« first day (2260 days earlier)      last day (2673 days later) » 

7:02 PM
@anonymous I'm not sure I like that characterization/definition of entropy.
Entropy is rather simple: it is the possible number of arrangements of a physical system given a set of constraints.
 
How do I calculate the voltage needed for creating a plasma arc over a distance $d$?
 
@DanielSank I agree. I actually like the image :) Also, it is not really a bad way to explain it to someone who is new to the subject. "number of arrangements of a physical system given a set of constraints." is more correct but not understandable for a layman :)
Paschen's Law is an equation that gives the breakdown voltage, that is the voltage necessary to start a discharge or electric arc, between two electrodes in a gas as a function of pressure and gap length. It is named after Friedrich Paschen who discovered it empirically in 1889. Paschen studied the breakdown voltage of various gases between parallel metal plates as the gas pressure and gap distance were varied. The voltage necessary to arc across the gap decreased as the pressure was reduced and then increased gradually, exceeding its original value. He also found that at normal pressure, the voltage...
@BernardoMeurer pashen's law ?
 
Seems like it could work
 
I never used that law before :P
 
Question about cross sections in QFT. How does the cross section as a function of the transferred momentum q^2 relate to the differential cross section d\sigma / d\Omega ?
 
7:16 PM
d\sigma/d\Omega already depends on q^2
to get \sigma you have to integrate d\sigma/d\Omega over d\Omega
recall that d\Omega=2\pi d(\cos\theta)
 
I have the cross section for a process as d\sigma / d\Omega and I want to compare to a result expressed as d\sigma / dq^2. do I need to substitute q^2 in d\sigma / d\Omega ?
 
hello everyone
 
hello heather :-)
 
@Nister well, q^2 and \theta are related
so you just have to make a standard change of variables
I dont remember the exact formula, youll have to find it online
something like q^2=E \sin^2\theta
 
7:23 PM
hmm okey
thanks!
 
in any case, you can probably find the details online
let me try to find a link for you
actually I have to leave now
sorry
 
don't worry, thank you anyway :)
 
the star board...
wat
 
@heather Don't do drugs
I think that's the message here
 
double wat
@BernardoMeurer, just read through the transcript. the flow of conversation made sense while i was reading it, but now i'm confused again =P
 
7:31 PM
@heather It is a futile exercise to make sense out of a conversation among drunk people. Everyone here on "h-bar" got high after Bernardo mentioned having Jock Itch ;)
 
@anonymous, clearly ::shakes head::
lol it was so ridiculous it was funny.
 
If one were designing a new unit system, would it ever make sense to simply define temperature as \beta = (∂S/∂E)_{V,N} and speak of the flow of "cold" rather than the flow of "heat"? You'd no longer have any weirdness when teaching kids about "negative temperature" that way...
And instead of this mystery of "ooh, what happens when you get to absolute zero" you'd have people saying "ooh, what happens when you get to Cold Infinity" and you could be like, "well, the clue is in the name there..."
 
@CRDrost I wonder how you would explain kids about S and E without temperature...
 
Well I mean in practice you would use an ideal gas or something to measure it, right? measure 1/V at constant pressure and particle number...
Entropy would still come later.
I guess that's something hot-temperature has going for it, you get to Taylor-expand and get linear expansions over small heatings...
 
It seems like telling a kid that energy means "mass times velocity of light squared" rather than the more intuitive definition
@CRDrost
I would never "define" temperature that way
 
7:40 PM
Well that's how temperature is defined, 1/(∂S/∂E)_{V,N} suitably scaled. I'm just wondering if it would make pedagogical sense to rewrite society's entire expectations of temperature so that colder = higher temperature to remove this (1/) operator up front.
 
@CRDrost Can you give me a source which "defines" temperature like that ?
I wouldn't vouch for such a definition
 
Thermodynamic temperature is the absolute measure of temperature and is one of the principal parameters of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic temperature is defined by the third law of thermodynamics in which the theoretically lowest temperature is the null or zero point. At this point, absolute zero, the particle constituents of matter have minimal motion and can become no colder. In the quantum-mechanical description, matter at absolute zero is in its ground state, which is its state of lowest energy. Thermodynamic temperature is often also called absolute temperature, for two reasons: one, proposed...
 
Most books mention "the temperature is equal to the partial derivative of the internal energy with respect to the entropy". But no book says "the temperature is defined to the partial derivative of the internal energy with respect to the entropy".
Anyway
I think this is becoming more of a philosophy question
 
what does it mean for there to be two dots above a variable?
second derivative, right?
 
heather: usually second derivative with respect to time.
 
