The h Bar - 2015-11-13 (page 1 of 4)

« first day (1835 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3095 days later) »

12:03 AM

@ChrisWhite : unfortunately gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual. And as anna v said, virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model.

@MarkMitchison : I think there is a fairly simple explanation, wherein the E=hf photon goes through both slits, but detection performs something akin to an optical Fourier transform. I certainly prefer this over the many-worlds multiverse, which people seem to cling to.

Back.

@0celo7 We realize that already when your avatar floats in from above ;P

Oh, it does that?

I have no evidence of this

Don't you see yourself floating in? When I log in, I usually see that

hello people, first time I chat in here. It's a general discussion or physics related chat? I suppose we can't ask physics questions?

12:10 AM

No

Seeing floating in $\cong$ quadratic equation solving ability

Sir Cumference - Pies

Howdy

@no_choice99 It's a general chat for Physics.SE. Sometimes we talk physics, sometimes not. It's not forbidden to ask questions - if someone knows the answer and wants to answer, they will answer.

@0celo7 You know what I'm gonna ask.

Nov 4 at 15:49, by 0celo7

@ACuriousMind Not really, no.

ok thanks ACuriousMind. well I do have a "quick question". Consider a plane wave passing from vacuum toward a dielectric. Let's consider normal incidence to keep things simple. I know that ExH should give the direction of k. So I can easily sketch E_i and H_i , the incident E and H vectors

@0celo7 Stop trolling :P

12:14 AM

however when the plane wave gets reflected, I have a doubt on whether it's E or H that "flips". I mean either E or H must change direction because k_reflected points in the opposite direction than k_i

@0celo7 You also knew that time, didn't you?

@ACuriousMind wtf?

@ACuriousMind :o

I reject this accusation

I don't know how to figure out which one of E or H changes direction. thats my problem :)

@ACuriousMind no, I quoted four previous incidents randomly

@0celo7 Ah, very well then

@no_choice99 I think it's E, because the magnetic field is a pseudovector which doesn't change direction under reflection.

12:24 AM

well I have to apply to university right now.

what program should I do?

What do you want to do?

also, program=field of study, or something else?

@obe some form of engineering

@no_choice99 : remember it's an electromagnetic wave, but see stuff like this.

I'm off to bed.

@ACuriousMind field of study yeah.

@0celo7 I have 3 choices.

@ACuriousMind ding ding ding!! www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~playfer/EMlect15.pdf at normal incidence p. 10 (reflected magnitude + incident magnitude = transmitted magnitude. if transmitted magnitude =0 (perfect conductor) that's what you said).

12:26 AM

Canadia only has 3 programs, wow

@0celo7 only allowed to pick 3.

unless you pay more $

@no_choice99 see my prev message. Uhh it still could get weird for different polatizations/incident angles

should I do physics/neuroscience, maths/neuroscience, or computerscience/neuroscience?

as my 1st

what

what raises GDP

Shhh, people don't necessarily study to raise GDP, silly enigneer.

I think I'd go for CS/neuro, that way you can see both artificial and natural intelligence at work ;)

12:32 AM

@ACuriousMind I was also considering to do that.

thanks.

I'll choose that option.

@ACuriousMind ...but you're a mathematician

So?

@ACuriousMind It's a shame someone as smart as you thinks that

well compsci/neuro raises gdp.

Think where we'd be if fewer intelligent people were holed up doing (frankly) worthless research

12:34 AM

because of its wide applications.

@obe it does, it's a good choice

now the university...

which universities should i apply to?

3 only...

none of us here are Canadian...

@obe Apply to a university in a town with good nightlife

There are better things to do at university than study

@MarkMitchison lol nightlife

as 0celo7 knows

im not exactly

that kind of person

even if i wanted to be

12:36 AM

Right. Then find a town with good insert your non-academic interest here

Unless you really are mainly interested in just working

which is also fine

but if you're not...

I like planes...

I want to go to a university near an airport

@0celo7 @ChrisWhite says here pretty much what my response to that would be. There's value that's not tangible.

@ACuriousMind I've read that post.

But I'd rather have more people working on things that will help me now than people wasting time and money on things that might possibly work down the road.

And of course there's the moral question of government grants...

@0celo7 That's not at all what that post says. The "things that might work down the road" is the other answer.

Oh, it's the movie one.

There might be value that's not tangible.

And scf-fi really is a terrible example because a movie isn't a tangible product.

12:41 AM

...the movie is not the point either, really.

Does one movie make the billions of dollars of wasted tax money worth it?

@ACuriousMind Explain it to me, then.

Because for the life of me I cannot figure out what is so damn worth it in the fucking stars that the government has to take money from the people to pay for telescopes, etc.

