« first day (2302 days earlier)      last day (2626 days later) » 

11:00 AM
Too bad That chat is empty
 
@Kenshin What does "solving consciousness" even mean?
 
They are too busy contemplating existence
 
@ACuriousMind lol
 
@ACuriousMind that's probably a question for philosophy.SE
 
it brings funny images to the head
 
11:01 AM
@ACuriousMind understand what it is / reproduce it.
 
@BalarkaSen Philosophy exam: "Here's a human. Solve for consciousness."
5
@DanielSank Ah, but then the issue of Searle's room strikes: How do you recognize consciousness?
 
@ACuriousMind you make an operational definition and get on with your life.
 
lol, philosophy is very simple to you, isn't it? :P
 
Kenshin: but anyway as far the pages I have browsed (i have skipped that esoteric time travel page for now in order to retain enough sanity to analyse the remaining pages and not get brainwashed), so far the only thing that I knew is outdated is that tipler cylinder is not a feasible construction and is not a valid time machine)
 
@ACuriousMind uhhhh, no?
I do have some education in philosophy, and I've learned which parts of it are navel-gazing wastes of time.
 
11:05 AM
all philosophy is a waste of time
 
False
 
philosophy is just what people did before they found science
 
everything is a waste of time
2
 
@Kenshin false
 
@Kenshin This is total garbage.
 
11:05 AM
@BalarkaSen true
 
@BalarkaSen that statement of yours is philosphy and you know what I think about philosophy
 
My philosophy: if something is proved to be inevitable, said conclusion will be facilitated instead of trying to delay it
 
@ACuriousMind your joke aside, no other kind of definition can serve if i the goal is to be able to recognize the thing.
 
I think after we started doing science we needed more than ever to justify whatever we do with science, increasing the need for philosophy than what was there before the - like, what - "golden millennia" of science
 
@DanielSank Yes, I somewhat agree. The issue is - which definition to pick?
 
11:08 AM
This is because I grew bored of wait for an inevitable event to happen
 
@ACuriousMind doesn't matter. Pick one, be explicit about it, and move on.
If we outgrow it, amend it.
 
@DanielSank haha.
 
You remember our discussion about "offensive"?
 
@Kenshin How do you define "philosophy" ?
(Don't say this question belongs to philosophy SE ^)
 
He doesn't, because that itself is a philosophical question!
 
11:10 AM
@anonymous I don't because defining philosophy is a philosophical persuit which I try to avoid
 
Nailed it
 
but I know it when I see it
lol
 
That was cool because you had an explicit definition. It differed from what I expected "offensive" to mean, but it was OK because you gave me a clear definition.
 
@Kenshin Now I am sure that your statements are garbage as Balarka said.
 
@anonymous primarily opinion based?
 
11:10 AM
lol
 
If it is ever proved that humans are doomed, then I am happy to lead a helping hand to accelerate their destruction. As barlaka sometimes said "we are going to die anyway"
 
:-(
 
@Secret that's bordering on terrorism
Reported to authorities
 
@DanielSank I am asking for Kenshin's definition. He is using a word whose meaning he doesn't seem to know!
 
@DanielSank But the definition matters - how can you claim to have "solved consciousness" if you did it with a definition no one else agrees with?
And you can't get others to agree with it if you don't argue about the right one
 
11:12 AM
@anonymous I just said his opinion about philosophy is missplaced (and also a common misconception). It's a perfectly consistent life-choice to not spend time on philosophy.
 
@anonymous it's still opinion based if we remember that various users will answer, each giving their I own guess if what Kenshin thinks the word means.
 
@ACuriousMind the word "conciousness" doesn't matter, it is the concept that matters. Over time we gain a better and better understanding of he phononemon, who cares what word we use. Words pale in comparrison to the importance of the phenonomen and our models of them
 
@anonymous The meaning of which words do you truly know? ;)
 
@DanielSank Yeah, I know it will be opinion based. But it is pointless to debate unless two people agree on the subject of debate itself!
 
