Even Feynman thought he was a douche

I didnt know that

lettersofnote.com/2010/06/…

lmao

beautiful

The sign of a douche!

sheeple much

"You don’t understand "ordinary people." To you they are "stupid fools" - so you will not tolerate them or treat their foibles with tolerance or patience"

Sounds pretty douchey to me

he's clearly ridiculing Wolfram in the letter

Or he's trying to be diplomatic about him being a douche

maybe a bit of both

@Blue Feynman never liked elitism and people who thought they were better than others, he had a similar problem with Gell-Mann. Although he doesn't say it explicitly in this letter, it's very likely he doesn't consider such "lack of social skills" a neutral character trait.

@Blue thats just an assumption on your part

I think the issue with that GR thing is that the curve probably has to go through every null hypersurface, I think?

I think that's probably part of the proof

I think there is a thin line between lack of social skills and introvertness that people tend to forget

The line with Wolfram isn't lack of social skills

It's more being a jerk

i can't come up with an official term for that so i'll just call it lack of social skills :P

@BalarkaSen Note that "lack of social skills" here is what Blue chose to call the attitude that ordinary people are stupid fools, so I don't think there's a confusion with introversion here :P

Fair enough, but Blue's comment about "high-achieving people" was indicator of the fact that he has some kind of confusion about this issue

Maybe all high-achieving people are pricks

that doesn't make it okay

he was

Also there is a thin line between what you think and how you act. We have all thought that everyone is a sheeple once in a while (that's why the eternal xkcd exists to bring us to our senses! :P), but the rationale is to minimize the act of showing it even if we think it

That's basically what a social skill is

@BalarkaSen and alcohol dissolves that line

I am convinced that this, musically however bizarre, is a lyrical masterpiece.

@Slereah looking at your picture

According to the GR people, every curve of bounded acceleration has $I^\pm(\gamma) = M$

While every curve of constant acceleration doesn't

which GR people

The case of curves of unbounded but variable acceleration isn't discussed

constant = bounded

It's commonly discussed for boundary construction

Oh, bounded velocity, I guess

Lemme check

"As an example we can take Minkowski spacetime. In this case it is known that TIP’s and TIF’s are respectively the chronological past and future of timelike curves with constant acceleration plus the whole manifold itself (there are no other terminal indecomposable sets in Minkowski spacetime), and these have endpoints at $\mathscr I$ in the conformal boundary."

Hm

I guess I don't know what class of curve has $I^\pm = M$

where is this

128.84.21.199/pdf/gr-qc/0501069.pdf

p. 54

I'm pretty sure that curves of bounded velocity go to $i^+$

Not sure for all the rest

I think maybe it's supposed to be like

if the curve intersects every null hypersurface then it will be $I^\pm = M$?

Something like that

Yeah I think that sounds reasonable, but then I need to show the link with acceleration and whatnot

@Slereah wtf

why are you giving me an IP

Chrome says there's malware

It's the paper Causal structures and causal boundaries

@Slereah it does seem very believable

Yes, but

Proof?

I guess I should check Heroch's original paper on boundary construction

I guess I should check Geroch's original paper on boundary construction

maybe

I'm not well-versed in this stuff

Geroch indeed has the proof for it

Or at least a sketch of it

Oh Geroch

Is there anything you can't do

@BalarkaSen are you a fan? think the book is an underappreciated/ underrated masterpiece myself... there was/ is a lot of controversy o_O

I haven't read it, but I am not surprised that you think it's a masterpiece :)

@BalarkaSen why are you citing it? irony? (which you esp seem to admire...)

Sure, but you can also interpret it as a tribute to the man's contributions.

Irony is in the eye of the beholder

I've read the whole book. It's an interesting idea, but currently utterly devoid of any observational evidence to back it up.

That makes it just another of the interesting ideas out there.

@JohnRennie you seem to be referring to one of his hypotheses of which he has a few. not sure which one in particular youre referring to. do think there is (circumstantial) evidence for some.

