« first day (2330 days earlier)      last day (2590 days later) » 

6:14 PM
omg that's horrifying
 
what's horrifying?
Speaking of Sabine:
http://backreaction.blogspot.be/2017/03/academia-is-fucked-up-so-why-isnt.html
 
Why is that so bad?
 
Hi all
Does the infinitesimal time evolution operator in this form $$\mathcal{U}(t_0 + dt, t_0) = 1 - \frac{i \hat{H} dt}{\hbar},$$ hold only for systems where the Hamiltonian is time independent?
 
no, it holds generally
but you have to be very careful how you exponentiate it
because for time-dependent Hamiltonians, H(t_1) doesn't necessarily commute with H(t_2)
so, a finite time evolution will be a "path ordered exponential"
or, I guess, "time ordered"
 
6:30 PM
@0celo7 almost two years in review?
or rather, more than one year with referees, and they still take another six months to publish after acceptance?
 
I've had papers spend several months in review...partially my fault, since I procrastinated and then requested extensions
 
@BenNiehoff Okay thanks. In Sakurai he doesn't fully motivate the choice of this operator. He basically says there are some properties which we want and this this has those properties...
 
6:49 PM
@JohnDoe Are you trying to motivate it without using the Schrödinger equation?
Because otherwise it follows directly from it
 
@ACuriousMind Sakurai doesn't motivate it using Schrodinger. He motivates Shrodinger from it...
 
Gnnnh, what is so difficult about spelling Bremsstrahlung correctly?!
Is there a large body of English texts that already misspell it?
@JohnDoe I see.
I think the best motivation is that the Hamiltonian generates time evolution classically, so it also does so quantumly
Whether you then proceed to formalize that by writing down the Schrödinger equation or that operator is not really a relevant distinction, since one follows from the other
 
@ACuriousMind Yeah he does mention the classical analogy of time translations. I prefer the unitary operator implies Shrodinger motivation, the other text I used the Schrodinger appeared on the first page with no motivation.
 
This has to be the coolest use of LaTeX I've seen on SE
57
Q: The Puzzling Times

Rubio$$\bbox[orange]{\begin{array}{rcl}\\\hline\huge\ \ \star\ \ \star\ \ The&\huge{Puzzling}&\huge{Times\ \ \star\ \ \star\ \ }\\\hline\\\end{array}}$$   Vol. 4, No. 1 $\raise 2pt \tt{\large{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ MONDAY,\ JANUARY\ 9^{th},\ 2017\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }}$ Price: On...

 
7:04 PM
@BenNiehoff I'm trying not to be that guy...
but this is a quantum chemistry paper and I have no idea what I'm doing.
@vzn Perhaps it's worth a few moments for you to consider that you have this problem with more than just one user. The common factor is you, not someone else.
Just really analyze for a little while why several users here seems to have difficultly communicating with you.
3
@ACuriousMind Uhhh, it comes from a silly language?
@SirCumference o_O
 
7:26 PM
@SirCumference I'd be more impressed if it didn't have all those bad boxes
tsk tsk
 
@EmilioPisanty That's not what it looks like on my display
 
@SirCumference yah, well, that's what it looks like on mine
 
@yuggib what's a good intro to operator theory
I just got destroyed in the operator theory seminar
 
@EmilioPisanty Buy new computer
 
@SirCumference because poor boo boo puzzling messed up their spacings?
sure, yeah, lemme apply to my group leader for another computer which will be functionally identical in this regard
 
7:30 PM
The guy was doing multivariable functional calculus with functions in weak* closures of function spaces on the unit ball
I understood some of it but holy crap
 
@EmilioPisanty Because you also saw no blurriness with the logo
 
@0celo7 buy new computer
 
Don't use a computer for ants
 
@SirCumference You mean, because I suggested that you provide evidence for what you were saying, and have yet to respond properly?
 
@ACuriousMind because Americans pronounce it incorrectly
They make the e long
 
7:32 PM
@EmilioPisanty What
You explicitly said there was no degrading
 
@SirCumference I have no idea why you still don't feel it's at all necessary to include any evidence of blurriness in your actual post
 
Your display is smaller than most people's, probably
 
@SirCumference please consider the possibility that I use more than one display
 
@EmilioPisanty I never said that. I'm only addressing the comment you made indicating there was nothing wrong with the logo
 
also, that many of my comments on that thread are not meant to antagonize you but to help your question be more effective at achieving its goals
 
7:34 PM
@EmilioPisanty Use the better display then
 
@SirCumference wow. I'm out of this conversation.
 