What ACM said
 
11:14 AM
@ACuriousMind it seems you've started a new line of discussion here, independent of the original question
@anonymous I'm just teasing you.
 
@Kenshin The way we communicate concepts is with words.
 
@ACuriousMind I don't agree
 
@ACuriousMind yes but no need to try and define things that are better left undefined and fuzzy
 
We can communicate in various other ways
 
fuzzyness gives us more room to understand the real truth
defining things constrains ourselves sometimes too much for progress
I think we are too early in our understanding of "consciousness" to try and define it now
I think instead we should work on understanding more and more about it first
 
11:15 AM
@DanielSank Well, I think you dodged the original question by saying "Just pick a definition" because that's the hard part, in my view. "Pick a definition and move on" is a valid answer to the literal question but it's not satisfactory
 
suppose we define light in Newton's day as a corpuscle, such a definition would be wrong
instead it is better to just have an idea about what light is and try and understand it better and better
 
@BalarkaSen True, insert "most of the time" into my statement if you wish
 
Got it.
 
@ACuriousMind I suppose I know a few. My point was: when I am debating with someone it is necessary that the person whom I am debating uses a common definition of the word on which we both are debating.
 
@anonymous what do you mean by "i" can you please clarify wiht definition
 
11:18 AM
@Kenshin It's still a process of agreeing on a definition and then refuting it on experimental basis to make the world of our definitions consistent. That's what science is, isn't it?
 
@anonymous I'd say it is necessary that you agree on enough words in order to have a meaningful conversation. If you agree on every word, you likely have nothing to debate
 
@ACuriousMind there's more to debate then disagreement over terminolog
pedantds debate terminology
great minds debate concepts and ideas
2
 
@Kenshin *pedants
 
lol
 
lol
My internet's annoying
 
11:20 AM
Couldn't resist that one :P
 
@ACuriousMind So you mean it is possible to even debate on "philosophy" when I think of "philosophy" as something else (I consider it as a science) and he thinks of it as something else (god knows what!) ?
 
sure why not
 
I'd rather not waste my time in such debates then.
 
@anonymous Sure, then you're debating what philosophy is, obviously
 
Indeed, most of the time you debate on something the debaters have different conceptions about the topic of their debate.
That's why they debate.
 
11:24 AM
Are you on the debating team?
Anyone?
 
@ACuriousMind In such debates both sides are free to refuse the other side's definition. No one wins in such a debate. I'd classify them as pointless debates.
 
@anonymous Not many debates can be won
 
My sides
 
And there's a difference between being "free to refuse" and logically pointing out the flaw in each other's definitions, or let's say, why they don't agree with each other's definitions
The latter is what interested debaters would do
I think you shouldn't have such a narrow view of dialectics :)
 
@anonymous I'd say that many debates of morality are essentially about what "good" means, and I do not consider those debates pointless
 
11:30 AM
@BalarkaSen That would quickly transform into a quarrel. :P And I don't like to quarrel. We have the television for that. Or Arnab Goswami :'D
 
Oh, yeah, ethics is a good realm of philosophy where debates are hard to win
@anonymous Like I said, you have a narrow view of dialectics and that is rather dangerous. I don't see why a logical discussion need to transform into a quarrel - that seems like unbased assumption.
 
:O, is it really that serious?
Anyway, I don't think anyone can prove our species is going to be doomed or forever flourish anyway. I am pretty hopeful on the renewable technology and fundamental science research side of things, as well art and culture
As I chatted with kamudi earlier about that. I have every reason to want to destroy this world, every reason to want to make this world better and every reason to let this world be as it be.

sometimes I think I will be happier if I were some entity in quantum superposition...
 
@BalarkaSen You know what? Suppose take the word "Iron". We can't really debate on "Iron" when I am thinking of the iron used to press clothes and you are thinking of the element iron having atomic number 56.
 
