« first day (793 days earlier)      last day (4150 days later) » 

5:04 AM
@Sklivvz It has "physics" in the name, and there exists no SE site, so imo yes by default.
@Sklivvz I m sorry to say that I can also not see how a campaign on meta is bullying. I also do not see how anybody except the moderators can prevent expressing an opinion on these boards, ask a question or run for position.
My woman's opinion in this bruhaha is that as males you displayed the group position of defending an alpha male of your group encircling your positions against an offending against him "intruder" . The thing is that this site should not be a castle to be defended, and maverick users should not be considered "intruders" . It is a different social medium. I consider you overreacted, and thus alienated a number of good people.
 
5:41 AM
I hope all moderators have learned a lesson from this. IMO you should have left Ron rant. People who liked him for his physics might have listened and been amused, as I was. They might have been influenced, so what?
People who did not like his manner would have reacted against his recommendation and the balanced would be restored. That is what free voting is about.
Not only let him rant, but also even laughed at his rants.
 
5:58 AM
@annav We did let Ron rant. But, personal attacks and defacing posts is not acceptable.
And other things
(which we can't talk about)
 
@annav Moderator wars here too?
 
@GustavoBandeira No...
(if you're inferring to the math.se fiasco)
 
@Manishearth I guess I know this guy. Is Ron Maimon? Something like that?
 
@GustavoBandeira Yep, she was talking about Ron
 
0
Q: Connection between quantum physics and consciousness

user17498Can someone explain the quantum physics-consciousness connection? In the double slit or quantum eraser experiments, the system behaves as a whole, with some apparent time independent traits. Invoking some kind of time independent but still causal physics, the problem could be simplified. But to ...

Is that on topic?
I think it might be, but I'm not so sure
 
6:04 AM
@GraceNote Hmn. Perhaps there's a pattern in your behaviour... you're always watching conflicts...
 
@DavidZaslavsky metaphysical-ish, but OK imo. I've heard about research in this area, though of course it's speculative
 
6:44 AM
@DavidZaslavsky A mainline theorist who got at some point involved with consciousness and physics is Nanopoulos. I think he is no longer active in that line.
 
 
3 hours later…
9:58 AM
@dmckee concerning the the turbulence theory question (though this is not the only occasion Larry Harrson attacks me) it is the comments between my now deleted answer which disturbs me. Since I have learned some more about the topic of QFT in turbulence theory by now, I could in principle edit the answer such that it becomes appropriate again, and undelete it.
 
 
2 hours later…
12:02 PM
26 messages moved to Discussion
 
Ok, I have to go for the moment; do some "real-world" stuff.
 
1 message moved to Discussion
@Dilaton I've moved the chat over to another room as per David's wish
3 messages moved from Discussion
 
12:19 PM
2 messages moved to Discussion
3 messages moved to Discussion
 
 
3 hours later…
3:25 PM
@GustavoBandeira Nope.
 
3:39 PM
@GustavoBandeira @GraceNote is always watching... like skynet :-)
 
@Sklivvz Yes.
 
4:00 PM
Actually I'm just waiting for someone in another room.
 
 
5 hours later…
9:11 PM
0
Q: Matrix operation in Dirac equation to explain the charge symmetry

Forhad_jnuAfter doing the complex conjugate in the Dirac equation $\left[\gamma^\mu (i\partial_\mu - e A_\mu) - m \right] \psi = 0, $ we get, $$ \left[-\gamma^{\mu\star} (i\partial_\mu + e A_\mu) - m \right] \psi^\star = 0 .$$ Introduce an invertible matrix $C$ by multiplying on the left and inserting ...

That got a flag as too localized... I'm on the fence, what do others think?
 
9:22 PM
@DavidZaslavsky i'm pretty on the fence as well, but I would close it
(lets see what others thing though)
 
I advocate closing it because the OP is just asking for someone to carry out the linear algebra for him. I don't believe this would convey any knowledge.
 
@user1504 yep
 
I think the user is trying to see if there is an alternative to doing the algebra. However this doesn't change that the question has very limited "reuse" potential.
 
9:51 PM
@annav, charismatic people have their followers, and can therefore influence the voting of their blind groupies by subtly suggesting people shouldn't vote for such and such a person with statements such as: "This person is such and search, don't vote for them".
 
@LarryHarson: You know, it's not hard to read that statement as you calling a retired female physics professor a 'groupie'. Not cool.
 
@annav Penrose also did some work a few years back but was not received well
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing aspects. However, some physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important...
@user1504 come on, I am sure he didn't mean to offend anna
 
@user150 oh god you're right! Sorry Anna, I wan't refering to you as a "groupie" in particular.
 
@LarryHarson: Having looked at the earlier discussion again, I don' t think you were. But the term 'groupie' does have a certain unpleasant vibe to it. Anyways, my apologies for language policing.
 
10:06 PM
@Dilaton well you said before that you have never insulted sklivvz, whereas you have on Lubos's site. So I felt the record should be set straight on that one by asking Skilivvz's opinion on this, without wanting to "destroy" you as you claim, I just wanted to know how Skilivvz felt about this.@sklivvz are you ok on me quoting some of the things Dilaton says bout you which I consider abusive?
 
@LarryHarson Let's not drag that here. People can use google if they are interested :-)
 
@sklivvz OK :)
 
@DavidZaslavsky or any other moderator: can somebody stop Larry Harrson attacking me and still picking at and attacking Ron outside the meta question which explicitely asks for opinions? As Ron said, he will no longer contribute to the site and therefore people (including Larry Harrson) should stop attacking and picking at him now. That people who hate Ron keep their attacks going is really distasteful and uncool ...
 
@Dilaton as I've told you before, if you think something is inappropriate, flag it. Complaining in chat is not helpful.
For the record: @Larry, I will echo what Sklivvz said about that discussion being kept out of this room.
 
@DavidZaslavsky yes, I know. I am talking about his recent chat comments, not sure if I can flag chat comments too ...
Ah ok, now I have seen that I can flag them.
 
10:23 PM
@Dilaton maybe fixing those outside comments so they are less offensive, while preserving your criticism, would also help make everybody's life easier. Just a bit of wisdom.
I am just trying to help but I don't want to overstep my bound since this is off-site stuff. I am only trying to explain that it would defuse tension on this site.
 
2
Q: Why can't I send messages in chat?

Larry HarsonI'm scratching my head over this, but it says I need to be logged in, in order to send messages, although I can log in to read the messages! Any clues as to why this might be so?

 
@Sklivvz maybe you are right, I was very angry, upset, and worried then; this is no longer the case now since we have come to some kind of agreement :-). I'll rethink and sleep about it another night.
 
11:12 PM
Is it true that with the double slit experiment, when they measured it caused particles to appear rather than a wave. The measuring device sent the info of which slit, to a magnetic tape device. One day they didn't put the tape in(but perhaps the head was moving with no tape), and they saw they got an interference pattern. In this video at 2:47 watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E the speaker says that the head of the device was oscillating but there was no tape. And they got an interference pattern.
is that youtube clip particularly 2:47 incorrect? here's the link youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
 
@barlop if you post a youtube link as a single line you get a preview :-)
 
ok!
 

« first day (793 days earlier)      last day (4150 days later) »