@0celo7 ::winces::
 
> Or why are you so keen on zooming in on the logo? It looks perfectly fine in its intended magnification.
 
That at least explains the 'eh'
 
@ACuriousMind is that really not obvious?
 
7:36 PM
how're you supposed to pronounce bremstrahlung?
 
@EmilioPisanty Not really. If I encounter a difficult-to-spell word I make sure I spell it correctly by looking it up.
 
@ACuriousMind yeah, there's that
but still
 
I don't really understand why people seem to mash semi-random keys instead
 
msstr
not really a combination that shows up in English
 
google wanted to autocorrect that to stranglehold, not sure why
 
7:37 PM
@heather like it's written, obviously
 
@ACuriousMind what's a representing measure?
 
@0celo7 What?
 
@EmilioPisanty well, that's what I thought, but I thought ACM was saying it was pronounced differently.
 
The speaker talked about representing measures of the origin of the unit ball in C^d
Not like a representation of a measure
 
And...you figure I know about that why? :P
 
7:38 PM
A representing measure
@ACuriousMind doesn't hurt to ask.
 
@heather No, I was just complaining about people spelling it wrong, "Brehmstrallung" in the latest instance
 
ah, I see.
i always start by spelling it with an "h" in the beginning, and I can't remember whether or not it's right.
the two "l" thing doesn't plague me though.
 
@ACuriousMind Is that from Brehms Tierleben?
 
@ACuriousMind that's a pretty reasonable spelling
 
@Loong Perhaps. Though I've yet to see a strallung in a zoo
 
7:45 PM
:-D
 
@ACuriousMind sunshine.
 
sunshine reggae
 
Huh?
@yuggib what is a representing measure?
@ACuriousMind they seem to be generalizations of the delta functions
@JohnRennie today's speaker said ball about 50 times :)
 
8:08 PM
s wrong w that
 
Advance microscope cannot see the smallest particle, how deep can we go?
 
@BalarkaSen a "ball" can refer to a man's testicle and result in a suspension
 
@Rod_Algonquin Sorry, what?
 
ya but nothing wrong with that man
 
Tell that to @ACuriousMind
@ACuriousMind he wants to know what the highest resolution for modern microscopes is.
 
8:17 PM
@0celo7 What are we, Google? :P
 
@0celo7 testicles are, generally speaking, suspended in the sense of dangling. This fact alone is not enough to get one's whole person suspended. That requires dubious suggestions for novel things you do with testicles.
 
@ACuriousMind How do I say "Long live the banks!" in German?
 
@BernardoMeurer "banks" as in the financial institutes?
 
Whom are you trolling @BernardoMeurer
 
...and why do you want to say that German?
 
8:19 PM
I am not a physics, just came here to ask some random questions.
 
@ACuriousMind Yes, Banks as in ran by goblins
@Rod_Algonquin How many salmons are there in the Hudson river?
 
@BernardoMeurer Lang leben die Banken!, then
 
Cool, thanks!
 
Why didn't you ask me?
 
Sorry, my mistake, "Long live the bank account!"
 
8:21 PM
But the my question is: if we go deep enough deeper than glouns etc. theoretically what would we able to see? A whole universe?
 
@BernardoMeurer a mole
 
@0celo7 Because ACM is the linguist of the h-bar
@Rod_Algonquin Wat
I'll say no
 
damn it Lebron, no one is getting my question. sad face
 
@Rod_Algonquin Uh...the gluons/quarks/leptons are the smallest particles we know. We don't know what, if anything, is "below" them.
 
@ACuriousMind My self esteem
 
8:23 PM
Omg what was that for
 
Calling ACM an idiot?
 
I didn't call him that!
 
Does that mean it is on for debate then I will have my own theory on that.
 
@ACuriousMind What about "Long live the bank account!"?
 
@JohnRennie it was not in English
 
8:24 PM
@BernardoMeurer Lang lebe das Konto!...really, what are you doing?
 
@Rod_Algonquin viXra will love it I'm sure
 
@0celo7 And that's relevant how?
 
And the word isn't even comparable to idiot
It's endearing
 
@ACuriousMind Buy the newspaper tomorrow
 
@ACuriousMind because the word is endearing in English
 
8:25 PM
@0celo7 I didn't think it was offensive and I wouldn't have kick muted you ...
 