To me, "nonexistent existence" is not a contradiction
It's just something that behave like as if it does not exist (or in other words, behave in a way such that it and nonexistence is practically indistinguishable)
 
Does it make sense to consider that an electromagnetic wave, since it extends out to infinity, and the energy is contained in the electric and magnetic fields therefore contains and infinite amount of energy? What is wrong with this reasoning?
 
11:41 AM
@Moses There's nothing wrong with it except that infinite plane waves don't exist in reality.
 
@ACuriousMind What exists then? So this graphic here youtube.com/watch?v=4CtnUETLIFs is not something that exists?
 
@Moses Every real wave simply does not extend to infinity
 
@ACuriousMind Okay, does it just dampen to zero?
 
How could it exist, given that it must have been generated somewhere and propagates at finite speed?
@Moses yeah
 
@ACuriousMind In a sense there is not enough time?
 
11:45 AM
Yes (and also not enough energy, as you noted)
 
@ACuriousMind could be sourceless
 
@Slereah I meant a real wave. Yes, the theory does not forbid sourceless infinite plane waves, but they don't exist in realty.
 
Found this paper by Poynting (the 19th-century Physicist) today when reviewing his works
 
How can you be sure
 
11:47 AM
That's a perfectly valid boundary condition
 
@Slereah What do you mean? what does infinity mean in the physical world?
This plane wave approximation causes some difficulties in optics sometimes
(I'm thinking of examples...)
 
A plane wave produces a perfectly reasonable and measurable phenomenon
(Classically at least)
 
@ACuriousMind In atomic physics, what is meant by "the scale of the fine structure splitting relative to the order of the gross structure energies is on the order of $(Z \alpha)^2$"? Is this scale and order in the sense that the difference of energy levels of the atom of these emissions, when considering fine structure, are of the order of $(Z \alpha)^2$?
 
@Moses yep
 
@ACuriousMind One last thing. What causes the damping of the em wave, everything I read so far does not indicate any mechanism of damping of the em waves? What about light from stars, are these reaching us at a reduced energy?
 
11:58 AM
@Slereah Consider total internal reflection at an interface.
We have two different dielectrics, with an incident plane wave at an angle greater than the critical angle. It goes under total internal reflection which means no energy flows in average to the other side of the boundary.
but if you solve for the field on the other side it's an evanescent field, and you find a non-zero power flowing _parallel_ to the interface.
This apparent _contradiction_ is caused because of using plane wave approximation.
 
@Moses Consider that a star radiates equally in all directions, and that therefore the intensity of the radiation must fall off with $1/r^2$ since the surface of the sphere goes with $r^2$.
I.e. the waves spread out and thereby get "damped"
 
Hi. I had one small doubt related to collisions and Newtonian mechanics. I don't want to post a question because I'm afraid it will just get closed..................................... Basically when we use e=speed of separation/speed of approach, do we use the speed of centre of mass or the speed of the point that makes contact?
If the cm does not lie on the line of impulse, then the body will start rotating also. Hence this will make a difference
So which one shud I use?
 
@ghosts_in_the_code For point of contact...
 
Is there any reason?
Or is e just defined that way?
 
Yeah, it is defined that way.
 
12:02 PM
Ok thanks so much
 
Are you in class 11 ? @ghosts_in_the_code
 
P.S. You have only 217 rep. Can someone else please confirm this answer?
Yes I am
 
@ghosts_in_the_code Rep doesn't represent knowledge. Anyway, you are free to ask others :).
 
OK do u have some source then?
 
@ghosts_in_the_code xD
higher rep doesn't necessarily mean higher knowledge and vice versa.
 
