplicate..!!! -_-

5

Q: Why are so many different types of objects white, yet appear gray when they are wet?

There are many things with different textures that appear white – salt, beer foam, paper, shaving cream, snow, talcum powder, white paint ... The most common answer is all of the frequencies must be reflected in order for us to perceive white – I already know this. There must be more underlining ...

optics everyday-life

ManishEarth

1:31 PM

looks mergeable. What say?

Crazy Buddy

Yep ;-)

The answer is quite good :D

@ManishEarth Maybe, the answers from there can be brought here (because I think this question has a very good way-of-asking) :D

ManishEarth

@CrazyBuddy hm

nah, the old one is suffiiently well worded

merged

Crazy Buddy

ah, okay...

ManishEarth

@Manishearth, could you please update your graph again? I think we've had a long enough 'burn-in' that the graphs will really mean something, and we can decide if we need to do anything. — Scott Morrison 9 hours ago

Hmm, better get working on that

Crazy Buddy

Hah... This is why you shouldn't go around plotting graphs..!!! :P
(unless you're going to a business meeting)

You'd have to update them periodically

Crazy Buddy

2:27 PM

Funny...

maps.google.co.uk/…

Is it just that we ~~aero~~ people have a much higher priority...

5

Crazy Buddy

4:33 PM

Anyone barely noticed this...

7 hours ago, by Crazy Buddy

I had a thought

ShuklaSannidhya

5:00 PM

edx.org/school/iitbombayx/allcourses

Courses - 0

Crazy Buddy

5:29 PM

@ManishEarth: Seems like SO celebrating its 5th birthday...

> Today, we want to hear your stories about how someone on Stack Exchange helped you.

Looks like I can spam my experience there ;-)

And, I did: blog.stackoverflow.com/2013/09/…

Emilio Pisanty

6:56 PM

Folks here might enjoy this

►

ManishEarth

wha?

(not yet opened, just saw thumb)

aufkag

7:18 PM

Yesterday, the cycling speed record was broken: world record 133.78 kph.

3

ManishEarth

nice!

Tell @tpg2114 :)

aufkag

7:32 PM

@tpg2114 hptdelft.nl/en/…

3

tpg2114

7:53 PM

Those HPV's are awesome

The Sikorski challenge was recently completed too... it's crazy what people can do with cyclists :)

aufkag

@tpg2114 I noticed a small hole in the front (on the tip). Any idea what its purpose is?

tpg2114

@aufkag Most likely ventilation so the guy inside doesn't fry

OmnipresentAbsence

10:06 PM

What's up guys. I have a question which I consider to be quite cool but probably too soft to ask on the main site, so I thought I could better ask it in chat"

What do you consider to be the most amazing example of the 'broadness' of a certain physical law/formula/etc? In order words, which 2 very distinct scientific phenomena that can be described by the same law/formula/etc blows your mind the most?

It's tough for me to phrase it in english, I'm sorry. I hope you guys understand what I mean.

I found a better way to phrase it: What are the 2 most distinct/seemingly unrelated phenomena that can be described by the same physical law/equation/etc?

Sklivvz

@CrazyBuddy Well done, great post!

RhysW

11:22 PM

cough user above trying to be constructive, anyone wanna help? I dont know enough about the ways of Phys.Ex to offer useful insight, and its good to see users trying to make sure they have good questions

Transcript for