The idea that the laws of physics are emergent properties derived from some form of cellular automaton.

@JohnRennie 't hooft has pushed this significantly farther but his work is underappreciated/ underrated also.

Because it is currently in no danger of making contact with reality.

would like to convince you otherwise based on scientific analysis but dont think/ doubt youre open to that.

I'm not saying that's bad or that he shouldn't be doing it, but there are a thousand speculative ideas that are in the same state.

Maybe one of them is right, but maybe none are right. Until they start making concrete predictions we don't know.

its a GUT/ TOE candidate. think its promising. so do a few others of high expertise. such prjs span decades and are not for the impatient/ shortsighted.

Shall we list all the GUT/TOE ideas that look like fun but aren't well enough developed to judge yet? How long have you got?

dont forget to include string theory. (and how many people/ high-prestige experts are working on that one?)

Let me repeat, I'm not saying they shouldn't be done.

@JohnRennie Oh wait

I have a list somewhere

Well, a list of QG theories

@Slereah Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo :-)

@vzn when did I claim to be a supporter of string theory?

@JohnRennie when did I claim you claim to be a supporter of string theory?

Pick your favorite

Nor am I a detractor - I don't know enough about it to judge.

anything other than pure GR is blasphemy

@JohnRennie ah, but on other hand you know enough to detract/ judge wolfram/ CA hypothesis.

what I think is that dark matter causes quantum mechanics

@vzn did you read what I said about Wolfram?

@JohnRennie yes :|

I see John Rennie has cooked up a good discussion to waste his time on

How does that make me a detractor of Stephen Wolfram?

← we now return you to your regularly scheduled mockery of wolfram

There have been a few comments about his alleged lack of social skills

I don't believe that counts as mockery, scheduled or otherwise.

And I might add none of those comments came from me.

he is significantly derided by the scientific community (for misc reasons). misc chat comments here mirror that.

So as far I can see you have accused me of being a Wolfram detractor on the basis on no evidence at all

And you wonder why you attract criticism ...

apparently he and/ or his theories are "not in contact with reality" etc

@vzn Like many other of the TOE/quantum gravity candidates.

Some would say like string theory too of course

his 1K pg book & other research (eg by Nobel prize winner) is "devoid of any observational evidence to back up" his theories

String theory does give QFT and GR in the low energy limit

Which isn't much

I read the whole book when it was first published.

But it is the minimum you can ask for

All of it. And I found it very interesting.

lol ok "interesting"

← plays devils advocate, admittedly inherently sometimes very risky/ problematic venture

You seem to be mocking constructive criticism on Wolfram's work by JR, whereas you blame JR of mocking Wolfram? This is like crackpottery over 9000

Yes, it's well thought out and well written. And I continue to harbour a suspicion that some form of emergemce is behind physics, though what form I don't know.

But Wolfram singularly failed to show that his idea can actually deliver.

@JohnRennie think that is the crux of his thesis. have found much supporting evidence for it, think its widespread.

@JohnRennie he is a frustrated visionary, there are many examples of that in history. it is possible he wont even be vindicated in his lifetime, but do think he will be (eventually) vindicated. time will tell™. sometimes there are very long timeframes for scientific trends/ discoveries that elude mortal humans.

I don't know of any supporting evidence that some form of emergence is involved in what we currently consider to be fundamental laws. I would like to think there is because it seems a nice simplifying idea. But right now these ideas are just fun not science.

@JohnRennie smell reductionistic/ compartmentalized lens/ pov/ tunnel vision there. anyway you said you like Verlindean hypothesis (re emergence). called it a "paradigm shift".

Well you can insult me, or you can point to evidence that proves me wrong.

I said I liked Verlinde's idea, but it doesn't work so it can't be right.

@JohnRennie not intended as an insult. all (mortal) humans have kinds of tunnel vision.

His original idea derived Newtonian gravity, and that was OK. He thought it would be simple to extend it to GR. But it didn't work.

And no-one has been able to make it work.

And in the process the original nice simple idea is getting complicated and ugly.