12:05 PM
I know that, lol
But it's always more reliable coming from someone with like few thousand rep
Since u expect they wud have atleast a degree in physics
(I guess that's the whole point of rep)
@anonymous Thanks for the help. Do u have same source from which I can verify. I saw Wikipedia, it wasn't too clear
*some
 
LOL XD. I've seen 13-14 year old kids with >10k rep on Stack Exchange. Anyway, think logically. If it were COM speeds would it hold true for real situations? Coefficient of restitution is defined along lines of contact only.
See wikipedia
The coefficient of restitution (COR) is the ratio of the final to initial velocity difference between two objects after they collide. It normally ranges from 0 to 1 where 1 would be a perfectly elastic collision. A perfectly inelastic collision has a coefficient of 0, but a 0 value does not have to be perfectly inelastic. It is measured in the Leeb rebound hardness test, expressed as 1000 times the COR. The value is almost always less than one due to initial translational kinetic energy being lost to rotational kinetic energy, plastic deformation, and heat. It can be more than 1 if there is an...
 
@ACuriousMind I think I get what you are saying, a single em wave technically could propagate with infinite energy given infinite time, but a real source usually radiates in all directions where the power drops off per unit area, hence the energy decreases per unit area. Is this more or less what you are saying?
 
Ok thanks
I read the wiki
I still wasn't sure
 
"Line of impact – It is the line along which e is defined or in absence of tangential reaction force between colliding surfaces, force of impact is shared along this line between bodies."
 
@Moses Yes. Even if it does not radiate "in all directions", the waves will nevertheless spread out - e.g. a laser beam also widens, just not as quicky as the light from most other sources
 
12:10 PM
Okay
 
@ACuriousMind Understood thanks.
 
@ghosts_in_the_code You can ask on the main site if you are still unsure
 
infinite energy isn't a problem
It still has finite energy density
 
0
Q: Is it possible to make a destructive interference generator?

kirill2485Is it possible to make a light source that shifts waves of light to cause destructive interference to cancel the other light source out to make it fully dark?

No you cannot without having full knowledge of the incoming incoherent wave
 
@anonymous It will get closed, I know
Ive asked better questions than that, they've all got closed
 
12:21 PM
@ghosts_in_the_code Conceptual questions don't get closed. Yours is conceptual.
@ghosts_in_the_code They were probably numerical based problems.
Hi @heather
 
hello
@DanielSank/@DavidZ I had to leave soon after the discussion started, my apologies.
 
12:36 PM
@anonymous i don't know many other 13-14 year olds on SE (one or two on math.se) - who are you referencing?
 
Doorknob
 
@heather You're just considering space (different websites). Consider spacetime instead ;)
 
The only one I remember
@anonymous Is it really that simple to get a question accepted? Delete the numerical data given in the q? That's weird
 
@Mostafa ah, good point...then you can add one or two, one a moderator =)
 
@heather why does it matter who anonymous is referencing
he's right, reputation isn't equal to knowledge
 
12:44 PM
@Kenshin, maybe I'm just curious? I get his point and agree with it.
 
yes maybe you were just curious that's why I asked you why does it matter so I could find out why
not to insinuate anything lol
 
Ur 'why' sounded rhetorical
 
@heather Check on stack overflow. You will find many. Personally I remember a guy called ADG on Math SE who had 10k rep and he was just 14. Also, take Balarka for example. There are many. I don't remember the names. If you want I will search and let you know. Also, you have over 5000 in just 6-7 months! You're just 14.
 
But ya, doesn't matter
 
@anonymous no, you don't need to search =) thanks though
 
12:49 PM
@anonymous if you don't mind searching pls, the topic has made me curious
 
@Kenshin
Here you go
I could make a better query though
But gotta go now
 
ty
 
Most users don't mention there age and that is one limitation
@heather You can check that data explorer query :)
 
Wait a moment, the age data is still a field in the explorer even after they stopped showing it on the profiles?
 
In general relativity, the van Stockum dust is an exact solution of the Einstein field equation in which the gravitational field is generated by dust rotating about an axis of cylindrical symmetry. Since the density of the dust is increasing with distance from this axis, the solution is rather artificial, but as one of the simplest known solutions in general relativity, it stands as a pedagogically important example. This solution is named for Willem Jacob van Stockum, who rediscovered it in 1937, independently of an earlier discovery by Cornelius Lanczos in 1924. == Derivation == One way...
What about finite length ones...?
 
