« first day (2163 days earlier)      last day (2770 days later) » 

3:00 PM
Like you know all the archives that have papers for free?
Is there any for that paper?
Harvard ain't got it
 
user116211
@SirCumference You have to pay for everything.
 
user116211
@SirCumference You can use Sci-Hub and get a copy using the doi for free; but I don't think Sci-Hub is legal in US.
 
@MAFIA36790 Then forget that
Sigh...I just need a quote from that paper
 
user116211
@SirCumference Check that if your university allows access to Sci-Hub.
 
user116211
If it is, then download it; take the quote and then delete the pdf from your system.
 
user116211
3:06 PM
Cornell initially had no problem with Sci-Hub; but later banned it.
 
Forget it. I'll just make the $32 and pay for it
Easier done than said tho
 
user116211
@SirCumference Good.
 
Darn you Lemaître. You could've posted to any other journal.
Preferably one that's cheaper
 
user116211
@SirCumference Damn Nature; it's monster.
 
user116211
We need Trump to save us.
 
3:08 PM
@SirCumference $32 is what, one good BJ?
@SirCumference You're going to Harvard?
 
user116211
Finally revealed.
 
I doubt it because he would totally have access through Harvard.
I can access it.
 
user116211
@0celo7 How?
 
wait what
it's like one paragraph
 
@0celo7 I never said that
Harvard has an archive that is (usually) publically accesible
 
3:12 PM
I have the full paper
 
@0celo7 You lie
That's such a tease
 
can you give a full reference?
I've found two articles by that name
 
@SirCumference I'm at an R1 institution, I have access to virtually every journal.
 
@0celo7 Sigh...could you just give me a good quote?
Regarding the Big Bang (or whatever he called it)
 
3:13 PM
@SirCumference can you not access this?
be ready
 
@0celo7 Not as far as I know
 
user116211
@SirCumference What do you mean by good quote? Just any random quote?
 
Got it?
 
user116211
:32757197 hey?
 
@0celo7 No!
I did not!
 
3:14 PM
Ah, well, I told you to be ready
I posted the full srticle
 
user116211
No one is Flash here.
 
Dogdangit
all right, forget it
I'll just get a different source
 
what?
did you not get it?
The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory.

G. LEMAÎTRE

Top of pageAbstract
SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON1 states that, philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to him. I would rather be inclined to think that the present state of quantum theory suggests a beginning of the world very different from the present order of Nature. Thermodynamical principles from the point of view of quantum theory may be stated as follows : (1) Energy of constant total amount is distributed in discrete quanta. (2) The number of distinct quanta is e
@SirCumference last chance
 
::sigh:: "I don't know anything at all about this subject so please be nice while you take my theory seriously and explain if there are any flaws here..."
:pounds head on desk::
 
user116211
@dmckee You have done it for quite a many time lately; check your head :(
 
vzn
3:19 PM
@ValterMoretti "sorry"? about what? will try to be around when you are but we can still set it all up without chatting at same time, do you have any interest?
 
@0celo7 That is exactly what's said here
That's the abstract
 
No, that's the full paper.
 
@0celo7 It clearly says "abstract"
 
user116211
@SirC Dude, use Sci-Hub if you think that's not the complete thing; get the required quote; delete it; no one is watching you... or go to Mexico for one day.
 
There's no mathematics
No details
 
3:21 PM
Oh screw off.
It's the full paper
Take it or leave it
 
GRAAAAAHH
 
I have the PDF of the journal right here
 
user116211
15 secs ago, by 0celo7
It's the full paper
 
There is nothing more to the article.
 
Well, I guess I'll take your word for it
 
3:21 PM
That is the full article.
 
Thanks then. I would've wasted $32 if ya hadn't told me.
 
Dude, the first paragraph is the abstract.
The last 3 are the article.
It's not even an article, it's a letter to the editor.
 
user116211
@SirCumference You owe 0celo.
 