@0celo7 We'll need to go to the stars eventually. Why put off looking for places to go?

actually in the book (Zangwill's) I'm reading, he sketched 2 situations. one where the E field is parallel to the plane of incidence and one where the E field is perpendicular to both the plane of incidence and the surface of the dielectric

in one case the E fields changes direction while the H field doesn't. in the other case it's the opposite

@HDE226868 What right do you have to use tax money for your telescopes?

and he doesn't give any explanation. he basically says "according to the sketch...."

12:46 AM

@HDE226868 Or take Gravity Probe B. That cost hundreds of millions of dollars for...what?

@0celo7 Well, then, once astronomers find a world that's habitable enough for humans, and overpopulation or something else makes Earth a terrible place to live, and we've developed the technology to travel to the stars, what rights do the people who didn't pay for the telescopes have to board the ships that will save their lives?

@0celo7 People enjoy knowing things. There is curiosity intrinsic to every human, just as we enjoy art, or sports. Most of the things we call culture don't have really much benefit to them other than people enjoying them. Life in a world without art or science would not be enjoyable to most.

2

@0celo7 A test of general relativity. That's pretty big. And we need GR for all sorts of things.

@HDE226868 That's hypothetical. You're stealing from people here and now.

@ACuriousMind I'm not arguing against science.

@ACuriousMind That sounds like that brilliant speech made in defense of the Superconducting SuperCollider.

12:47 AM

I'm arguing against using tax money to fund personal projects.

And 90% of science nowadays is funded by the government.

@HDE226868 No, it sounds like someone putting "liking to know things" over property rights.

@Danu No, indeed not, they aren't cleared up. Your argument with @JohnDuffield didn't help, by the way.

"personal projects"? That sounds like there's some elite caste that benefits them.

@0celo7 Why shouldn't that be put first? People have asked questions for thousands of years. Why stop when we can answer some of them?

@0celo7: Your equating tax money with stealing is a dishonest argumentation technique.

@ACuriousMind No, it is theft.

It is the government threatening imprisonment or death if I don't hand over money.

You implitly assert that it's the same without argument and put your opponents on the defensive. You may well hold the opinion that taxes are theft, but you cannot use that as fact in a discussion.

12:51 AM

What is the definition of theft?

@0celo7 No, because people get things in return.

@HDE226868 What? So you just get to decide that people are being silly and should hand over money?

@HDE226868 The mafia provides protection.

@0celo7 Taking things that don't belong to you by whatever property code holds in your society.

@0celo7 People vote on these things, you know. And people vote for who votes on these things.

@0celo7 And kills you.

@HDE226868 Majority does not make morality.

12:52 AM

@0celo7 Who decides morality, then? You? Me?

@HDE226868 Morals are universal. I don't decide them, neither do you.

@0celo7 Theft is not a moral concept, it is, like property, a legal concept.

@0celo7 Baseless assertion. You ever heard of moral philosophy?

@0celo7 Someone has to define them, though. You can't simply observe them.

@HDE226868 Initiation of force is immoral.

@0celo7 Says who? Ethics can be relative.

12:55 AM

@HDE226868 There is nothing relative about that. Initiation of force is unethical unless you are stopping the initiation of force.

@ACuriousMind Property rights are not a fundamental principle?

@ACuriousMind What about it?

@0celo7 Again, that's based on your definition of ethics. Here's an example of relative ethics: Under certain interpretation of Islamic law (and in other religions, including Christianity), women are not equal with men. Therefore, it is ethical for some Muslims to deny women certain rights. Others might say that this is unethical, because all people is equal. Who's right? Nobody.

@0celo7 They are a fundamental legal concept necessary for the way our societal contract works. I do not, personally, think that there is a moral right to property, nor a moral necessity to choose to organize society in the way we do.

It is unethical if they are initiating force.

@ACuriousMind What? Who owns your computer, then? Morally speaking.

You engaged in voluntary trade for the computer.

Should Joe Shmuck come along and decide he needs it more than you?

@HDE226868 No, they are definitely in the wrong because they are initiating force.

@0celo7 It is precisely the study of different moral systems and how they might be founded and argued for. There's deontological systems in the tradition of Kant, consequentialist systems in the tradition of Bentham and Mill, and many variants and other approaches to what is moral and they all disagree with one another. And none has obvious precedence over the other.

@0celo7 Says you. I'm arguing from the principle that ethics is relative. You're arguing from the principle that you're moral beliefs are absolute, and that's not correct.

1:00 AM

If they consider that to be ethical, tough shit. They are not a moral people.