12:53 PM
@ACuriousMind yes please keep it on the down low
 
@DavidZ It's really easy to disable commands you don't find useful, if there's demand for a bot here just ping me and I'll set it up, I can modify it however you'd like
 
@Kenshin ???
 
^
 
it means let's not publicise this too much
 
Jim
For any other cosmologists out there, I'd be interested in hearing your take on the Hartle-Hawking state, or the no-boundary proposal in general
 
@Kenshin Why not? Making that information available only through SEDE strikes me as an oversight, not an intended feature, so one should probably raise a mother meta post about that
 
I wonder if we can start out low intensity beams, and them perform experiments to detect any micro CTCs that may be produced
 
Jim
@ACuriousMind hashtag feature?
 
surely G is not ridicoulously too small to have them produced within some reasonable laser power. I mean, we have very bright x ray pulse sources nowadays?
 
@Jim Sorry, what?
 
Jim
12:59 PM
not a bug, a feature. Thus, #feature
 
Unfortunately, GR is so complicated for me that I cannot do back on the envelope calculations to check my intuitions and guesses on it. Every calculation involving these spacetimes must necessary be a full blown calculation that will take hours to days to finish
 
Jim
@Secret I'm reading the paper now. I'm skeptical because CTCs have their own issues
 
Random question: name the most important landmarks in the history of Physics.SE
 
@Mostafa The milky way
 
I might check whether there are any literature on microscopic CTCs. This is because they might be just small enough to be produced with relatively low energy, and we really only need a few of these to start performing time travel experiments
Might consider opening a new room for time travel also, so that Slereah and co's findings can be better coordinated there
 
hey
1:11 PM
Hii
 
@ACuriousMind your age is 24
 
Close, but incorrect
 
I guess the SE system rounds
 
@Kenshin He's 23
 
1:14 PM
^correct
 
@ACuriousMind is your age on your profile?
or did you hide it?
 
Only for one-and-a-half weeks more, though
@Kenshin There is no option to "hide" it - you either enter your birthday or you don't
Previously, entering your birthday would cause your age to be displayed on your profile, but that went away with the introduction of the new profile, I think
 
@ACuriousMind in that case, the age was entered with the knowledge it would be displayed publically. It's not that users have actively tried to hide it
 
Hii @YashasSamaga
 
1:17 PM
@Kenshin Duh (it even says "only used for displaying age")
 
@user123733 Hi
 
my list (Phys.SE timeline):
Failure of The TheoreticalPhysics - Suppression of the RonMaimon insurgency - Demise of Lubos Motl and rise of John Rennie - Advent of ACuriousMind - .....
(subject to change)
 
@YashasSamag may I ask a chemistry question
 
@ACuriousMind yes exactly, so there is no problem with the age appearing in the query tool
 
@user123733 ok
 
1:18 PM
@Kenshin I wasn't saying that it's somehow "bad" that age is still available in SEDE, I'm just saying it seems like an oversight after removing it from everywhere else
 
Jee main 2014
Doubt in 1) &2) option
 
You have to choose a mild oxidising agent.
A strong oxidizer will oxidise the alcohol to a carboxylic acid.
KMnO4 and K2Cr2O7 are strong oxidizing agents.
PCC is a mild oxidizing agent
CrO3 is intermediate
I'd choose PCC
 
Great
 
CrO3 generally oxidizes it to an acid
PCC will definitely oxidize it to an aldehyde, so PCC must be the answer.
 
But with CrO3 we should have H2SO4
 
1:21 PM
It is assumed that it has.
 
@YashasSamaga correct :-)
 
Chromic Acid
Collin's Reagent and Sarret's Reagent will also oxidize it to an aldehyde.
Well, to be honest, who ever wrote that question is kinda stupid for keeping PCC and CrO3 together.
 
