@no_choice99 And then you should delete the comment. Just in case you haven't already.

...and I just crashed to desktop

first time Fallout's done that to me

"As a topologist, I can attest to the necessity of drawing tori frequently"

heheh

What if tori is some gril

@0celo7 Then it would be artists who find it necessary to draw her frequently.

@Slereah Turns out you can flirt with Hancock if you're a female character...

@ACuriousMind Yes, and after that is "Give them weapons". Makes you want to watch out for a couple of high badgers wielding Kalashnikovs.

By the way, it was announced earlier this week that Worldbuilding will be graduating, so there may be migration paths, which might lead to Physics. Details pending, probably for quite some time.

Let's send them all of Duffield's questions

@HDE226868 the last question from Worldbuiling to here was migrated Jul 10. I don't think they need a migration path to us.

@Slereah We've got someone just like him to send right back to you.

@ACuriousMind I know, but there have been a few calls for migration lately of certain questions, which managed to get a reasonable amount of support (though they've all failed). I'm just saying, it's a possibility.

@HDE226868 Details plz

@HDE226868 Well, as I understand it, migration paths are not set up for what the community thinks would be nice, but for migrations which are actually frequently needed

@Slereah I'm not going to slam another user like that. But you can figure out who I'm talking about with a small bit of digging.

@ACuriousMind That's a point I hadn't considered.

Please do slam

Slam him into the ground

@HDE226868 I'm mean, we haven't even got an electrical engineering migration path, and that's the second frequent target for us, afaics

@Slereah You do realize that ~8 separate mods have made comments within the past couple months about this room being a bit negative towards certain users? The guy I'm alluding to doesn't ask only crappy questions, and he means well some of the time.

@ACuriousMind Oh, true. There's just Math and Physics Meta, right?

Yep

And the meta one is standard for all sites, I think

Yeah, that sounds right.

Even betas have that.

@ACuriousMind and I've found that a bit curious myself ACM; there have been quite a few questions here that would be more at home at the EE site though the line is not a thin one. Some questions would be at home on both sites IMHO.

@HDE226868 What happened to don't migrate crap guideline?

@NickAlexeev Dunno. I didn't vote on that one.

@AlfredCentauri The problem might be that we're only supposed to migrate when the question is actually off-topic here, and having a migration path would perhaps lead to people voting to migrate when the question is also on-topic here

@NickAlexeev I think @Qmechanic is responsible for that one

@HDE226868 true... this room is kind of... interesting, especially if you don't share the sam humour with some of the regulars

@HDE226868 who are you referring to?

@TanMath Again, I'm not saying who. Some digging will most likely show you who. I'll give you a hint: At first glance, you might mistake the user for John Duffield.

@HDE226868 yeah..but you said his questions are bad... john duffield answers wuestions badly...is this person an active user?

@TanMath He's moderately active.

@HDE226868 when was his last question/answer?

is it on the fromt page, or somewhere recognizable?

@TanMath Geez, what about "I don't really want to identify this user" do you not understand?

@ACuriousMind i was asking when was his last post..not who he is...

I felt people talking about me...

@TanMath My lips are sealed. I've already made too much of an offhand comment.

@HDE226868 lol how do you have a crackpot on a sci-fi place XD

@0celo7 Because it's also a science place.

I'm actually serious about that.

> I'm mean

It's not crackpottery so much as dogmatically sticking to certain wrong ideas.

ACM is mean, confirmed.

@0celo7 Freudian slip or typo? YOU DECIDE!

@ACuriousMind Freudian typo

Fallout is a dating sim apparently

Brb trying to make out with Mr. Hancock no-nose ghoul face

Am I the only one confused by that?

@0celo7 Yeah, who dislikes walking around naked?!

@ACuriousMind Especially since my character is so good looking...

She's also kinda fucked up...

@HDE226868 I've gotta say, that the science has been pretty weak in most of the question and answers I've read over there. There are exceptions, but without a bigger critical mass of people who care about that the level is going to stay at "Meh!".

In a way the very popularity of the place is working against you on that.

@dmckee I know. I've been fighting a losing battle with the hard-science tag for months. It was supposed to re-vamp the highly, highly overused science-based tag, and it has, but 1) It's a meta tag, which we've decided is okay for the moment, 2) New users (as you said) don't know the tag requirements and write crappy answers, and 3) There are a lot of premises that can't be salvaged.

I've been less active there lately and more active on Mathematics (just for a change of pace) because even though I've decided to stick to questions with objective answers, those questions have been asked less and less lately.

Some the recent questions that would normally be right in my wheelhouse are impossible, and so I skip over them. I get tired of trying to write optimistic answers saying "Well, you could change [X] and to make it work." It's evidence of an underlying problem, one that you can't solve by an SE site. A ring system in the shape of a möbius strip? Nope. Just nope.