@MAFIA36790 I 0wecelo
 
stop
 
user116211
3:28 PM
@vzn, when did you nominate Valter? Did he agree to be the guest? That would be great.
 
user116211
But the greatest would be when Lumo becomes our guest.
 
user116211
I wonder what would happen if he becomes the guest.
 
good things
 
Hi, everybody.
 
user116211
@DanielSank o/
 
3:38 PM
@MAFIA36790 \o
 
vzn
@MAFIA36790 you nominated him :P ... re Lumo, invited him into chat long ago, he hasnt responded. encourage you to email him. dont know what would happen either but think he could be a very high profile guest and the session would likely be lively =D
 
user116211
@vzn I have not nominated him; how do I ever do that? It is decided by the community; when it is done, there must be a strong consent from the to-be guest.
 
user116211
I just wished Valter to be a guest. That would be great. If you meant this by nominated, then yes, I nominated him.
 
vzn
@MAFIA36790 "nominate" was maybe just a tiny )( overstatement but factually correct. you requested him in chat. thats how it works (right now) ... iirc invited him in here after you named him. via (unheralded) chat feature anyone can invite others in here... (probably rarely happens tho). as for "decided by community" that is an overstatement, there is no restriction on guests right now.
 
user218912
Hello
 
vzn
3:50 PM
the so-called "community" is actually quite silent outside of chat on who to invite :| meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/…
 
[Division by zero] The first thing that will happen in division by zero, is that $0\cdot 0\neq 0$. If we follow the usual pattern of defining elements with unique multiplicative inverses, then zero terms such as $0x$, $0^n$, are no longer additive identities. i.e. they will not vanish
Since 1 is often defined to be the successor of 0, the emergence of these zero terms requires extra care in how they interact with the rest of the algebraic structure
 
user116211
@Secret You can't do in a ring with unity.
 
Indeed, the additive identity axiom of 0 has to be broken
else $0\cdot 0$ can be proved to $0$
 
user116211
$0_R\circ 0_R = 0_R$ in a null/trivial ring.
 
@vzn It is very difficult to participate, I am being impossibly busy
 
3:56 PM
Preliminary investigations on their cayley tables and running through a bunch of permutations suggest that some algebraic structure that allow division by zero, addition can also end up become non associative
 
user116211
I'm still into Werner's Modern Algebra.
 
vzn
@ValterMoretti ok, only takes 1 hr & we dont ask for a lot of pre-preparation, it can be very informal if you like... we are aware you already spend significant time on the site... think of this as similar/ aligned/ complementary... part of site outreach/ publicity etc
 
user116211
@Secret $(R, +)$ in the ring $(R,+, \circ)$ is a semi-group which, by definition, is associative.
 
Lets say you were talking to a person who knew what a Fourier transform was, and you wanted to motivate the fact you can derive the quadratic formula by taking a discrete fourier transform of the roots of your quadratic, how would you motivate even taking that DFT? It works, but it's not like you're expanding a wave function in exponential waves, what are you doing
 
what the hell are you talking about
 
4:03 PM
Something you'll learn about in the middle of a linear algebra book
 
@MAFIA36790 Preliminarily, I found the resulting structure, is only associative in $\circ$ but not always in $+$. Thus whatever this $(S,+,\circ)$ I have derived, is not a ring, but something more general. In particular, it is definitely not a ring because additive identity axiom is broken
 
user116211
@Secret Is $(S, +)$ in your case an abelian group?
 
user116211
If not, then it's not ring.
 
I have not run through all 9 entries yet in the + associative cayley table, thus I am not very sure. However I do set the entries to be commutative under +. It is not a group because of the lack of any additive identities and additive inverses for some elements
 
user116211
@Secret ohh. It's not a ring then.
 
4:07 PM
I kinda expected that, cause compared to any other elements, the fact that 0 is often both an identity and an absorber tends to ruin most of its chances to have a multiplicative inverse under nontrivial conditions. Therefore the moment divison by zero is defined, a lot of things related to additive identities have to be broken
Division by zero structures are expected to be some kind of ringoids in general since they are expected to break additive identities somewhat in order to prevent 0 from absorbing itself
 
user116211
0
Q: Relative angle between two relativistic particles and collinearity

ric_nI am studying collinear emission of photons (or gluons) from charged fermions. I know that if the "father" particle is massive, there cannot be a collinear singularity, and I guessed this could be related also to the kinematical configuration of the process. Anyway, I got stuck on an issue comin...

 
user116211
How to add homework-&-exercises above? It has already used five tags.
 
5:02 PM
@MAFIA36790 replace one of them with the homework tag
 
user116211
removed special-relativity.
 
I would have gone for because it has nothing to do with Feynman diagrams
 
user116211
@DavidZ okay.
 