I mean in German
 
But then since I think it's funny to talk about testicles I'm probably not the best person to judge :-)
 
@0celo7 If it was meant endearingly, then why did you delete it? :P
 
@ACuriousMind He doesn't want to love you, but he does
 
@BernardoMeurer I am sure they will.
 
8:26 PM
@Rod_Algonquin particles don't exist in the sense of little balls when you get down to very small distances, so there is nothing to see.
We describe behaviour on small length scales using quantum field theory.
 
@JohnRennie So what holds them together?
Again I am not a physics guy
 
@Rod_Algonquin Very, very, small gnomes
 
@Rod_Algonquin Even most physicists don't understand quantum field theory. It is one of the more mind bending of the theories physicsts use. Frankly there is no chance of explaining it to someone who knows no physics.
 
@ACuriousMind because I figured someone would flag it
 
@Rod_Algonquin Have a look at:
37
A: Do photons truly exist in a physical sense or are they just a useful concept like i = sqrt(-1)

John RennieThere is lots of experimental evidence that the electromagnetic field exchanges energy with atoms in discrete chunks, and if we call these chunks photons then photons exist. Which is all very well, but my guess is that you’re really interested to know if the photon exists as a little ball of ligh...

which is the nearest I've come to a reasonably non-technical explanation.
 
8:31 PM
Does there exist a database of common interactions between particles anywhere?

I'm trying to understand a process but not getting anywhere
ideally, diagrams at the quark level
 
@JohnRennie I don't think i is any less real than pi
All of math is fake
 
everything's fake
but that's fine
 
Even the news nowadays
 
Everything except for Fox, Breitbart and InfoWars is fakw
Quite amazing really
Wonder how many wars we've gotten into because of Fake News
 
ACM is fake news
 
8:39 PM
so fake that it has started to feel genuine tho
that was a terrible thing you just said
i would have flagged that had it not been deleted
 
I'm waking and my post got delayed.
It was a response to @BernardoMeurer
Btw I showed rebecca the ubuntu video
 
The real question the lizard people want to ask is - can you motivate the classification of semi-simple lie algebras
 
@0celo7 With Stallman?
 
What? The h3 one
 
Ah
I thought you were talking about this one
 
8:46 PM
Lol
I'll watch it
What's it about
 
TIL MathOverflow predates Math SE by a year
 
@0celo7 About Free Software and Ubuntu
And stallman is a funny guy to watch talk
 
@0celo7 which type of operator theory? Operator algebras or analysis of linear operators?
 
@yuggib functional calculus for non-normal operators and unbounded functions
something like that
and functions of multiple variables
I wrote down mostly everything but I admit I don't understand exactly what was happening
 
For non-normal operators you don't hace functional calculus...for the other thing weidmann may be good
 
8:57 PM
Oh...you mean for the reference. @yuggib I think have Yosida and Conways to keep me busy with linear operators, I mean operator algebras.
@yuggib Well that's the thing, they were trying to make a functional calculus for non-normal operators.
And something about multiplier algebras that I need to look up
In mathematics, the multiplier algebra, denoted by M(A), of a C*-algebra A is a unital C*-algebra which is the largest unital C*-algebra that contains A as an ideal in a "non-degenerate" way. It is the noncommutative generalization of Stone–Čech compactification. Multiplier algebras were introduced by Busby (1968). For example, if A is the C*-algebra of compact operators on a separable Hilbert space, M(A) is B(H), the C*-algebra of all bounded operators on H. == Definition == An ideal I in a C*-algebra B is said to be essential if I ∩ J is non-trivial for all ideal J. An ideal I is essential if...
Hmm. This seems interesting
@yuggib Yeah, so do you know an intro book for op algebras?
 
hey can someone tell me what the business of integrability is all about?
in a nut shell that is. . .
 
taking integrals is nice
 
hehehe
nice
 
yes, nice
 
ok so may be a bit more meat might help
lolz
 
9:05 PM
I am not sure how one can meaningfully answer that question without knowing what in particular you have in mind.
 
i see a lot of stuff with spin chains
everything seems to have some relation with Heisenberg chains
and then boom integrals pop up
 
I guess he's talking about integrable systems, not integrating functions
 
yes @ACuriousMind
 
You know, you could have made that clearer :P
 
@ACuriousMind I knew.
 
