I recommend you try it out, it has really changed things for me. It really takes no time at all once you've learned the basic commands. I've converted our whole group to git, we have a central group server and we use it everyday to share code for our various projects back and forth. We also use it for single user stuff, and for pure latex for papers even. Its been fantastic.
And apparently my safety's been off all day. Not sure how that happened
user54412
@KyleKanos every project I do, whether writing simulations or analyzing data or writing a paper, begins with git init in a new directory
user54412
It's such a relief to have the full history in case I go down the wrong road, and it also doubles as an off-site backup, since I push to github after any commits.
@DavidZ: I thought briefly about making it an answer, but I don't think that type of question is a fit here on this site, hence the VTC (following ACuriousOne's answer in your recent Meta post,).
@Jim if I may offer some advice -- don't get sucked into an argument about the checking work comments. That's one of those that will be maddeningly endless and circular, nobody will win
@ChrisWhite We write our papers in git repos too, it's so much easier
@Phonon Hmmm...I not sure why the OP thinks that the image would change instantaneously - won't the photons that are entangled with the new image still take five hours to reach the earth?
@ACuriousMind I think in that scheme, he's assuming that the entangled pair in the second path (not going to the object) remains on earth.
@ACuriousMind but the article itself is more interesting, than the thought experiment in Pluto I think, as I commented in this post, I don't see how passing through the crystal doesn't collapse the photon onto one single path...
@tpg2114 Okie Dokie. Not usually tempted to argue with Dilaton. Anyone determined enough that they start their own website presents an opposing side that even I wouldn't dare argue with
@Phonon Ah...I misread the setup. But now, I don't see how you would get an image at all: The two pairs of ent. photons are created on earth, one of each is sent towards Pluto, and before they interact with the cat we try to create the image out of the two remaining on earth. I literally ask: How on earth would that work?
@ACuriousMind let's see if the full article will be accessible some time soon on arxiv...because as it is right now, there's too little detail to allow for any speculation
@KyleKanos Futile arguments can be the most fun. Arguments where the other side never presents more than one point or opinion; those are never a good idea
@Phonon I'm kinda "on vacation" at the moment (not a real vacation), so I'm not reading as much as normally here (and elsewhere), but in general I'm a bit disappointed in the question here in the last few days
@Phonon That question I read, and though it is clear and possibly interesting, I was a bit puzzled by someone asking for the axiomatization of approximations (since the "precise" Boltzmann definition by microstates needs no further axioms, that's what entropy is). I'm not sure there'll be an answer other than..."Um, we just guess the terms until they work?" (stated with a bit hyperbole ;) )
@ACuriousMind haha yeah, that's what I thought first too (and it may turn out to be the only correct answer indeed), then I figured there must be a common ground for modelling such entropic terms (mathematically), where as you say, from a physical point of view they all should boil down to describing the number of microstates available in conformity of a macro one.
@Phonon: We can only hope. ;) I gave up the hope that such approximations are really justifiable when I learnt that the r^{-12} in the Lennard-Jonas potential was really just a guess - we could as well take any other number around 12, and no one has a theoretical justification for any of these
@ACuriousMind all this can become very frustrating, specially when you're studying polymer physics (as I am right now), because for each case, there are always these entropic terms that appear from nowhere (no derivation ever shown), but they make perfect sense physically. e.g. Liftshitz entropy, attributed to the state of homogeneity in polymer chains (expression in the post), a lot of intuition is indeed involved here.
@ACuriousMind haha yeah ;)
@ACuriousMind and then when you're faced with a system you haven't studied before (Aktin e.g.) you have absolutely no clue where/how to begin to describe the entropic interactions of the system
@ACuriousMind I guess the moral here for you is, "stay in QFT" and enjoy your gauges while they last :D cause condensed matter physics is an absolute mess :((
@ACuriousMind I think more can be made of it - since we have more generalized notions of entropy. Someone who really knows these things should be able to cook up a general recipe of what entropy needs to satisfy
@ACuriousMind did you see that nonsense from CuriousOne in the comments under my post? what is he going on about...no clue, I wanted to reply saying "whatever makes you sleep better at night man!.." but I figured it wouldn't be appropriate... haha
@Danu: My comment in bobie's thread was posted when he/she first the question & did not state anything about the motor but included particles (see the source here)
Once it was edited to talk about motors, I deleted the comment because it doesn't really apply then.
@KyleKanos I didn't see that edit yet - sometimes I wish I got pinged more. But I did find the answers to that question very surprising, I had a professor tell me magnetic fields never do work.
@Phonon CuriousOne really went a little far there :P
@Phonon I think their main point is the one sentence they say: The use of mathematics in physics is a tool, it's not an end in itself. They seem to strongly believe in testing theories by experiment (as I do), and since axioms like "f must be differentiable" are not testable, they seem to assign no value to such discussions. That's wrong, of course.
Discussing axiomatic formulations is necessary since we want to present physics as a coherent structure, not a unordererd conglomerate of descriptions of experimental facts.
is there a way I can close my own question once I have received a satisfactory answer? I don't want to completely delete it as I might need to access it later. Thanks.
@KyleKanos We aren't talking about fictional worlds (for me fictional worlds are those like the Harry Potter worlds but that might be fantasy...). We are talking about our very own world, but just somethings which are unlikely to happen.
@KyleKanos To add to this, I once pointed out this 'crap' in a Stephan Hawking book asking for a clarification and it was closed as Primarily Opinion Based.
@AwalGarg there are certainly hypothetical questions that the community has accepted in particular cases, there are also many that are closed as too broad or speculative. Though if asked correctly and with some decent physics content, I don't think there would be an issue, though the physics.SE would be against adding any sort of meta tag to mark these questions or adopt specific policies regarding them
That is my impression based on some recent meta discussions in meta.physics.stackexchange.com
@AwalGarg my guess is that a what-if tag would be thoroughly rejected on meta. There have been several similar meta-tag proposals recently that have been rejected, as per this mother meta post. A common response to these types of proposals is just to try asking some of the questions and see how it goes, but be careful to choose the questions and word the question appropriately
@AwalGarg you should make your arguments in an answer to that meta.physics question you found, which would pop it to the top of the list an invite further discussion
I would like to revisit this, with context to an Area 51 proposal which seems to be attractive.
The site proposal proposed by a user Krumia, is also based on XKCD What-If book.
The proposal is attractive, but I guess not enough to propose an entirely new SE site for the purpose. So I proposed...
Summary
It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem y...
>Providing an answer that doesn't help a student learn is not in the student's own best interest, and if a solution complete enough to be copied verbatim and handed in is given immediately, it will encourage more people to use the site as a free homework service
@ACuriousMind 24 really is a nice number, so many divisors :D
@alemi You mean the one by Kyle?
@firtree generally, I think it's sensible to stick to only pointing out which general technique to use or giving a different type of hint, never providing a full solution.
I personally rarely bother to answer an obvious HW question, but that's just a matter of taste.
is there a way I can close my own question once I have received a satisfactory answer? I don't want to completely delete it as I might need to access it later. Thanks.
I would like to revisit this, with context to an Area 51 proposal which seems to be attractive.
The site proposal proposed by a user Krumia, is also based on XKCD What-If book.
The proposal is attractive, but I guess not enough to propose an entirely new SE site for the purpose. So I proposed...
Summary
It's not enough to just show your work and ask where you went wrong. If you just need someone to check your work, you can always seek out a friend, classmate, or teacher. As a rule of thumb, a good conceptual question should be useful even to someone who isn't looking at the problem y...