0
Q: Should people stand behind their posts?

Marty GreenI just had a very dirty trick played on me by another correspondent. I was having a discussion about the Stern Gerlach experiment where I claimed that you cannot split a ray into two dots. First people said I was a crackpot (and that was OK with me). But then when I started to gain traction and s...

 
user116211
What is niveaus?
 
user116211
5:11 PM
I found a word in your post which I couldn't make any sense: niveaus. Is it an English word? I googled a bit and found it to be of Dutch origin. Maybe I don't know; sorry for the inconvenience. — MAFIA36790 1 min ago
 
I think I'm stupid
 
@0celo7
Skype
Later today
I have questions on manifolds and toroids
 
user116211
 
what the hell do you need that for
I guarantee none of your classes need manifolds
@BernardMeurer
 
5:35 PM
I just completed a 3 page calculation
::pen falls to ground, smoking::
Well that was nice and all, but I fucked up a sign :(
 
user116211
Most bothering thing T__T
 
ugh time to recalculate
@MAFIA36790 Problem is, these two books have competing signs
I don't know which has the error, or if there are subtle differences in the definitions which makes everything consistent
 
user116211
@CountTo10, I don't want kudos for effort, that's kiddie stuff. Please only upvote if you agree. If you don't, then provide appropriate feedback. — SuchDoge 11 mins ago
 
user116211
Bit rough; but correct.
 
user116211
5:50 PM
I do agree, I sincerely apologise if it came across badly, it was just the OP's reaction to your work. Sorry. — CountTo10 3 mins ago
 
user116211
Count is over-apologetic always ;P
 
user116211
@CountTo10, I see. Sorry I misinterpreted it as trolling. I removed my comment. Can you remove yours too so there's no confusion? — SuchDoge 38 secs ago
 
user116211
Happy ending ;)
 
@ACuriousMind If you're around I have a conjecture I'd like to discuss.
No geodesic balls
 
6:18 PM
Can someone please help me understand Natural Vibrations
I mean one example of Natural Vibrations Please :
 
user116211
@Abcd What?
 
user116211
There is a wikipedia article on it.
 
@MAFIA36790
I have understood it
some other doubt
I am just typing it
'
 
user116211
well, go on...
 
When an air column in a flute is made to vibrate it vibrates with its natural frequence which is inversely proportional to the length of the air column =. In a flute the notes of different frequencies are produced by changing the effective length of air column when different holes in it are closed . In an organ pipe open at both ends , different modes of vibrations are of frequencies 1:2:3
.....while in an organ pipe with both ends closed
sorry one end closed.....the frequencies of different modes are in ratio : 1:3:5
@MAFIA36790 I am unable to understand this :(
?
@BernardMeurer may u explain this to me >
?
@dmckee may u?
 
6:28 PM
sure just ask everyone, that's not annoying at all
 
#Sarcasm
 
@Abcd Why me?
 
Maybe u know the answer bro
thats why
 
@Abcd I'm not your bro
 
alright ... I meant brother
 
6:31 PM
@BernardMeurer ask your manifold question before I begin this computation.
 
@0celo7 Do you know what a Karnaugh Map is?
 
@BernardMeurer sorry if it offended you
 
@Abcd Don't worry about it. Also, don't go around pinging everyone, that is really not nice. You've asked your question, if someone knows and wants to answer it then they will.
 
@BernardMeurer no, why do you need to know?
 
okay :)
 
6:33 PM
@0celo7 I think it will form a toroidal shape if you visualize it in 3D
 
> The Karnaugh map, also known as the K-map, is a method to simplify boolean algebra expressions.
Yeah I don't know about such things
Can you define it?
 
I wanted to know if I could treat the map in 3D as a manifold and then do the simplifications geometrically
@0celo7 Not really, it's a funky concept
 
@MAFIA36790 what is that
 
bye everyone
 
user116211
@Obliv Don't know; found it in one's post; liked the pic; shared it.
 
6:38 PM
@abcd what don't you understand
 
@BernardMeurer that doesn't really make sense
a manifold is not a map
 
No, no I'm not saying it is
 
@Obliv That ratio thing
1:2:3 or 1:3:5
 
I'm saying Karnaugh's map when forms a toroid-like shape
 
@abcd Do you understand why it's inversely proportional to its length
 
6:39 PM
But a toroid is a manifold
 
the flute
 
Correct?
 
NO
 
Suppose instead of a flute you have a string of length D. If you created waves in the string of wavelength L where L = D you agree there will be two nodes at either end of the string?
 
whats a node ?
 
