« first day (1729 days earlier)      last day (3203 days later) » 

11:00 PM
You don't even have a position operator in QFT
 
@Slereah QFT is wrong QED
 
LQG has a discrete distance operator, tho
 
@Slereah There is the Newton-Wigner operator, which is the proper generalization of the position operator, but yeah, it's not really the position operator.
 
@ACuriousMind even loop gravity?
 
@0celo7 That's not a well-accepted quantum theory.
 
11:01 PM
damn fine print
 
But yeah it has a discrete operator
 
is String theory well-accepted?
 
Can I make it spin so fast that it tears itself apart?
 
in your curious mind
@Richard @Richard No.
Please see the above image. It is the mathematical proof that there is no way for them to split. At all. No possible way.
 
user54412
@Richard Whether black holes are elongated is a coordinate-dependent thing. It's not clear how to answer that question objectively.
 
11:02 PM
@0celo7 No, that's not a "well-accepted quantum theory", either. "well-accepted quantum theory" means QFT, period.
 
Standard model, even
 
@ACuriousMind your face is not a well-accepted quantum theory...
 
@ACuriousMind : the void in the fabric of space and time is the thing. The coordinate speed of light is zero. There is no way to define space or time.
 
Have all the quantum gravities
I keep them around just in case
 
user54412
@Richard There is an upper bound on spin before classical black holes become naked singularities. As it turns out, though, anything you try to do to reach that limit just doesn't work. If an object has so much angular momentum that consuming it would push a black hole beyond this limit, the object also has too much angular momentum to fall in in the first place.
 
11:04 PM
@ChrisWhite I'm hand waving here...maybe because the other black hole, should it form, cannot escape the horizon of the other and is doomed to hit the singularity again?
 
OK. We seem to be getting back into some abuse and name-calling
 
There's a fun bit in Visser that points out that if we treat particles naively with GR
 
@Richard huh?
 
Then neutrinos would be naked singularities
Because their spin is vastly superior to their mass
 
@0celo7 - It's like flag-a-palooza 2015 in here
 
11:06 PM
@Richard No idea what that means TBH
 
@0celo7 You have been placed on cooldown for $\infty$ days for the following message: "Your face is a quantum field theory". Please use more polite language in the future.
It's very hurtful :^(
 
Did @Richard not see that as a joke perhaps?
 
@JohnDuffield What does "void in the fabric of space and time" even mean? Write down the metric for this thing and we have something to talk about
@0celo7 You did say something else that was flagged.
 
@ACuriousMind ACM the GR warrior
 
@0celo7 - Indeed.
 
11:09 PM
@Richard I feel you have a right to know that.
Like I said, you can interpret that any way you wish.
 
@0celo7 Unlike you, I do not denounce theories I don't like as heresy ;)
 
@ACuriousMind All nuclear processes are quantum :(
 
The liquid drop model doesn't use QM
but it's a bit of a rough model
 
@Richard OH flaga-palooza. I was trying to figure out what flaga is.
 
@0celo7 where's that image Kyle likes to post...
 
11:12 PM
grr
 
Heh, just searching "Picard" in this room gives plenty of images to choose from.
 
@ACuriousMind : there is no metric. Light doesn't move. You can't measure anything. There's no coordinate system either. See the "frozen star" interpretation in Kevin Brown's Formation and Growth of Black Holes.
 
There is no metric?
 
there is only Zuul
 
But Einstein came up with the whole metric thing, didn't he?
 
11:13 PM
The metric is a lie, apparently.
 
Hm
Another entire page without a single equation
 
@JohnDuffield Can you please cite Einstein for your "there is no metric" comment?
Because I have his book...there's plenty of metrics in it.
 
Richard has frozen this room.
 
Please stop being rude to each other. It's a substantial breach of the sites "Be Nice" policy.
This room was placed in timeout for 1 second; the topic of this room is "General chat for Physics Stack Exchange (physics.stackexchange.com). For MathJax use meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/3297#3297"; - conversation should be limited to that topic.
 
Loong has unfrozen this room.
 
obe
11:17 PM
huh?
 
Oh, that worked
 
We're bad people apparently.
 
@ACuriousMind : the metric is not something that's out there. It isn't space. It's an abstract thing, derived from your measurements of time and space, typically made using the motion of light. When light doesn't move, you can't measure time or space, and you have no metric.
 
@Loong - Cheers
 
On another note
Thanks UTK
 
11:18 PM
@Richard ;-)
 
"You've earned the "Outspoken" badge (Post 10 messages in chat starred by 10 different users)."
Oh boy
Gee golly jeepers
 
@JohnDuffield No, the metric describes the geometry of spacetime. The entire content of General Relativity is that the presence of matter and energy (in the form of the stress-energy tensor) determines the metric, and that the metric determines motion by geodesics. That's exactly what the Einstein equations tell us.
 