9:07 PM
You'll also need to specify which notion of integrability you are talking about
E.g. Liouville integrability for a Hamiltonian system just means you have the "maximal" amount of constants of motion, so that you can get to action-angle variables. Other notions of integrability are less clear to me.
 
@EmilioPisanty Sorry for being a dick. A ton of personal things had happened and I was in a pretty sour mood when I responded.
 
oh, what happened?
 
@0celo7 Falling out with my best friends (or it seems so)
 
I meant with EP
 
@0celo7 Can you ever just let possible drama rest? What do you gain from knowing?
 
9:10 PM
@0celo7 Oh, I was being snarky about his computer
 
If you didn't notice it, it likely is none of your business :P
 
@ACuriousMind Entertainment.
 
@ACuriousMind I don't have to gain anything from my actions
 
Probably.
 
Also that
Drama is nice
 
9:11 PM
@0celo7 No, you don't have to. But I find you always being so nosy about any potential drama a bit tiresome :P
 
I'm sorry you feel that way
 
@ACuriousMind hang tight, let me look up something. It is not the stuff you mentioned. I have heard the word now and then, and have wanted to learn about what it means. Let me find the source really quick.
@ACuriousMind Johannes Henn gave a few lectures at Nordita about this and I have been wondering if I should naturally schedule some time in the near future to watch the lectures. I just kind of wanted to know a nutshell meaning of the term, and the general culture and feeling surrounding that area of reasearch
 
@ACuriousMind I find it amazing that other people don't want to know what's behind drama
 
@ACuriousMind @0celo7 also there is youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUzSDUlDEIvfutEkCkhy3m6ou9muUQIlo playlist
 
speaking of people with accents, the speaker today was some German guy who wrote in full cursive (bad handwriting)
 
9:17 PM
I think you guys already know this stuff, so it might be helpful just hanging out here and talking about it before I watched the videos
 
Why would we know it?
 
@kevinTahN. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about
 
You guys are experienced
 
With women, maybe. But not integrability.
 
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe nice
 
9:19 PM
> Point set topology is a disease from which the human race will soon recover. - Poincaré
 
was probably a jab at polish stuff
 
@ACuriousMind surely the concept you mentioned in the action angle case should be similar. Can you tell me more about it?
 
is this integrability related in any way to integrable n-plane fields?
 
all I know about it so far is that it seems to be hot right now
 
@BalarkaSen If those define foliations, possibly
@Cows Have you read the Wikipedia article on integrable systems?
I don't think I can tell you much more than what you can find out by searching for the buzzwords mentioned there by yourself
 
@ACuriousMind I am looking at it right now
hmm yeah, I might have to seek a baby tutorial somewhere soon hehe
 
@ACuriousMind Right, it means that
 
@BalarkaSen Yes.
 
Got it, thanks.
 
@BalarkaSen hi, can you distill what it means to me, in simple terms with a simple example devoid of super math terms?
 
9:30 PM
No.
 
@Cows He means a selection of a subspace of the tangent space of each point
 
This might even require hyper-math.
 
@ACuriousMind Where's hypersymmetry?
 
@0celo7 Working on it
 
Add a third kind of variable
Boson, fermion, ???
Has to be some high energy thing that gets integrated out in QFT
 
9:32 PM
this article seems to be more palatable www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~siru/ISsurvey.pdf
 
Bajorion
Then we get the Bajorino
 
Problem is, "commuting" and "anti-commuting" pretty much exhaust the two natural kinds of variables you might try to consider
 
@ACuriousMind Yeah, I know
But I'm sure people said the same thing before they found complex numbers
quaternions, etc.
 
Hm, I wonder if instead of adding Graßmann variables you could add Clifford-like variables with $v_i \cdot v_i = \eta_{ii}$ instead of $0$.
 
You're sounding like Sam now :p
 
9:34 PM
Sounds like a good candidate for hypergeometry :P
 
Format "Hmm, I wonder what X crazy thing does"
@ACuriousMind Do you use Grasßmann and Gauß to upset non-Germans :P
 
Yes.
 