6:41 PM
It's a point in a standing wave where the element of the medium occupying it doesn't get displaced at all
the red points are nodes
 
sorry @Obliv This goes from above my head
I am a tenth grader
 
@abcd do you know what jump rope is
 
nope
u mean skipping rope
 
yes.
Suppose you were skipping rope with two friends. They hold the rope one each end and swing it up and down right?
the nodes are at the points where they're holding it
 
okay
 
6:44 PM
A standing wave is a wave where every point in the rope has a constant amplitude
or a maximum height that it can move.
 
okay
 
observe each point in that black wave
it only goes up and down a certain distance right?
 
yes
right
 
let me rephrase
 
user218912
@Abcd that is not even an excuse here.
 
6:48 PM
what
 
@abcd en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave#/media/… okay so pretend each wave has its own graph
don't overlap them like they are in this image.
 
okay
 
the red one is the standing wave. If you graph it and let it evolve with time
it will always look like that where each point has a fixed amplitude
 
yup
 
The other ones will move across the graph as time passes
 
6:49 PM
I am unable to visualize the graph
 
so say x is a point on the graph at time t. The amplitude of the wave at this point will be different for time t2
@abcd well just look at the image I linked you. there are already labeled x-y coordinates
and on the bottom right it shows time t
 
They are unlabelled
 
The amplitude of red one is decreasing right ?
 
@Abcd DO you not understand what the statement is saying, or do you comprehend the statement but fial to get why it should be so?
 
user218912
6:51 PM
@slereah are you there?
 
@dmckee I am unable to comprehend what the ratio thing means
1:2:3 and 1:3:5 ??
WHat does this mean
Its okay if I dont know the reason of why frequency is inversley proportional to length column'
I will accept it as a fact
But what does the statement mean ?
 
no its not
if you don't understand that then you won't understand why $f = \frac{nv}{2L}$
 
"$f = \frac{n\lambda}{2L}$"
 
Sounds can be composed of more than one frequency at a time. That is why different instruments playing the same note sound differently: because in addition to the fundamental (the note) their sound contains different mixtures of higher notes.
 
u mean f = new lambda
sorry
V = f lambda
 
6:55 PM
In organ pipes the higher notes that occur have a simple ratio of frequency to the fundamental, but what ration depends on how many of the ends are open.
 
@dmckee Cant undrstand
 
IN a open-open pipe the first harmonic has twive the frequency and the second harmonic has three times the frequency.
 
whats harmonic :(
 
In a open-closed pipe the fisrt harmonic has three times the frequency and the second has five time the frequency.
The higher notes are called 'harmonics' and they are numbered starting from the lowest frequency.
 
@abcd a harmonic is the frequency in which a standing wave forms
 
6:57 PM
U mean the frequency of a simple wave is harmonic
Lets say its a simple wave
with constant amplitude
 
The point, however, is that in pipes you don't generally get simple waves (meaning only one frequency). You usually get harmonics (meaning a mixture of frequencies).
The sentence that is bothering you tells you about the frequencies of the loudest 'extra' frequencies.
 
@dmckee I think the fundamental issue is that abcd doesn't understand how standing waves are formed. You have to understand this before you try to understand why the harmonic frequencies change for open/closed air columns.
 
@ACuriousMind Ok, major crisis. I've discovered why we define the principal bundle action to be a right action.
$M$ - smooth manifold, $G$ - Lie group, $\ell:G\times M\to M$ - smooth left action. We write $\ell_x:=\ell(\cdot,x):G\to M, g\mapsto gx$.

Let $X\in\mathfrak g=\Lie(G)$. Then the \emph{fundamental vector field} associated to $X$ is defined by $\bar X_x=\dd \ell_x(X)$. We write $\sigma:\mathfrak g\to\mathfrak{X}(M)$ for the map $X\mapsto \bar X$.

*Proposition.*
For $X,Y\in\mathfrak g$, we have $[\bar X,\bar Y]=-\overline{[X,Y]}.$ In other words, $\sigma$ is a Lie algebra antihomomorphism.

*Proof.*
shit
too many macros
@ACuriousMind Basically, the map $\mathfrak g\to$ fundamental vector fields is not a homomorphism unless the action is on the right.
 
user116211
7:14 PM
@0celo7 looking Beautiful though.
 
i wont be able 2 understand therofore now i would hav 2 memorize the thing
 
I should check the right case using this method to make sure it's consistent
 
@Obliv can u help me solve a question
 
omg
 
bye everyone thanks for the help
 
7:20 PM
bye!
@ACuriousMind I think my computation is correct :/
have you heard of this before?
 
user218912
I'm being dumb as usual.
 