!!! Quantum entanglement achieved at room temperature in semiconductor wafers / physorg

@ACuriousMind Can you get addicted to Mentats?

@vzn Hmm...the DOI for the Journal reference is invalid.

@0celo7 Dunno

@ACuriousMind I want Hancock to love me

I need to take all the drugs

It will be worth it

@vzn Also, this is not the first time entanglement at room temperature has been demonstrated: This is from early 2013

@ACuriousMind @vzn and remember entanglement occurs the the stuff we eat as well! plants do entanglement at room tenp. as well

@ACuriousMind No, that would be me; I flagged it for migration and a moderator kindly obliged. I want to thank DickAlexeev for his diligence keeping the EE site free from migrated crap.

@AlfredCentauri you mean NickAlexeev?

@TanMath Oh..., yes that would be the case wouldn't it.

@AlfredCentauri I'll change my name to Richard (and act the part) if that's what it takes to keep EE.SE clean.

@ACuriousMind nice ref. however for entanglement to be done in silicon has massive implications as surely you can imagine.

wow, was surfing physorg and just ran across this.

↑ have been saying this for many years! does anyone know any experimenters/ theorists who are interested in building on this?

> He added that this kind of entanglement does not violate Bell's inequality, which is a widely used way to test for entanglement.

↑ predict that this is soon to be overturned in near-revolutionary work. ie bell-like inequality violations demonstrated in classical systems. any takers? :D

article also cites this paper

A Locally Deterministic, Detector-Based Model of Quantum Measurement / La Cour

@vzn Bell's inequality is not "used as a test for entanglement". Testing for entanglement include things like the PPT criterion, many entangled states do not lead to violations of Bell's inequality

Really, almost every article from physorg that I read contains some silly misconception

@ACuriousMind ah, so you are disagreeing with the Phd physicists own words...

You should stick to the actual papers.

@vzn No, you have to note that that is, contrary to the other things, not a direct quote

It's meant to look like one, but it's not.

its a direct quote without the quote marks, dude.

agreed there are multiple ways to test/ prove entanglement.

The correct parsing of the quote is like this, imo: The physicist said "This kind of entanglement does not violate the Bell inequalities, by the way", and the writer tagged on that relative clause.

bells "S" measurement is a near "gold standard" however exactly as the phd asserts.

the recent silicon entanglement measurement likely uses same "formula" based on the writeup description. (havent looked at details yet.)

@ACuriousMind @Slereah Have you seen any chem addicts in your travels?

maybe what you are saying is that it is a sufficient but not necessary indication of entanglement? or vice versa? anyway think that kind of subtlety is exactly whats going to be put more to the test.

@vzn Yes. It's "very sufficient" test actually, you need very specific states to violate the Bell inequalities, hence it is pretty useless as a test for entanglement. What's tested in Bell-type experiments is not the existence of entanglement (though that could be seen as a byproduct), it's the violation of the inequalities themselves, since they could not be violated in the class of "classical/local realist" theories.

really am not following that bell measurement "is pretty useless as a test for entanglement". do you mean in general? ie there are many kinds of entanglement that cant be measured with it? but isnt it essentially demonstrating entanglement when its "violated"?

@vzn Perhaps we're having different definitions of what a "test for entanglement" is. To me, a "test for entanglement" is a setup I put a state into and it tells me whether or not the state is entangled.

agreed its testing a very specific kind of entanglement and entanglement is a very general phenomenon. eg its focused on the 2 qubit case. and there are 3-way and larger tests etc. GHZ iirc

its a standard test for 2-qubit entanglement, used over decades.

However, entanglement is a concept internal to the quantum theory. It's a statement about how the quantum state may be factored, not a statement about anything observable. The Bell inequalities, however, are statement about measureable objects, they are a concept external to theories, and used to distinguish (between classical/local realist and other theories)

ok think am roughly following your pt

And while a violation of the Bell inequalities says that the quantum state was entangled (given that I accept that the state must be described with standard QM), it's non-violation says...nothing. There can be quantum states (and I believe there are quite "many", but that notion is difficult to make precise) which do not lead to a Bell violation, yet are entangled.

oops GHZ GRW (its been awhile)

anyway wouldnt you agree a violation of bell locality with a classical experiment would be... by current theory, theoretically impossible?

yes eg low/ poor efficiency in the optics can lead to a nonviolation of bell locality measurement violation even if everything else is setup. this is a topic not discussed much in papers, its rather "swept under the rug" imho...

@vzn Yes. Although that is kind of a tautology - "classical" are those theories for which the Bell inequalities are not violated, if you drop one of the assumptions needed to derive the inequalities, then your theory is not classical anymore.