It doesn't work, so there's no need to continue doing it :P
 
ßßßßßß
^a German snake's sound
 
:D
ß is a pregnant woman looking at her belly
 
9:37 PM
Hi guys, I started reading some Lubos Motl posts in his kind of blog. Now I may have misunderstood something, but it seems to me that he says that string theory is exactly equivalent to QFT in every known experiment ever performed. Is that so? I mean in the framework of string theory you can compute everything that you can compute in QFT? To make an example is the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron computable in string theory?
I mean I had no idea, that would dramatically change my approach to string theory, if I correctly understood
 
Try that again with better formatting :P
 
hehe kk.
 
@Runlikehell The low-energy approximation of string theory is a quantum field theory, so it gives a QFT
Which QFT it gives depends on what compactification you choose, and what exactly you do with your branes.
String theory is not equivalent to QFT in the sense that there are QFTs which you cannot obtain as the low-energy approximations of string theories, that's called the "swampland" after a somewhat famous paper by Vafa
 
Ok, so at the end of the first page of the article I linked, it says "A dynamical system defined by a given Hamiltonian H on a 2 n-dimensional phase space 1 Ω is now called (completely) integrable if there exist additional functions H 1 , . . . , H n on Ω (again referred to as ‘Hamiltonians’) such that
H 1 , . . . , H n are independent and in involution (i.e., all Poisson brackets { H j , H k }
vanish). Thus these Hamiltonians are conserved under the Hamiltonian evolution on Ω generated by each of them"
 
@ACuriousMind So the theory itself doesn't tell you the right QFT but you have to figure it out on your own?
 
9:42 PM
@Runlikehell No, just like nothing in QFT tells you the Standard Model is the "right" one, nothing in ST tells you what the correct compactification is, either
There are some proposals for "dynamics" in the compactification landscape, but we really don't understand generic compactification well enough yet to be able to say whether or not it's possible to have mechanisms that select the "correct" one.
 
Reading through the article :)
 
@ACuriousMind . Ok, but then choosing the right QFT you can obtain the standard model and make all the computations in string theory?
 
To a first approximation, integrability is a theory of non-linear pde's - some non-linear pde's possess nice properties which mimic properties that Hamiltonian systems possess, e.g. conserved quantities, but instead of a finite number you now have an infinite number
 
good
i was about to flag that...
 
Ok thus far I have some idea now about the general idea of integrability . . . . so what is the Quantum version of it?
 
9:46 PM
@Runlikehell Problem is, the compactification landscape is vast. There are plenty of ways to generate Standard Model-like theories but string phenomenology is still a young field. We don't know how exactly the Standard Model can come about yet because getting non-supersymmetric QFTs is a bit difficult
I think I read about a model where you get spontaneous breaking of SUSY somewhere below the string scale but above our current experimental scales, though
If you think QFT is a mess (you were the user I was talking to about that recently, right?), ST is even more so
 
all of physics is a mess
the only non-mess physics is GR
admit it
 
Half-baked arguments, constructions that lead nowhere, beautiful but entirely unrealistic results - it looks exactly like you should expect physical research to look like ;P
 
Lol, I have a $K_f^c$ in this proof
I'm hungry now
 
More from the article"At this point it should be mentioned that there exists no widely accepted definition of
‘integrability’ for classical systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom. Rather, the
term is used whenever some of the above structural features are present. For example, the
Euclidean self-dual Yang-Mills equations admit a Lax pair formulation and an infinity of
(more or less) explicit solutions (the instantons), so that they are viewed as ‘integrable’, even
though there is no notion of evolution. (The equations are elliptic rather than hyperbolic.)
 
@0celo7 takesaki (three volumes, pretty complete), arveson (very basic intro), bratteli robinson (more physical)
 
No, an invitation to C*algebra is called
 
doesn't seem to have much in it
 
That one
 
yes, pretty basic as I said...takesaki is far more complete
 
9:52 PM
good lord do you have that in print?
each volume is $180
 
No, only in pdf
 
Ah ok, so correct me if I'm wrong, I'll try to write what I understood now. We haven't found a way to reproduce the standard model from string theory but it is very plausible it can be done, but still not done. Doing the same process with a supersymmetric QFT is way easier, but since we haven't found supersymmetrical partners yet it is not good to focus only on this and not on the non SUSY case.

And yes we were talking about that mess that is QFT.
 
If else there is the connes book on noncommutative geometry if you are brave enough
 
I don't see a particular reason to be interested in concommutative geometry right now
 
All the first part is operator algebras
 
9:55 PM
@Runlikehell Yes, pretty much
 
@0celo7 Why just GR? Not even classical physics? Good old Mechanics or Electromagnetism. Don't like Fluid Dynamics either?
 