7:46 PM
second derivative
 
@CRDrost okay, thanks!
 
*with respect to another variable
 
@anonymous, thank you as well =)
 
@heather Just if you're interested,
A time derivative is a derivative of a function with respect to time, usually interpreted as the rate of change of the value of the function. The variable denoting time is usually written as t {\displaystyle t\,} . == Notation == A variety of notations are used to denote the time derivative. In addition to the normal (Leibniz's) notation, d x d t {\displaystyle {\frac...
 
Welcome!
 
7:47 PM
anonymous: I think I have my answer anyway, "you can use an ideal gas thermometer arranged as a piston to measure the 1/(...) temperature as a linear displacement of the piston, there is not such an obvious physical realization of a cold-ometer."
 
@SirCumference, hello =)
 
@heather Howdy :)
 
i'm trying to teach myself GR =)
listening to Susskind's lectures.
 
Well, good luck with that
You know calc well?
 
single-variable calc decently, i think.
multivariable calc, no.
 
7:50 PM
Ya studied Riemannian geometry?
There's a lot of stuff you'll need to know before you get into GR, I'm afraid
 
i'll stop once i get stuck and figure it out =)
 
@heather Well, learning the maths is really necessary for a proper understanding
I'm sucky at a lot of them so I'm struggling with the basics
 
@SirCumference, I know I'm stupid for doing it this way, but I will be taking it rigorously as a class soon enough.
 
Susskind is a great physicist but an awful teacher
 
@heather GR?
You're in middle school, right?
 
7:54 PM
dont watch his lectures, youre wasting your time
 
@SirCumference, yeah, I meant in college...?
@AccidentalFourierTransform wokay, then how do I learn it?
 
@heather Oh, well you should study regular physics head to toe before going into advanced physics
 
im sure there are better online lectures out there
 
Where??
 
Newtonian mechanics in reality involves calculus
 
7:55 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform i didn't know if you had any recommendations =)
 
Can you mention some??
 
pick one at random. Ill be better than Susskind's ;-)
 
@EDISONPHOENIX are you looking for some in particular?
 
but no, I dint know of any good set of lectures online
I never took GR too seriously
 
@heather 0celo made a nice list of the stuff you should take before you look into GR
Aug 24 '16 at 18:28, by 0celo7
calculus on Banach spaces, multilinear algebra, point-set topology, algebraic topology, differential topology, Riemannian geometry, de Rham cohomology
 
7:56 PM
I am following the Classical Mechanics series by WL
now
I am looking for some interesting lecture series for GR too
 
@SirCumference oh my gosh, i'll be dead or in a GR class before i figure that all out =)
that's a ton of stuff.
yeah, i definitely am in over my head.
 
@heather Well yeah, GR is a huge complicated thing
But your curiosity is a good thing
 
yeah, but, i dunno...i don't want to learn the whole thing, just the basics.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform The visualization may be not-intuitive But the results are
 
7:58 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform, uh...
 
@heather Here's a nice quote from Slereah
Sep 29 '15 at 20:31, by Huy
@Pies: your curiosity is a good thing, but only knowing half or even less of the "truth" is not very helpful
Told it to me a year ago
Knowing the math is really the important part
 
that's bullshit
to know something you have to half-know it first
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform ...
Half-knowing the truth on its own is not helpful
 
to be honest i have to agree with AFT here.
going after a topic again and again helps me learn it really well. it helps pieces click in earlier topics and in later topics.
 
it is more helpful than not knowing anything :-/
 
8:00 PM
@heather Knowing some of the maths behind astronomy made it way easier to understand
 
regarding Math?? @heather
 
@heather Coursera has very good lectures. But depends on upto what depth you want to go into GR.
 
@SirCumference, I'm not objecting to learning it fully. I'm objecting to you saying that either you learn it fully or not at all.
 
@sir
I agree
 
@heather I do that too
I used to read books on QFT over and over again
 
8:00 PM
@EDISONPHOENIX regarding almost anything.
 
@heather You'll save yourself a lot of headaches by learning it mathematically rather than qualitatively
It's much easier to understand and you get to understand it more
 
WL lectures are good in that aspect
 
Not to mention, most of physics isn't intuitive. You can't properly understand a good majority unless you know the maths.
 
More practical
 
@EDISONPHOENIX he doesnt have gr lectures
 
8:01 PM
Yeah..
I know
 
@SirCumference whoever said that headaches were bad? you seem to think it's either i half learn it now or i completely learn it later. who said i can't half learn it now and completely learn it later? That's what you seem to be saying.
 
That is the prob
 
@heather Well, I'd at least disagree with headaches being bad — they're the worst thing I deal with
 
@SirCumference, fair enough =P I didn't mean actual headaches, though, I meant intellectual struggling to figure things out headaches.
 