@YashasSamaga what is Sarret's reagent
 
Especially without mentioning H2SO4 or HCl.
Sarret's reagent is PCC in CH2Cl2 if I remember correctly
 
I have a similiar question
 
1:24 PM
Collin's reagent is Pyridine + CH2Cl2 + CrO3
 
Inthis answer is chromic anhydride
How ?
 
Secondary alcohols are not oxidized to carboxylic acids
even if you use a strong oxidizing agent, you'll get ketone
unless you use some super hot and super strong oxidizing agent which would break the bond and create two carboxylic acids
 
It appears we have been invaded by chemistry.
 
@YashasSamaga Ok chemistry nerd
Can Copper Hydroxide be black?
 
Then all four could be the answer @YashasSamaga
 
Jim
1:26 PM
@Secret I can't get over this line in the paper: "$\lambda$ is a constant proportional to the energy density per unit length"
 
@user123733 yup
 
Jim
That has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while
 
@user123733 I don't like such ambiguous questions.
 
@YashasSamaga but it is given 4)
 
@Jim It appears you haven't checked the review queue in a while then
 
1:27 PM
@YashasSamaga ohh
 
Jim
@0celo7 you've got me there
 
@user123733 Yes, I'd mark 4 too. That is the best option.
 
Why
 
because with 1, 2, 3 , if you heat it up and add suitable catalyst you can create carboxylic acids
these options are stupid once again
incomplete
 
@YashasSamaga how they can create carboxylic acid
From 2° alcohol
@YashasSamaga yep
 
1:29 PM
@ACuriousMind Do you know about affine diffeomorphisms?
 
@YashasSamaga kMnO4 can attack double bond
 
@0celo7 nope
 
@user123733 Aha! Yea!
That was the catch.
 
@YashasSamaga but what about others
 
@ACuriousMind If we have an electron with harmonic motion, then apparently in gives off radiation, and hence loses energy. Is the energy levels of the electron quantized in this case?
 
1:33 PM
@Jim I have no idea, w should have units of inverse 4-length, that is some kind of 4-density?
 
@user123733 both 1) and 2) would do it
 
@Moses What does "harmonic motion" mean in the quantum theory? That's a classical notion - the concepts of "energy levels" and "harmonic motion" do not exist in the same theory.
 
@user123733 PCC loves to convert unsaturated alcohols to cyclic compounds
 
@YashasSamaga you mean 1) & 4)
 
@user123733 1 and 2 would break the double bond
@user123733 PCC would try to convert the compound to a cyclic compound
 
Jim
1:35 PM
@Secret the math checks out, but they take no measures to actually ensure people can understand the physical meaning of their conclusions. They show that when an arbitrary function is greater than 1, you get CTCs. But what does that mean when it's greater than 1? c=G=1, so what scale is it at?
 
@user123733 PCC also breaks the bond
 
@YashasSamaga how
It will convert into cyclic structure
 
@user123733 1min, let me find some reference for you
 
Jim
Specifically, it's when $\lambda ln(\rho/\alpha)>1$. I'm fairly sure the energy density of mostly anything is small. Not sure what the energy density per unit length could be, but it's likely smaller. This means $\rho/\alpha$ has to be so enormous that the ln of it can balance this small number
 
1:37 PM
@ACuriousMind Okay. As the electron radiates I assume that the energy level (which is a function of amplitude $x_0$ and angular frequency $\omega$) decreases as the amplitude decreases. Would the angular frequency also decrease?
 
@user123733 PCC also converts suitable unsaturated alcohols and aldehydes to cyclohexenones. This pathway, an oxidative cationic cyclization, is illustrated by the conversion of (−)-citronellol to (−)-pulegone. PCC also effects allylic oxidations, for example, in conversion of dihydrofurans to furanones.[1]
 
Jim
since $\rho$ is your radius of the light solenoid, we're talking something on the scale of the observable universe
 
@user123733 you should take this to the chem chat
 
@Moses Are we doing classical or quantum mechanics here?
 