@Runlikehell there's nothing wrong with classical physics
I was just taking a jab at ol' 21351 here
 
@ACuriousMind Ok thanks for clarification, I was a bit excited and at the same process sad if this was all done. Excited cause it would have been exciting obviously, and sad cause it was already done and it was something less to discover :) So at end of the day we can't still take numbers out of the theory?
@0celo7 ol'21351?
 
Oh, 21351 is his serial number
 
who's he? ACouriousMind?
 
9:59 PM
yeah
 
Not true, it's 50583
 
WHAT DID YOU DO WITH 21351
 
why does he have serial number?

Edit: To me he has 121322
 
All bots have one
 
^
 
10:01 PM
@Runlikehell Depends on what you mean by "take out numbers". We can compute a great many interesting things with stringy models, unfortunately most of them are of greater interest to mathematicians than physcists as of now. The application of AdS/CFT in condensed matter is probably the closest we've come to "taking out numbers" that actually relate to the real world, but I don't know much about that
 
more excerpts "Often the term ‘integrable’ is used
as a synonym for ‘solved’ or ‘soluble’. However, what it means for a model to have been
solved or to be solvable depends on the type of model and also on the views of individual
workers in the area."
 
@ACuriousMind Ah ok, so this is sad first cause it's not been done, and exciting cause it has to be done :)
 
10:16 PM
so I see you guys excited about spectral theory and c* is this how math people at the top think about QM?
 
@bolbteppa Awesome! reading it now
 
In physics, the Bethe ansatz is an ansatz method for finding the exact solutions of certain one-dimensional quantum many-body models. It was invented by Hans Bethe in 1931 to find the exact eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the one-dimensional antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model Hamiltonian. Since then the method has been extended to other models in one dimension: Bose gas, Hubbard model, etc. In the framework of many-body quantum mechanics, models solvable by the Bethe ansatz can be compared to free fermion models. One can say that the dynamics of a free model is one-body reducible: the many-body...
 
10:39 PM
Hi, everybody.
 
@DanielSank hey dude
 
An example of an interesting genre of questions:
0
Q: Available energy of a collision and momentum calculations for proton-antiproton collisions

FranklinI am currently planning an experiment focusing on J/psi pair production through proton-antiproton collisions at a range of momenta. The linear accelerator I have access to has a range of momenta from 0.5 GeV/c to 10 GeV/c, and I plan to collide a beam of antiprotons with protons in a bound state...

The OP presents him or herself as a profession trying to solve an actual problem. They provide some detail, and then they ask us to complete for them a problem that we'd have expected anyone in the field to (a) have learned before they started research in grad school and (b) would almost certainly prefer to bone up on rather than admit to not being able to do such a basic thing.
Of course, I suspect that this is a ploy to avoid the homework policy.
But ... it would be pretty nasty to say as much to someone actually in such a bind.
 
the op could be a rich guy or gal with some spare time and engineering know how
 
Could be. Could be.
But a 10 GeV proton source is nothing to sneeze at and access to it would necessarily come with someone who knows this stuff.
 
10:56 PM
lol
obviously took a word problem out of a textbook, and re-worded it to sound like a personal question
have you tried Googling some of the text?
 
I just noticed that it is a 10 GeV antiproton beam. That's a whole 'nother layer of serious professional kit.
You'd need a small team just to keep the beam running.
 
So, I am about to switch on my LHC, and I need to know, what luminosity should I set the beams to in order to gather data on Higgs pair production at a rate of 20 inverse femtobarns per fortnight?
 
Oh, my. The longer I think about it, the funnier it seems.
 
11:11 PM
You know, you guys could nudge him in the right direction, as it is inevitable that he might learn quite a bit more over time, and have a lasting bad taste about the community if he is instead laughed at.
2
 
hmm, how to tag a question about inkjet printers and the physics behind them...
@BenNiehoff lol
let's see, it's about the ink, so maybe
probably
 
@BernardoMeurer Drake got a light 5
 
11:48 PM
@Cows Keep in mind that appearances are that he has assumed we were stupid and tried to play us.
 
@dmckee well ok that's true too lol
 
@Cows What's up?
Hi @heather.
 
hello @DanielSank
 
Did you ever write that answer about multi-qubit states and matrices?
 

« first day (2330 days earlier)      last day (2590 days later) »