I suspect (but I have no evidence for it) that some theory of that nature will eventually be found, but that theory isn't Verlinde's theory. Or at least not in its current state.

Incidentally, when I talked about a paradigm shift I was talking about current theories of dark matter.

rome wasnt built in a day™

And that is based on experimental evidence. Or rather the lack of it.

agreed (re popper falsifiability emphasis) that theories (eventually) require experimental testing.

Falsifiability is a somewhat complicated issue and Popper's ideas haven't been without criticism. My concern is that a theory should be useful i.e. should tell us something we didn't know beofre.

All sorts of speculative theories might do that one day, but right now they don't.

personally see a strong connection between falsifiability and the physicist emphasis on experimental testing but maybe few others have made that connection.

And no end of sensationalist articles in New Scientist will change that.

physics is largely pragmatic so theres an inherent tension-sometimes-conflict on wild hypothesizing. theres some exception with math physics (of which there are big fans/ proponents/ advocates/ practitioners in this room)

@JohnRennie do you mind me asking you a quick question about quantum mechanics?

Hi Felix

Hi good evening :)

Sorry no-one answered you last question. I think you found the room in a rather silly mood :-)

But please ask. We're all being sensible now :-)

np..I'm glad for every help...and sometimes people just want to chill out ...but thx

@Felix.C What was the question?

@Blue epic fail :-)

@Blue No I don't think I know this

Yeah I looked. I see what you means now

I haven't thought about velocity of propagating waves actually

Surely the physics people in this room knows about this?

Most of the physics that makes sense is actually math

@Felix.C the $l$ number tells us the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum

The rest is nonsensical

The $m$ number tells us about the direction of the angular momentum vector.

Well, that's not really true, but it's one way to think about it.

I was in fact memeing 0celo

@Felix.C 2 electrons with momentum = 1 need not addup to a momentum of 2 because they add like vectors not scalars.

e.g. two equal and opposite vectors add up to zero

@BalarkaSen where?

@BalarkaSen an analyst and I concluded that physicists shouldn’t do any math because it’s all bullshit anyway

tell me something i know

@Felix.C When we experimentally measure angular momentum we are in effect measuring $L_z$. That is, our experiment picks a preferred axis, e.g. using a magnetic field, and we're measuring the component of $\mathbf L$ along that axis.

For $l=1$ that component can be +1, 0 or -1.

As you say, the $L_x$ and $L_y$ are undetermined.

I have to leave it there I'm afraid as I have to be off ...

came first :P

it was general biology stuff :-)

sadly, I didn't end up with any money this time

Idk, the college must have ran out of money

the same college had held a math and chem competetion too

the math one had money involved, chem didn't

Yeah, lots of it

I made some new friends there.

@Blue Fine. Since nse's are over, i'm done with objective type questions

This tuesday i'll be going to IISc for the vijyoshi camp

Yeah ofc, i'll ping you once i reach there

I heard we'll be getting suites to stay in

how are your exams going on?

@Blue Yeah :P, well be staying in a place called platinum city, sharing the suites

@Blue I can understand :'(

I'm waiting for my school to end now, by this month end

Next whole week i'll be enjoying in b'lore, another week i'll finish of my 75% attendance, and the 3rd week will be exams and then college is finished

Yeah I will. Good to start buildin influence before I even get there:P

They've put up the program in the website if you're interested

kvpy.iisc.ernet.in/vijyoshi2017/program.php

pretty cool stuffs are there

Any one familiar with quantum entanglemenet?

@Blue you done with all the extra courses after the first year?

@quallenjäger "Don't ask about asking, just ask."

Humanities, carpentry etc

If I set one particle in vibration and change the frequency, will the other entangled particle's movement also be changed correspondingly?

yeah

free atlast, i'll enjoy getting my sleep

what is the duration of your holidays?