@iceL you have no idea what dumb is
 
user218912
if I have a square of an integral do I have to compute the integral before I square it? or is there a formula for squares of integrals in general.
 
@Obliv he knows Sir Cumference
 
Last night when I was done with the 3 exams and running low on sleep, I was doing a number theory proof and I rearranged it thinking I'd solved it just to find that I just restated the problem
 
user218912
7:30 PM
and fyi it's a 6 dimensional integral being squared.
 
user218912
@Obliv lol
 
@iceL intuitively I think it doesn't matter but I have no proof
 
user218912
no it does matter.
 
oh yeah it would change the function if you squared it first right
 
user218912
yes
 
7:32 PM
hmmmmmmm
 
This is a wonderful proof
 
i'd do the integral first
 
But when I do it for left actions I get a negative
NOT GOOD
 
user218912
@0celo7 so does that mean your proof is wrong?
 
well I don't know
 
user218912
7:33 PM
@Obliv idk how to do the integral tbh
 
user218912
i think it's a delta function
 
I'm in agreement with Kolar et al. and they're pretty much gods
but I disagree with Wolf, Bishop & Crittenden and Wikipedia.
 
@0celo7 what is $M \times G$ called
product of a group & manifold o.O?
 
yes
 
a manigroup
 
user218912
7:35 PM
@Bass you're doing QFT right?
 
user218912
can you help me out please?
 
@Obliv A Lie group is a manifold
 
@0celo7 can you give an example
 
user218912
what's an easy way to calculate $$\big[\int d^3x\, \phi e^{x^2/a^2}\big]^2$$?
 
$(\Bbb R,+)$
 
7:37 PM
wasn't one of those matrix groups that I defined in one of those exercises from D&F a lie group? that's what you said I think
 
user116211
It's an additive group?
 
oh..
 
user116211
@IceLord \left \right
 
user218912
@MAFIA36790 what?
 
user116211
@IceLord use \left [ \right] to get $$\left[\int d^3x\, \phi e^{x^2/a^2}\right]^2\,.$$
 
user218912
7:39 PM
okay
 
user218912
or I could use \bigg
 
user218912
::shrug::
 
user116211
@IceLord I don't like it.
 
user218912
hater.
 
user116211
Anyways, back to Lanczos.
 
7:40 PM
ok let's use Kobayashi-Nomizu's method to compute it.
 
user218912
$$\left[\int d^3x\, \phi(x, 0)\, e^{x^2/a^2}\right]^2\,.$$
 
user218912
help :(
 
trivial btw
but I've decided to let you struggle on this one
 
user218912
isn't it obvious
 
user218912
I'm bad at trivial things
 
user218912
7:41 PM
fine can you at least give me hints?
 
maybe it's not trivial...hmmm
 
user218912
do I plug in $\phi$ first?
 
do you have another squared term?
@IceLord you have $\phi$?
 
user218912
isn't $\phi$ a well known thing?
 
user218912
he derived $\phi(x, 0)$ in the lecture.
 
7:44 PM
then plug it in and do the integral
you might have to complete the square
and use Cauchy's theorem
 
user218912
why do I need complex analysis
 
I don't know
I said "might"
I could by lying.
4
 
user218912
oh so are those real hints?
 
user218912
which you are lying about lying about them to trick me?
 
They could be hints. I'm just saying what I think you might need. Possibly.
I haven't done the problem so I can't know for sure.
 
user218912
7:47 PM
I'm not the one starring your comments btw.
 
it's a troll
 
user218912
why did 3 people star your lying comment.
 
They found it useful or interesting
maaaaannnn I don't want to do this boring lab today
<><
 
@Obliv what're you doing in the lab?
 
user218912
@Sanya oh you're here can you help me please?
 
user218912
7:59 PM
do you know how to do that integral?
 
which integral?
 
user116211
@Obliv Make some TNT.
 
user218912
let me write it out explicitly @Sanya
 
user116211
18 mins ago, by IceLord
$$\left[\int d^3x\, \phi(x, 0)\, e^{x^2/a^2}\right]^2\,.$$
 
observing standing waves in strings -_- @sanya
 
user116211
7:59 PM
@Obliv bleh...
 
user218912
no let me replace $\phi$ in that.
 
@Obliv exciting
 

« first day (2163 days earlier)      last day (2770 days later) »