What I'm saying is that you can only learn a small percentage of this stuff qualitatively
Half is a big exaggeration in and of itself
 
8:03 PM
@SirCumference @SirCumference They will be intuitive as it evolves
 
It saves you time and helps you better understand the subject
 
@heather You could half learn. And then re-learn the whole thing, but it takes more time than necessary. Anyway if you have free time then explore ! :)
 
@SirCumference, true, half is indeed a huge exaggeration.
 
I agree
 
@anonymous thank you for the coursera recommendation, by the way
 
8:04 PM
But whatever it may be we maynot get the picture at the first shot @hea
 
@EDISONPHOENIX Not necessarily
 
@sir
They can be if we tweak the visualization a bit more
 
@Heather Trust me, I used to think exactly what you do. But I realized the difference that understanding the maths makes
 
more revolutionary ideas need to come to unite the GR and QM then everything will be intuitive @SirCumference
 
i'm also not objecting to learning the math @SirCumference, I have been teaching myself a lot of math.
 
8:06 PM
Yeah I agree Math is a powerful tool @SirCumference
 
but i still wish to jump in and get in over my head and get stuck and come back and get farther. that experience teaches me a lot.
 
As I am working with Mathematica everyday I know how can math help to visualize too
 
I'm afraid I won't be able to convince you, but keep what I'm saying in mind
 
@SirCumference Sure
 
It's 5x easier to understand and you understand it 5x deeper
@EDISONPHOENIX Wait what are you talking about
That's completely unrelated and, as far as I see, not true
 
8:10 PM
@SirCumference I agree with you here. Like heather even I had read up a lot of GR and QM based books in 9 th and 10th grade but I ignored the highly technical parts :P Now I have forgotten most of it :D I wish I spent that time in mastering my mathematics :) I learnt it the hard way :)
 
@SirCumference I will keep it in mind. I do want you to know that I will learn the math, i hope you don't think that i'm never going to learn it. =)
 
@SirCumference What is not true?? That is just my wish
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform It's like trying to learn about Fourier transforms without knowing integration or about Eulers identity
@EDISONPHOENIX Why would everything suddenly be intuitive if we find out how to reconcile GR with QFT?
 
I don't believe in Wave-particle duality. So the physics looks non-intuitive in that sense a lot
At the same time I believe in the space without any properties
 
@EDISONPHOENIX Sorry to tell you this, but what you believe in really doesn't matter
 
8:15 PM
@SirCumference It can be if we think more the nature of light
 
@SirCumference actually, you only need to know a bit about linear algebra to get an intuitive understanding of the Fourier transform
 
That's not how science works
 
you wont understand the details, but the overall picture is easily understood once you learn bout a basis of vectors and linear spaces
 
@SirCumference Science always evolve my buddy
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform I fuzzily remember them bringing up Euler's identity and stuffs when I learned them
 
8:16 PM
@EDISONPHOENIX I think you are delving into metaphysical beliefs which are nothing more than "beliefs" :)
 
Though I was mainly scribbling the proof down
 
and, i don't understand the details, and i haven't studied it much, but i do have a general idea of what the fourier transform does.
 
@EDISONPHOENIX What on Earth are you talking about?
 
Light @SirCumference
 
First of all, your beliefs have nothing to do with your first statement
 
8:17 PM
@SirCumference yeah of course, Eulers identity is important if you want to be rigorous
 
We dont know what is light yet... Do you agree?
 
11 mins ago, by EDISON PHOENIX
more revolutionary ideas need to come to unite the GR and QM then everything will be intuitive @SirCumference
 
Yeah it can be related @SirCumference We can discuss in detail if you have time and in person
 
In person? We're separated by several large bodies of water
2
 
Double slit and Michelson morley are the key experiments led us to these modern ideas which are non-intuitive @SirCumference
 
8:19 PM
Somehow I don't see that happening
 
@SirCumference haha Anyway I can share my mail details if you are interested to discuss more about light
 
@EDISONPHOENIX We can discuss it here
 
@EDISONPHOENIX Uh, you really shouldn't
We're in a physics chat
Surrounded by professors and enthusiasts
 
@EDISONPHOENIX I would like to know why you don't believe in WP duality
 
8:22 PM
Yeah, @AccidentalFourierTransform most of all
 
I know . So that I said. It may be annoying others while we discuss about new ideas which are not clearly understood with physics today
 
@anonymous WP duality is a concept from the 20s
it was soon superseded by QM
nobody believes in the WP duality anymore today
 
@EDISONPHOENIX Your belief in established physical concepts doesn't matter
 
I am happy to be a part of this team. I am also an enthusiast of physics
 
You don't need people's opinions in science or math
 
8:23 PM
wait what @AccidentalFourierTransform
i thought WP duality was a thing
 
That's like if I went around asking "which number is bigger, 15 or 5?"
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform I didn't know that... Source ?
 