Yeah no problem

@Blue Thats a nice coincidence! I've been studying machine learning for quite some time now

In python

machines are dumb

its just a gradient decent bro

@Blue Add me to both the groups, i'm interested

r/iamverysmart

@BalarkaSen Thats not the only stuff

oh yeah tell me one

it's not even a gradient descent

it's a gradient indecent

@BalarkaSen Sadly, I just knoe gradient descent for now :|

ah okay

lmao

@Blue I've been doing it form here pythonprogramming.net

@BalarkaSen I'll get back to you within the month :-}

I've heard of it, never quite used it

@PrathyushPoduval I'd be interested to hear, actually

And i'd be interested in teaching

@Blue ACM doesn't run on learning

that's like caveman technology

@Blue Since python is an allrounder language, I think i'll stick to it

Here's some potential garbage

My dad uses R. I'll ask him bout it

youtube has a machine learning AI for their monetization process and it's failing embarrassingly

one example where it fails implies it's total caveman technology

flayless lagic

so @BalarkaSen, enjoyin' your life now?

it's so-so

If you view a vector field $X$ as a derivation on a $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$ algebra of functions $f$, then $Xf$ is a `linearization' of $f$, but now $YXf$ giving a linearization in two different directions is not a linearization, it contains quadratic terms... Would it be fair to call $YXf$ a 'planarization' of $f$, so that $(XY - YX)f$ is again a linearization because you subtract off some common direction, or how do you interpret this properly

Yeah that's basically it

Stuff cancels when you look at $XYf - YXf$ because of there being mixed partials of opposite orders

which end up being equal thanks to Clairaut

I also like to think about $[X, Y]$ as a vector field the flow of which is infinitisimally given by composing the flow of $X$, flow of $Y$, then flow backward time of $X$ and flow backward time of $Y$

@Blue I was interested in algrothmic trading which invoked my interest in machine learning

So using ridiculous language you could say $[X,Y]$ the 'linear remnant' of the simultaneous planarizations $XY$ and $YX$ which share a linearization and so on subtraction must leave a linear remnant :p

You heard of it?

@bolbteppa Pretty much. It's still a little magical to me

Unless I think about it in the flow terminology

Yeah it's a bit crazy alright, but funny and interesting, lets see the Jacobi identity from this view next

Not the person with greatest intuition of Lie brackets, admittedly

@Blue we had game theory in statistics. It was shit

@Blue I felt like it was an interesting thing to try out

@Blue I don't know anything about game theory but I have seen a lot of people say it's really interesting

@BalarkaSen we were just told to mug things up in college

sucks

@Blue Yeah, data analysis is another reason too. Since i'm (planning) on going into physics, it could end up being a useful tool

I'm just interested in that picture..... damn

This is crazy, but if $[X,Y]$ is the linear remnant of some 'oriented planarizations' of $f$, i.e. the remnant from planarizing $f$ first with respect to $XY$ then with respect to $YX$ and subtracting to generate a remaining linear term, i.e. a linear remnant, then from $[X,Y] = \theta(X)(Y)$ we see the adjoint map $\theta(X)$ is a linear remnant generator with respect to $X$, sending a linearization $Y$ to the linear remnant $[X,Y]$ of simultaneous planarizations using $XY$ and then $YX$,

then $[X,[Y,Z]]$ sending the linear remnant of the linearizations $Y$ and $Z$ to the linear remnant with a linearization $X$ is equal to (waffle stating Jacobi in plain language)

shit i just sneezed and got mucous all over my laptop......

I give up again

@bolbteppa Some things are just algebraic formulas

It's a compensation for associativity of the Lie bracket. Let's leave it at that

It's basically translating into flowery words one perspective for arriving at the Jacobi identity by starting from a Lie group and blindly arriving at the formula that way

I am indeed trying to be the next Sylvester :p

Can anyone help me w/ the details of this question? physics.stackexchange.com/questions/372060/… None of the marked as duplicate answers help... I think the answer to my question is "yes" and I don't think I've minced any mathematics, but people seem to disagree...

By now I should have just read through Hall... I've wasted so much time being confused with physicist lie group speak

@davidphysics the notation is just talking about the fact you have two copies of $su(2)$