There are some people playing word games with this and devising "classical" theories which violate the inequalities, exactly by dropping one of the things needed to derive the inequality.

@ACuriousMind understood but think/ predict it (this line of research) will advance/ go deeper and eventually reach an "upset" aka "surprise" so to speak...

think its not mere semantics. its the cusp of new theory/ understanding.

can you cite a ref as an example?

the bell test depends on derivation assumptions on one level, but its also on another level just a setup of detectors and a measurement on them, with various advancing rigor/ constraints/ improvements on the setup, such as spacelike separation, random(ized) settings, etc.

@Slereah Got it.

I'm now in a relationship with a ghoul. My character is officially fucked up.

@0celo7 oh man, don't be such a racist.

These entries were not there 4 years ago, which is last time I check particle physics stuff for scifi ideas

The spring school have narrowed the knowledge gap needed to understand the technical details

and should it does, DTTUI, because this is how the system works

@bolbteppa : no, I'm afraid not.

@HDE226868 : re "at first glance, you might mistake the user for John Duffield". Who are we talking about here? I'm particularly interested because somebody was impersonating me last week.

@0celo7 : "It's so boring in here without JD". This and all other points noted.

Indeed, because I am even more boring because I always end up accidentally flooding the chat room when I tried very hard to formula my question

because of the lack of body language to elaborate my questions

This result in frequent deaths of the chat room as indicated that it often took 1-2 hours before someone will post a message after mine, often on a new topic

This mysterious phenomenon is not unique to PSE chat, in most of my internet life in various places, there's a 70% chance whenever I ask a question, the relevant threads will be rendered dead for a few hours to a few days before new posts started to flood in

@Secret : it's nothing to with you. People just have to do other things, that's all. Like I have to go to the supermarket now. And then I have to sit down at our breakfast bar and read the paper whilst the current Mrs Duffield makes me some bacon baps and a decent cup of coffee. Bye for now!

To be continued...

@yuggib Nice! I really wonder why that one was not accepted in a day... ;P

I'm back at this silly (Dirac spinor) gamma equation $[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^\lambda]=2i(\gamma^\mu\eta^{\nu\lambda}-\gamma^\nu\eta^‌​{\mu\lambda})$ for $\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac i2[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu]$. Using $\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu=\eta^{\mu\nu}-i\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ I arrive at $[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^\lambda]=i(\{\gamma^\mu,\eta^{\nu\lambda}\}-\{\gamma^{\‌​nu},\eta^{\mu\lambda}\})$. But the gammas do not commute with the Minkowski metric $\eta^{\mu\nu}$, so my result is different.

No matter how I turn the gamma knobs, one $\gamma^\mu$ is always to the right of $\eta^{\nu\lambda}$.

(ChatJax does not play nice today..)

does anyone have a hint?

lol, I remembered that that was one of our QFT excercises, too, and went to look at my solution

I just wrote "Nope." for that exercise.

Gamma matrices suck

:D they do. but I think I need this for another exercise, to prove that $\bar{\psi}\psi$ transforms as a scalar, that $\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\psi$ as a vector, etc.

there, I get $\psi^\dagger e^{\frac i4\omega_{\mu\nu}(\sigma^{\mu\nu})^\dagger}\gamma^0 e^{-\frac i4\omega_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}}\psi$

so I have some expansion (Baker-Hausdorff?) $\gamma^0 + \sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma^0 - \gamma^0(\sigma^{\mu\nu})^\dagger$

this is very similar to the commutator above, but not quite the same

so I thought if I understand that formula better, I'm perhaps able to show that $\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma^0 - \gamma^0(\sigma^{\mu\nu})^\dagger=0$, which would prove that $\bar\psi\psi$ transforms as a scalar

bin ich auf dem Holzweg?

Yeah, you need those relations to prove stuff, no doubt. I've got no hint for you in this case, though :/

ok thanks anyway

Blah

Trying to learn to use tikz

It is not easy

Not sure about those upper and lower indices. The $\gamma$s satisfy ${\gamma^0}^\dagger=\gamma^0$ and ${\gamma^i}^\dagger=-\gamma^i$, so they transform "with the Minkowski metric". Should I write that as ${\gamma^\mu}^\dagger = \eta^{\mu\nu}\gamma_\nu$ or as ${\gamma^\mu}^\dagger = {\eta_\nu}^\mu\gamma^\nu$?

@NickAlexeev : Hm, that question was indeed crap. Thanks for the feed back.

@Bass The proper way to write that is $(\gamma^\mu)^\dagger = \gamma^0 \gamma^\mu \gamma^0$. Your first way is kinda bad because you shouldn't use lower indices on the gammas, your second way is wrong because a $\eta$ with mixed indices is just a $\delta$

@ACuriousMind thank you!