@heather yes, it indeed was a thing
but not any more
 
=(
 
I too
 
8:24 PM
electrons are particles
 
how's it explained then? @AccidentalFourierTransform
but...but...wavefunction! deBroglie!
 
dont know that WP @AccidentalFourierTransform
 
its just that the concept of "particle" has a much more complex and rich meaning than in the 20s
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Wavicle ? ;)
2
 
@anonymous meh
that word means nothing
well, in the 10s people wondered whether electrons were particles or waves
but they used the word "particle" with the old meaning
i.e., newtonian particles
they soon learned that electrons were neither waves nor newtonian particles
the meaning of "particle" gradually changed
 
8:30 PM
go on :)
 
today "particle" does not mean newtonian particle
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform What are trying to say ? Is WP is still there or the definition changed?
 
electrons are particles
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Then what are newtonian particles called nowadays ? :D
 
quantum mechanical particles, not newtonian particles
the old dichotomy faded away because the concept of particle evolved
@EDISONPHOENIX the definition of "particle" changed
@anonymous "newtonian particle" I guess
 
8:33 PM
Well you better say that there can be two types of particles. Newtonian and Quantum Mechanical respectively as you still use the word "particle" as a suffix for both
 
the correct statement is "electrons are quantum mechanical particles"
they are not waves, they are not classical particles
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform That is exactly what a wavicle means! en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wavicle
 
@anonymous but that definition is wrong!
electrons do not have properties of a wave and a (newtonian) particle.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform, that sounds like saying, no, it's not a combination of wave and particle, its a new thing, that's basically the same thing. I'm a bit confused by the difference.
 
thats the point! its a new thing!
 
8:35 PM
but how would you describe the new thing? the way you've describing it makes it sound like the old thing renamed.
 
this new thing has a very complex behaviour
if you try to use classical concepts to describe this new thing, then yes
you can say that it sometimes behaves as a classical particle
and sometimes as a classical wave
but if you want to be precise, you have to describe this new thing using quantum mechanical concepts
and, in the QM terminology, an electron is a particle. period.
obviously, with the quantum mechanical understanding of "particle"
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Thanks
 
I miss 0celo...
 
lol no problem
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform i think i understand, thank you =)
 
8:37 PM
But is there any way to explain DSE with classical particle nature? @AccidentalFourierTransform
 
@SirCumference, as do I =( he'd be happy to learn I got a topology book.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform does it have any property which neither a wave nor a particle has ?
 
@heather "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." ;-)
 
The chat ain't the same without the guys like him and Chris
And obe
 
8:38 PM
"This user has been temporarily suspended by a moderator and cannot chat for 23 days."
23 days left =(
@AccidentalFourierTransform very true =)
 
(I think that this quote is bullshit too, but thats a topic for some other day)
 
@father Can you read it?
 
@EDISONPHOENIX well, why do you want to describe the DSE using classical concepts?
 
i'm screwed. because i decided to be stupid.
 
why dont you use the more correct theory?
 
8:39 PM
@heather Huh, why?
 
wait wait wait
what happened to 0celo7?
is he banned (again)?
 
Ugh, my phone sucks. Autocorrects heather to father
 
We can but it is not more intuitive @AccidentalFourierTransform
 
@EDISONPHOENIX The universe isn't intuitive
 
@SirCumference cuz we're doing this project in social studies, that is basically like "learn what you want, as long as you relate it to revolution in society" and I wanted to explain a science topic because...well, because.
 
8:40 PM
@EDISONPHOENIX it is if you adapt your intuition ;-)
 
Physics shows that
 
and guess what i picked, idiotically.
 
@SirCumference Again I dont want to start from the scratch
I leave that for now
 
@anonymous yes, quantum particles have properties that neither classical particles nor calssical waves have
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform like what ? any examples ? :)
 
8:41 PM
The hell? My phone won't let me reply
 
it is a more complex concept
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform yep, can only chat after 23 more days.
@SirCumference well, yeah, but which one? 20th century...
(think of the most idiotic, complex, impossible one to pick.)
 
@SirCumference Ha ha Yeah ..! It is possible but.
 
@anonymous off the top of my head, tunnelling and pair production
 
@SirCumference can i read what?
 
8:43 PM
@heather what did 0celo7 do this time?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform, no one knows. Or at least, I don't.
 