@0celo7 No, they simple have different ethical ideas.

That are wrong.

Denying one human freedom is wrong.

And the fact that you are arguing against that is fucking terrifying.

According to you. I'm not arguing against it; I'm arguing that others have the right to argue against it and be correct according to their standards.

I knew this would happen one day...Jesus

Look, I'm taking an ethics course, and this is one of the things that was drummed into me.

1:01 AM

@0celo7 No one because property is not a moral concept. It arises from the way our society is structured. It is immoral to violate property rights because I believe that laws are to be obeyed unless they themselves are immoral, that doesn't make ownership as such "right" or "wrong".

@0celo7 Strawman, no one is arguing against human freedom.

@ACuriousMind Ownership is not "right" or "wrong"

5 mins ago, by HDE 226868

@0celo7 Again, that's based on your definition of ethics. Here's an example of relative ethics: Under certain interpretation of Islamic law (and in other religions, including Christianity), women are not equal with men. Therefore, it is ethical for some Muslims to deny women certain rights. Others might say that this is unethical, because all people is equal. Who's right? Nobody.

> Therefore, it is ethical for some Muslims to deny women certain rights.

Yes, according to their set of moral standards.

@HDE226868 Which violate the nonagression principle.

@0celo7 Okay, not strawman, @HDE226868, that's some extreme relativism.

You are telling me that one can justify aggression against a group of people who are themselves not aggressive?

1:04 AM

@ACuriousMind Sure. But I'm making the point that one person can't decide what is ethical for others. I think that the discrimination is incredibly unethical. You think that it's unethical (I assume). But they think that it's ethical.

@HDE226868 The insight that no ethical system may be universally shown to be "correct" is not equivalent to the belief that they are all equal.

God, doesn't that make you body hurt.

The very idea of that is disgusting...

@ACuriousMind I'm interested. Go on. . .

@HDE226868 And they are wrong.

@0celo7 Why are they wrong? Think about it. I feel that their actions are incredibly unethical. But they don't. So who is right?

1:06 AM

As I said, @ACuriousMind, ownership is not right or wrong. Ownership is or isn't.

Now, it is a moral that we respect ownership.

@HDE226868 The person who applies logic, reason and the nonaggression principle is right.

@HDE226868 For one, you may take the "veil of ignorance" approach by Rawls: A moral system is "good" (well, internally consistent really) if all participants would voluntarily agree to it without knowledge where in the societal order or in which specific situation they might be placed.

@0celo7 Yet your logic is based on your set of morals.

@HDE226868 Logic is independent of morals...

@0celo7 The basis for your logic is not, though.

@ACuriousMind That makes sense.

@HDE226868 Example?

1:09 AM

Does "In chapter 12 Poincar´e introduced the fundamental group. He knew from the theory of Fuchsian groups already the relation between closed curves on a surface and the substitutions in a system of multivalued functions." make sense to anyone, specifically the substitutions part?

@0celo7 No, Ownership doesn't exist without the laws that define it. And the very laws that define ownership make an exception for things like taxes. For example, the German constituion explicitly contains the phrase Eigentum verpflichtet, making it explicit that having ownership of a thing does not grant you absolutely free reign what to do with it.

@ACuriousMind And that violates the nonaggression principle.

14 mins ago, by 0celo7

@HDE226868 There is nothing relative about that. Initiation of force is unethical unless you are stopping the initiation of force.

@0celo7 What is the "non-aggression principle", exactly?

@HDE226868 That is the starting point. You apply logic to reduce moral questions to that.

1:10 AM

@0celo7 Right, but I'm saying that that starting point is not logically deduced. It's a moral assumption you make.

@ACuriousMind Do not initiate force unless you are reacting to the initiation of force.

To help: "In general a contour produces a substitution in a multivalued function and a composition of contours results in a composition of substitutions. Multivalued functions can be interpreted as univalued on a certain covering space of the manifold. Substitutions act as deck transformations. In fact the ‘group of substitutions’ is a holomorphic image of the fundamental group". staff.science.uu.nl/~siers101/ArticleDownloads/…

@HDE226868 I'm sure you could reduce that to more basic principles (not sure), but I do agree that there has to be a starting point.

@0celo7 1. There is a string of moral dilemmas designed to show that every such blanket statement is very difficult to adhere to. Not sure if we want to play that, because: 2. this statement makes it impossible to have laws about anything else than people applying force to other people, but since that's immoral in the first place, why have laws at all?

@ACuriousMind Laws are for the most part immoral, yes.

The law is an opinion with a gun. Nothing special about that at all.

There are some laws like contract laws that are moral.

1:15 AM

So...you think anarchy is the only moral form of society?