@ACuriousMind wtf

I one calculated $[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\sigma^{\rho\sigma}]$ for the hell of it

Have you ever done

the Gordon Decomposition

took me a three glasses of bourbon

@Slereah that's an exercise in Zee

I tried

It is quite neat

You get to see where the magnetization comes from

there's nothing to dooooooo in Fallout

how did you get to level 50??

Well you'd better buy all those DLCs!

I'm looking at the quest list and there's like 5 that I haven't done

I did a lot of the sanctuary quests

Also the railroad quests

But they get old pretty fast

I did one

then I murdered them

they made the hairstyles for women a lot crappier than it was in Skrim

there's only 2 decent ones, and neither is very long

at least it's not like Skyrim where all the dudes look like Arnold

that was p. ridiculous

Well it is viking land

Which is partly why I didn't approve

Morrowind was original in its settings

Then the next two games were medieval england and viking land

snore

^+1000

All my favorite RPGs were in some original setting

Morrowind, Planescape Torment, Vampire the Masquerade, Arcanum

Arcanum could've been so good if it wasn't a broken, buggy mess :P

Well, 90's game :p

When people say that PC games crash a lot, I am a bit surprised because really, modern PC games don't crash all that much

In the 90's they crashed like hell

That is when saving was a vital thing

It feels broken and unfinished even compared to other games of that era, imo

@ACuriousMind oh be quiet

you're just biased

Vampire the Masquerade had a bad case of the shinfles

Shitty bad ending syndrome

"Hey look at this sprawling city, it is a RPG of urban adventures and investigation!"

And then "Psych! The ending is all dungeons and monsters!"

Planescape also had that to some degree but not as bad

Once you get in Carceri it's a bit too monster fighting compared to the beginning

It's a hard thing to do in RPGs really

@ACuriousMind Fallout 4 feels unfinished...

people apparently have 70+ hours

make it winnable with every possible skill set

dunno how

@0celo7 : Radiant quests, probably

But those are boring

I have....wow 46

and I'm only level 38

But yeah it is a very unfinished game

@0celo7 You don't know what "unfinished" means :P

ON PURPOSE probably

If you can play a game for 40 hours and then it's over, it's kinda a short game, not an unfinished one

Still longer than almost all shooters :P

@ACuriousMind tfw 800+ hours in BF3, MW2

a good shooter is easily 200+

@0celo7 We're not talking about multiplayer here

@ACuriousMind oh

then, yes

yeah, Half Life 2 is basically done in an afternoon

just like ur mum

Hancock is such a baby

he's suuuuuper clingy

I should probably dump him

@JohnDuffield It was meant to be a semi-clever hint. The two of you have similar names - though far from identical. At any rate, I can assure you that that user is not trying to impersonate you; it's someone else.

I don't think you can romance Strong...

Maybe you should finish the game by murdering everyone

@ACuriousMind have you found Belethor yet?

@Slereah interesting proposition

that's a thing you can do in RPGs after you finished everything

@0celo7 I don't think I'd recognize the voice

Go town to town, murder everyone

only works if you can murder everyone, though

Wouldn't work in Oblivion

I also hate companions, they just get in your way

Companions have pros and cons

They get in the way but they also distract the enemy

@ACuriousMind Nikky V.

And now they're immortal so I don't care too muc what happens to them

@ACuriousMind wtf

Fallout companions are a bit boring

they give you 100 pounds of extra carrying

It's pretty hard to do companions right

I think the best game to handle them was probably Dragon Age

Where they actually interacted often

which dragon age

origins?

is that the newest one

the first one

Dragon Age had the worst plot tho

"Oh no an evil force is invading the land, also there's a dragon"

@Slereah what's wrong with that?

tbh I can't think of anything else with that plot

so GG originality!

It is nice to have an original plot?

Because then you can't say "Well instead of playing this I could play anything else"

That is what was nice about Planescape

@Slereah that is pretty original tbh

Eh.

It was really vague.

Just "Bad guys of evil are invading"

"Stop them I guess"

@Slereah Mass Effect and KOTOR also did that nicely. Good companions are kinda Bioware's trademark

@0celo7 Never cared about companions in TES/Fallout, never will

@Slereah see, that uncertainty is original

@ACuriousMind D:

I mod skyrim so I can have 2!

Planescape also had good companions

@Slereah : I am really not very happy about shoot'em up game-talk about "murdering everybody". Not after Paris.

@0celo7: Precinct 8 has "Unger larceny logs" :D

@ACuriousMind I know

I'm a dirty thief

what does "watch game" do on Steam

"waiting for response"

why /v/

@ACuriousMind "not available at this time" :(

did you deny me