Ugh
@heather the topology book
 
Hi all
 
@SirCumference, um...yes? I am in 8th grade, I should hope I know how to read...
 
8:44 PM
@Alex hello =)
 
@heather I meant in terms of the mathematics :P
 
@SirCumference OH, gotcha =P yeah, i've gotten through the first chapter with no problems. i'm making steady progress through it =)
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform It's a mystery
You're 2.5 months late on the issue, btw
 
Quick calculus question. Would you use integration by parts to show to evaluate the integral $L \int_{0}^{T}I(t)\frac{d I}{d t} dt$?
 
has he been banned for 2.5 months already?? o.O
 
8:46 PM
yeah
 
@Alex I can't get LaTeX on my phone...
@AccidentalFourierTransform Yeah :P
 
@Alex no, Id use the chain rule
@SirCumference wow, I sincerely didnt notice
 
::sighs:: i need to figure out a better topic for this project...ugh.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Do you at least know Chris is gone?
 
@SirCumference yeah, and mafia, and countto10
anyone else?
 
8:48 PM
wait, what happened to MAFIA?!
I missed that one.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Wait, Mafia's gone??
 
CountTo10 is back
 
obe aka bl00 aka IceLord is gone
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform How would you use the chain rule?
 
hmm....i saw a comment from countto10 just the other day...
weird, maybe the duplicate user got deleted?
did countto10 get banned...?
 
Oh I think I understand how
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform, 10k+ link?
what's it say?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Who's that?
 
@heather no, nobody can see that link
it used to be mafia
now hes gone
 
8:51 PM
='(
 
RIP Mafia
 
presumably, because of the whole "nazi quote" thing
 
that was so stupid.
 
What the heck is happening with everyone
 
he was actually very friendly
 
8:52 PM
incredibly friendly.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Uh, what'd I miss?
 
and he did a great job in the queues and editing new posts
 
What? Mafia left?
 
-1
Q: Is it acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE?

claude chuberI have no intention being rude, and have been hesitating a long time before posting this question. The fact is that a user of the Physics SE includes this quote in his public profile: "There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, & truth will again triumph."...

^@SirCumference
 
that post has +10 upvotes and -11 downvotes
very controversial apparently
the community was very divided on that one
@Alex sorry I forgot haha
 
8:54 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform And?
 
@Alex how would you calculate the derivative of $f(t)^2$?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform You say $L \int_{0}^{T}I(t)\frac{d I}{d t} dt = L \int^{T}_{0} \frac{d}{dt}(\frac{1}{2}I^2(t))dt = L(\frac{1}{2}I^2(T) - \frac{1}{2}I^2(0))$.
 
in Discussion on question by claude chuber: Is it acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE?, Dec 27 '16 at 1:41, by MAFIA36790
And yes @NorbertSchuch, I'm not distancing myself in any way; please don't over speculate anything. Days after showing this post, I've talked privately with the mods here as I deem I'm answerable to any action of mine here. I'm sorry if you concluded from this quote and my Twitter account (??) and my removing of the account, that I'm spreading hatred and racism.
^see the chat room here
i think he's still around
no, nvm, he isn't
 
@Alex yes, that's what I meant :-)
 
Huh...
 
8:55 PM
Nope
He's gone
100% vanished
 
yes, people speculated that he momentarily left for his exams
 
I'm Jewish, but I wouldn't make a big deal of a random Internet person quoting that
 
but his profile read "delete me" for a couple of days
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Great thanks.
 
and then he was gone
 
8:55 PM
There are better things to worry about
 
@Alex cheers
see you around :-)
 
reading the chatroom, i think i understand why he left.
 
he felt harassed probably
 
@heather Explain, I'm lazy and busy
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform The reasons might not be as grim as we are speculating either :)
@BernardoMeurer Busy lazying around ? Eh :P
 
8:59 PM
@BernardoMeurer well, in a nutshell, Norbert Schuch read his facebook page/followed, accused him in a comment of agreeing with Nazi ideology, mafia defends himself saying of course he doesn't agree with it, and then, at the end, there's a deleted comment by Norbert Schuch followed by this quote by Mafia:
 
Gosh, everyone I like to talk to is leaving...
 
in Discussion on question by claude chuber: Is it acceptable to quote a Nazi claim on Physics SE?, Dec 27 '16 at 1:41, by MAFIA36790
OH my God, now I'm seeing the problem; it's definitely not mine; uff; @NorbertSchuch; I'm speechless. I'm also seeing the account when googled. And no, it's not mine at all.
then he says:
 

« first day (2260 days earlier)      last day (2673 days later) »