@YashasSamaga usually there is no good response
 
1:38 PM
Because I'm pretty confused what the situation is here or what the problem is
 
Jim
now, since light can't physically travel in that size of a loop due to expansion, so much for making a time machine of this
 
Wow, the irony. You don't get answers for a chem question in the chem chat but you get answers in physics chat.
 
@ACuriousMind congratulations one of your answers will appear in the book
 
Btw @YashasSamaga thanks
 
@ACuriousMind Classical mechanics. This is from Atomic Physics book by Foot, radiative decay section, he hasn't introduced notions of QM yet. Is this harmonic oscillating electron something you have encountered before?
 
1:40 PM
@YashasSamaga yes this also for maths
 
@Kenshin My excitement knows no bounds.
 
h Bar is best
2
 
@ACuriousMind :))
 
@ACuriousMind Classical mechanics. This is from Atomic Physics book by Foot, radiative decay section, he hasn't introduced notions of QM yet. Is this harmonic oscillating electron something you have encountered before?
 
@Moses Okay, then, sure - a classical electron that's being accelerated (as it is in harmonic motion) will lose energy in the form of radiation over time.
 
1:43 PM
@ACuriousMind Would the angular frequency stay the same as the amplitude decreases?
 
What angular frequency?
Harmonic motion is usually in a straight line, no?
 
If there is no harmonic motion, what are springs?
 
@0celo7 wat
 
@ACuriousMind An object moving in a uniform circular motion. The $x$ coordinate oscillates harmonically.
 
@YashasSamaga Uh, I do not call motion in a circle "harmonic motion"
 
1:45 PM
I don't think that's a valid citicism
 
It's circular motion
 
Even I agree with ACM on that one
 
@Kenshin I think it's actually people that sometimes can find out answers from THE BOOK.
God keeps the best answers to questions in THE BOOK.
 
The projection of the object on the x-axis moving in uniform circular motion is harmonic motion :P
 
Jim
@Secret also, as pointed out by others, the metric used in this paper implies that even when your time machine is turned off, there should still be a singularity. Not just any singularity either. In space, you have the usual "God divided by zero" singularity, but in time you'd have a new fancy "God took the natural log of zero" singularity. I'm fairly sure space should return to normal when you turn it off
 
1:46 PM
For a pendulum, the angular displacement is oscillating harmonically. So it isn't in a straight line.
Why was that message starred? lol 0o
 
@ACuriousMind A mass on a spring moves back and forth in a straight line with a given angular frequency...I assume the motion of the electron is back and forth in the same way, hence has a angular frequency.
 
Jim
anything periodic has an angular frequency
 
the questions are selected for the book
 
@Moses Ohh, sorry, I thought you were talking about something rotating because usually people just say "frequency" - why would you bother saying "angular" :P
 
and I have compiled the attribution information for each question and answer
Now I just need to figure out the best way of formatting the question/answer
 
1:49 PM
@0celo7 hehe
 
Jim
@0celo7 try multiplying her by 2pi
 
@Moses Well - the frequency of the harmonic motion does not depend on the amplitude, why do you think it would change?
 
Jim
@YashasSamaga the action of a crude wind instrument on a string is simple harmonica motion
 
@jim which spacetime corresponds to a finite radius finite length cylinder of light, is it just a special case of the finite tipler cylinder (which is well known in tipler's paper to be shwon to have no CTCs)?
 
Jim
@Secret say what?
 
1:55 PM
@ACuriousMind I assumed it could be modeled as a damped oscillator model, where the frequency changes.
 
@Jim What spacetime corresponds to null dust forming a cylinder, except the cylinder is finite in both the radius and length (so the density of said dust will not increase forever as the radial distance of a given dust component from the rotaton axis increases?
 
Jim
@Secret I have no idea. But I'd assume looking at the paper's references would show where they found it
 
@Moses Ah, yes, sure.
 

« first day (2302 days earlier)      last day (2626 days later) »