@ACuriousMind I tend to lean that way, yes.

@0celo7 What's a "contract law" for you?

@ACuriousMind I don't have a quick/good answer for you off the top of my head.

@0celo7 I don't think I'll follow through on a more thorough debate about an appropriate starting point, lest I start quoting Descartes.

@0celo7 I think you're right, although laws aren't intended to be moral.

@HDE226868 Well, there's a difference between amoral and immoral, and I'd say laws are mostly amoral

1:18 AM

@HDE226868 No...but since morals are the only absolute, to make laws is to draw arbitrary categories.

So you're basing them off of "majority" or whatever.

@0celo7 But why are morals absolute, and why specifically your non-aggression principle?

@ACuriousMind I didn't mean to say that they're intended to be immoral; I was going for something more like amoral. That is, some laws (not any I can quote off the top of my head) probably weren't designed with some moral code in mind.

@ACuriousMind There exists a justification. I'm sorry I don't know it.

Non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom) is a moral principle that prohibits the initiation of force by one person against another. It is considered by many to be the defining principle of libertarianism. The principle asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate. According to some libertarians the NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is...

@0celo7 You don't know the justification for your own morality, and yet you think it appropriate to state it as fact in a discussion?

1:22 AM

Specifically, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Justifications

Not that any one of them is right or better than the others, of course.

@ACuriousMind Not off the top of my head.

But you certainly don't know every proof for mathematical theorems or physics equations when you use them.

@0celo7 According to Wikipedia, then, you're an anarcho-capitalist.

@HDE226868 I could have told you that.

NB: I think it's a horrible system.

Any AnCap society would get slaughtered by ISIS or whoever.

@ACuriousMind @HDE226868 It seems the discussion has died; I'm off to eat dinner and do homework.

@0celo7 Bon appetit.

(Pardon my French)

@0celo7 Enjoy dinner!

1:32 AM

This discussion has motivated me to read some AnCap literature.

Dunno when I will.

Ain't got no time for...anything

user image

Some core AnCap tenants that I vaguely know of but cannot prove. I think I'll try to read the accompanying book...

@0celo7 @ACuriousMind this discussion about the morality of taxation is interesting. I'd be interested in discussing further if you guys are around.

@0celo7 Just to give some contrast: I'm with this up to and including 7. I disagree mildly with 8 depending on the definition of UPB, and strongly with everything that follows as I do not believe that moral theories can at all be said to be true in the sense of "empirical testing".

The moral implications of government are quite interesting.

It forces you to think carefully about what morality really means.

@DanielSank Yeah, I'm not sure I have a really good answer to that. It's much easier picking holes in other people's theories than designing a fool-proof one yourself.

@ACuriousMind The book contains the proofs. Those aren't axioms AFAIK.

1:40 AM

@ACuriousMind Those two go hand in hand.

@DanielSank Sure, seeing what doesn't work is a great process of elimination

@ACuriousMind It also inspires more useful definitions and ways of thinking.

I have a very Darwin-influenced idea of what morality means.

Simply because, like Darwin's theory, it works.

@0celo7 I understood that that is claimed, I am far from convinced it is true ;)

Nobody answered my question about quantum/classical harmonic oscillators :(

Anyone have good QM jokes? need one

Already did the one about heisenberg's wife

1:45 AM

@DanielSank I'm not sure that there is a reason of the kind you're looking for, but I, too, would be very much interested to see one!

Because it looks really like a conspiracy that the ubiquitious HO, of all possible systems, is the one that is "almost classical" even in the quantum world.

@ACuriousMind and even in the presence of dissipation!!!

There must be something about the relation between the matrix elements and the density of contours in the phase plane that makes the HO special.

*quantum matrix elements

@ACuriousMind I will enlighten you in X years

*classical phase plane

X being some (possibly unbounded) real number

@NeuroFuzzy huh

@0celo7 If you die before you can, you have permission to haunt me

1:48 AM

@ACuriousMind That's the nicest things anyone's ever said to me :D

@NeuroFuzzy You know, I have read so many jokes, but I always forget them.

@0celo7 all real numbers are bounded

:)

are they really

what does bound even mean

@0celo7 Well, I'll call the Ghostbusters if you start trolling me. Have you seen that film?

I have an incredible joke.

1:50 AM

wait, doesn't bounding them violate the nonaggression principle

@ACuriousMind Of course.

@0celo7 Not if the bondage is consensual 8)

@DanielSank Yes!

@NeuroFuzzy typing...

(It's not quantum, but it's good)

@ACuriousMind german bdsm club

A doctor was lecturing to his med school class about the skeleton. He came to the shoulder blade and noted that it articulates with the arm bone at a right angle. A student raised his hand and said "isn't that awfully orthonormal thinking?"