I suspect that Duffield's problem stems from Schwarzschild coordinates
Maybe someone should tell him about Eddington coordinates
or Kruskal or whatever
 
@0celo7 - No, you're not. If people can't be civil, they can at least be silent
 
@Slereah I guess you've made enough silly jokes ;)
 
@Slereah lol, blocked.
 
It is circus music
I guess you are in a land where circus music intellectual property is important
 
Yes, it would seem that way.
 
That music is from 1897, a bit late for blocking!
Although I suppose that the recording of that one is more recent
 
Well, the blocking message says that it "could" contain music that is protected. So they're not sure, apparently.
 
11:27 PM
@ACuriousMind : spacetime is an abstract thing too. Light moves through space, not through spacetime. The entire content of GR is not what you've been taught. Remember the gravastar. Now think of your metric as something coloured blue. Now look at this picture. And this one.
 
@JohnDuffield Physics does not deal in pictures. Neither does it deal in words. It deals in quantitative predictions and descriptions. And such description proceeds through abstraction. These pictures tell me nothing.
 
Just ignore him.
 
@Slereah : re Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, read the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article: They are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington[1] and David Finkelstein,[2] even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. Roger Penrose[3] seems to have been the first to write down the null form... Most influentially, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, in their book Gravitation, refer to the null coordinates by that name.
 
...does anyone else see @Loong 's picture blink randomly? It irritates me.
We can't have .gifs as pictures...can we?
 
it does, yes
 
11:35 PM
@ACuriousMind ?
 
Seems to be a regular picture
 
@ACuriousMind : This tells you everything you need to know. Provided you also know that light can't go slower than stopped.
 
@ACuriousMind - I think you might be having a seizure
 
@Loong It...just becomes a bit brighter for a moment, then fades again
 
I think that's just that when a user is inactive, his avatar goes in muted color
Which is very visible with Loong
 
11:37 PM
No, it occurs twice or more even when they've done nothing to become active again
Noone else's picture does this
 
Yeah I see it too
 
what is now the new convention for the terminology regarding mass/energy?
 
What do you mean
 
@Slereah Okay, so you and me are both having the same seizure.
 
old use was rest mass $m_0$ and the mass = $\gamma m_0$
but I know that this convention has changed
 
11:40 PM
The mass in modern terms is the Casimir invariant generated by translation invariance
 
Oh, that...I'd say you call "the mass" the invariant mass $m^2$ in $p^2 = -m^2$, at least that's how it is in QFT
Sleerah said it slightly more abstract :)
 
That's why you can get like
Massless fields acquiring a mass
 
@ACuriousMind then what is the variant mass called?
 
It is not called.
 
the old $ \gamma m_0$
 
11:41 PM
Relativistic mass isn't really used anymore
 
@gonenc Sometimes "relativistic mass", but you shouldn't really use that anymore
It's not a Lorentz invariant, and everything can be phrased in terms of invariants, and should be.
 
Relativistic mass is useful as a concept for bridging classical and relativistic mechanics
But within relativistic mechanics proper, it's not really meaningful
 
@ACuriousMind I see the point now why people don't like it
they should teach the new convention in high schools too
 
@gonenc School physics in relativity and quantum mechanics is laughably outdated, if taught at all.
 
@ACuriousMind I know people use $mv^2/2$ to solve particle in a box problem in QM
 
11:44 PM
But yes, it should be modernized.
 
anyhow gotta sleep see y'all
 
night
 
It isn't just school physics that's outdated. Invariant mass varies. See this. Drop an electron, and some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy thence dissipated. Hence the mass deficit.
 
night
Not a vampire, apparently. It's only 2am.
 
@ACuriousMind well it is 3am here :D
 
11:50 PM
Oh, Turkey is a different time zone? Didn't realize that, but makes sense.
 
Finland?
 
I have laundry that finishes at 3am :D
 
@ACuriousMind that happens to me too
 
Can you use the Nambu-Goto action for guitar strings
 
11:55 PM
@ACuriousMind blame Kaku
 
@Slereah Ah, now I understand why it's the fine-tuning problem!
 
lol
lol that smiley edit
we got trolled
 
@0celo7 ::blames Kaku::
What did he do, however?
 
that might be it
wth string theory says nothing about a multiverse AFAIK
 
@0celo7 was just about to say that
He's misrepresenting the "string landscape" idea, I think.
 

« first day (1729 days earlier)      last day (3203 days later) »