^ That is the best joke I've ever come up with in my entire life.

::crickets::

1:54 AM

sad life

@0celo7 Do you get the joke?

nope

Do you know what "ortho" means in the medical field?

As in, orthopedist.

maybe

~sigh~

It means "bones".

Are you aware that "ortho" means "right angle" in physics? As in "orthogonal"?

1:57 AM

i know that

i know these things

And you've heard "orthonormal"?

no

Orthonormal vectors?

No?

@DanielSank No, that's ostho or osso. "Orthopedia" literally means: "The right way of raising".

@ACuriousMind Right, but haven't we in practice butchered the root?

An orthopedist treats bones.

2:00 AM

@ACuriousMind I was thinking that

but I won't argue with a superior

@DanielSank Yeah, but that comes from taking "raising" literally and means that an orthopedist makes people assume the "right posture" by correcting misalignments in their bones

@ACuriousMind I'm surprised you didn't hit doubt when I said I'm an AnCap. I think I'm known for being totally anti-do whatever you want.

@ACuriousMind Ugh, fine.

Do you see the play on words though?

@Danu Says I should joint the military, etc.

@DanielSank Orthonormal must not mean $(e_i,e_j)=\delta_{ij}$

@0celo7 It does.

2:04 AM

@ACuriousMind My whole GDP thing is just the manifestation of my deep belief that smart people are better suited helping others. I'm not anti-science by any means.

@DanielSank Yes, I do :) I'm just too much of a pedant when it comes to etymology to let slide what you said thereafter :P

@DanielSank Then your joke is totally unfunny to me, I'm afraid.

@0celo7 I was actually not very surprised by that.

@ACuriousMind Really? Most AnCaps are thought of as crazy free-love NEET, etc. types...

In particular, AnCap does not mean that one has to "accept" everyone.

Quite the opposite, actually.

I have the freedom to judge and hate anyone I want, but I have to live with the consequences.

The other day, in Math meta, I read a post about the user "Twink." Anon said a username shouldn't be forbidden, because it's not like drawing a picture of a black person in a noose.

Such a picture should of course be allowed. The artist should then accept when no one wants to associate with him.

@0celo7 That's an entirely different discussion and requires an examination of the difference of the meaning of "forbidding" something in private, public, and lawful contexts.

2:11 AM

@ACuriousMind I know it's different, just mentioning it...

Gotta MATLAB now

@0celo7 I very well realize that AnCap beliefs are a general socio-policital position that do not prohibit you from conforming voluntarily to a certain standard of behaviour. I think the allusions of you seeming military are about the standard of behaviour you seem to prefer, not some statement about your political or moral position.

Man, I kinda miss philosophy class.

@ACuriousMind I've tried to stay apolitical. Am I bad at that or are you simply not surprised?

@0celo7 Your staying apolitical was often making a brief statement and then saying "Let's not get into this". That's not the same as giving no indication about your political position ;)

@ACuriousMind So the former.

If you tried to not give away anything about your position, then yes.

Or I'm good at getting hints :P

2:20 AM

I'm bad at calculator syntax

dunno how to put in a bound for this numerical solver

:(

off to the Yahoo

bound: 0<L<10

answer = -4.2

sigh

Alfred Centauri

3:22 AM

@0celo7 For a sound philosophical foundation, start with Michael Huemer.

user54412

3:35 AM

@DanielSank I chuckled.

@ChrisWhite I still don't get it.

user54412

Is it a crime to kill a joke in cold blood? Because explaining one does just that.

Fine

user54412

@0celo7 You wanting to know everything is a good thing. I really mean that. But your next lesson in life wisdom is this: often the time spent fretting over one thing that doesn't make sense could better be spent learning three things that do. Or partying hard until you pass out. Whatever floats your boat really.

I moved on.

That's what "fine" means

3:55 AM

What's the --- for

user54412

TIL Mexicans, Cuban, and Puerto Ricans are officially Hispanic; Brazilians are not.

What are they?

There are black Brazilians...

user54412

same as all other non-hispanics -- you can divide them officially into races

user54412

according to the US government, Hispanic is orthogonal to race

how good are you with immersions/the implicit/inverse function theorem

I've seen this proof in two books now and they have the same error

so either it's a common error or I'm missing something

user54412

3:59 AM

Somehow we've concocted a meta-race that differentiates countries that were colonized before Spain and Portugal as we know them solidified into their distinct modern nation states (and even then they speak essentially the same language).

« first day (1835 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3095 days later) »

Transcript for

Nov '1513

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile