« first day (2371 days earlier)      last day (2564 days later) » 

10:00 PM
If that is correct I will slap you for calling it "shitty"
 
I'm talking from the laptop, Arch is on the desktop :P
 
Aaaah
I was very confused
Okay
So listen to me now
Very carefully
Linux and Nvidia hate each other
 
But
@0celouvskyopoulo7 Nvidia is a shitty company who doesn't help with driver support
@JaimeGallego There are very specific steps on how to get Nvidia to work on Linux
My advice to you would be to do a fresh install of Arch
Install the PROPRIETARY nvidia drivers
 
Already did a pacman -S nvidia
 
10:02 PM
you will need 32-bit compat libs
Did you read the wiki?
 
And a xf86-nouveau
Yes
 
Why'd you get nouveau and nvidia?
That will not go well
IIRC you cannot have both at the same time unless you have bumblebee to handle it
and since your desktop doesn't have battery issues don't bother with bumblebee
Unless you want to take a stand about proprietary drivers
in which case run only nouveau
 
M A L W A R E
Nah, I'm cool
 
Yes, you're learning
DAMMIT
I think you just have conflicting drivers do, eh, let me try and remember the goddamn command
lsmod | grep video
 
video 36864 0
Just that
 
10:06 PM
Dang
Eh
Get your USB install thingy
Start over the install, I do not know how to fix these creepy driver issues
When you boot successfully ping me and we get video the right way
 
Reading about the interaction picture is never fun because it is a magic trick
 
@Slereah But magic tricks are fun!
 
@ACuriousMind You got me no birthday gifts
mean
 
I bought you a crate of beer but then I drank it myself
 
You're not an AI, you're just malware
 
10:10 PM
im ded 3
 
@BernardoMeurer By any chance, do you know about any PGP keysigning parties? The Complutense used to have one, but now there's nuthin'
 
@JaimeGallego Nope, I don't use PGP enough to mind that
 
Bernie -> Big Government -> spying emails. It all makes sense now
 
I don't care if the NSA spies on me
It's like giving a newspaper to a cow
 
I'm not even quite sure what are the assumptions that go in the interaction picture
as wrong as they may be, what "axioms" do you put in to get the interaction picture?
What do you use to pretend that $\vert \Omega \rangle = e^{iS} \vert 0 \rangle$
and in what conditions does that hold
Can you do it with any asymptotic state?
What if the $t \to - \infty$ state is a domain wall
 
10:19 PM
@Slereah You "use" pretending that Haag's theorem doesn't exist and that everything works as in finite-d.o.f. QM.
I'm not sure what sorts of "axioms" you're looking for in a procedure that's inherently not-axiomatic
 
Well you know, a rule of thumb, at least
a motivation
a rule that, although wrong, will allow us to prove all the further rules we're gonna use
 
Oh, I guess you want the "secretly, all QFT is on a lattice and you take the continuum limit at the end" viewpoint for that
 
well, the usual lore is that you can expand $|0\rangle$ in the eigenbasis of the interacting theory
and in the limit $t\to\infty$ you only get the vacuum
 
That shifts all the non-rigorous things into "the continuum limit", which is...not really an improvement :D
 
heh
@AccidentalFourierTransform ah yes
I remember that in Peskin
 
10:22 PM
it sounds more or less convincing the first time you hear that
 
he had the vague argument that since the interaction is small, then probably $\langle 0|\Omega \rangle \neq 0$
 
specially if you come from standard QM where it a valid claim
 
yeah, but then it sounds suspiscious
Because if that was true, why would he specify that it works "because the interaction is small"
It should work for all!
 
Itzykson&Zuber "prove" that $|0\rangle=|\Omega\rangle$ up to a phase
so theres that too lol
 
It is convincing until one starts to nitpick "in what spaces" the $\lvert \Omega\rangle$ and $\lvert 0\rangle$ live
 
10:24 PM
Yeah I still don't quite understand the Haag theorem either, really
Since it's not too obvious since all Hilbert space are homeomorphic
or isomorphic
 
It's not about the Hilbert space, it's about the CCR
 
It's one of the morphisms
I forget which
I recall, yes
We've had that conversation a fair number of times :p
 
They are isomorphic (isometric even), but not unitarily equivalent as representations of the CCR
I'm not sure there's much to understand about that from a physical viewpoint except for "fields are annoying" :P
 
I guess that the take-home message is that unitary-equivalence is too strong of a condition
 
either that or "throw away QFT"
 
10:26 PM
and that you may have operators that are "physically equivalent" in a sense, but they are not unitary-equivalent
 
To the trash it goes!
 
Let's all go back to being cavemen and not worry about it
I don't even remember if Heisenberg makes sense in QFT
Can you define derivatives on field operators that make sense?
 
@Slereah You can be a 21st century human and not worry about it with no problem :P
@Slereah Ehhhhh, derivatives of operators are a tricky topic already in finite-d.o.f. QM
 
or is that more physics wizardry
So the interaction picture is many layers of suspiscious
 
10:31 PM
It is
 
And that's in flat space, imagine in curved space where even the vacuum is suspiscious
I mean I think you can sort of define a vacuum as a state that minimizes $H$ in a frame, but that's about it
 
Curved space is a lie
 
How does the interaction picture even work in weirder theories where you have more than one vacuum
 
wait, what does the vacuum have to do with the interaction picture?
 
Usually you define the vacuum of the interacting theory from the vacuum of the free theory via the interaction picture
but what if you have multiple vacua
though I think they're all related by some unitary operator anyway
nvm
Why can't we go back to the time when we just had point particles moving in the Void
Democritus had the right idea
You can tell he doesn't approve of QFT
 
I can tell he doesn't approve of much
 
I guess if we assume that there's some $\langle 0 \vert \Omega \rangle \neq 0$, then for any state it's gonna degenerate in free fields at $-\infty$?
 
Rust is weird AF
 
Does that sound about right
And does that work for any state
Including bound states
Or weirder states like topological defects
 
what on earth are you two on about
 
10:45 PM
you know, QFT
The greatest lie
 
@Slereah What do you mean by it "degenerating in free fields"?
 
@ACuriousMind Do you have a feeling for what $\mathrm{Hess}u=\Delta u g/n$ would imply about the manifold?
 
@ACuriousMind The usual QFT thing where at $t = -\infty$, the state is just some Fock state
 
@Slereah Well...if you are gonna pretend that the overlap of the two states is a meaningful thing to compute, how could it not be a Fock state?
 
Well because it seems weird for some states
Or is that just a point where the assumption breaks down
 
10:48 PM
I mean, the $\lvert \Omega \rangle$ is "some Fock state" because it lives in the same Hilbert space as the $\lvert 0\rangle$ and the Hilbert space of the latter is just the Fock space.
 
I don't think we can pretend that a domain wall is just a Fock state at infinity
 
But yeah, pretending that doesn't make a whole lot of sense
 
I guess that maybe I'm thinking of this backward
It's probably more 1) we assume this 2) we look at what physical process that works for
And that works for scattering experiments and that is that
And the HEP people are happy
and the notion just breaks down for any other type of experiment
If that is true it's not too complicated but poorly explained in QFT books
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Is it?
I have a very hard time believing any global claims about QM.
 
You're gonna have a very hard time when you get to QFT
 
10:55 PM
@Slereah Are you talking to me?
 
yes I am
 
I'm familiar with QFT
It's all wrong
 
that it is
 
@Slereah I need to think of people to quote in my thesis
 
Parents and advisors are the classics
 
10:57 PM
typo
 
Well, some QFTs are alright, but only the free ones
Or the trivial ones
 
Why would you quote people?
 
@ACuriousMind Everyone does it
 
@ACuriousMind One always puts an inspirational quote or two
 
Nope
 
10:58 PM
Yep
 
Well, many do
I think Alice in Wonderland is a popular thing to quote
I guess it's just full of general quotable things in many contexts
 
"Americans are too in love with the sound of their own voice to speak the truth!" - Revolver Ocelot
 
> The notation $\delta$-function is a wild abuse of notation. Maybe it has survived because it is so bad that the motivation for introducing the concept of distributions becomes clear.
 
Is that the time of the day where we mock America
 
- Gerd Grubb
@ACuriousMind In which game did I say that?
 
11:01 PM
@0celouvskyopoulo7 MGS2: SoL, apparently
 
Ah
I was overly Communist in that game.
I was infiltrating a Russian spy group, so it's fine
> The next person to propose a new definition of connection should be summarily executed. - Mike Spivak
> The proof is trivial. - Fermat
 
quote some dank homer
"he was advancing in pursuit of traces of the Goddess"
 
Maybe you should quote the Epic of Gilgamesh
In the original sumerian
 
@ACuriousMind Did you not quote anyone?
 
I need to align my sleep patterns for this SATurday, should go to sleep now.
Catch you later
 
11:04 PM
@0celouvskyopoulo7 No, and I don't plan to do so in my master's thesis, either.
 
> My life was so much easier before I tried to solve differential equations. - Me.
@ACuriousMind Why not?
 
Because...I don't see why I should, I guess
 
Because it's neat
 
I mean, if there was some eerily appropriate quote I'd include it
 
You're an AI, why am I even talking to you
 
11:06 PM
Maybe I should quote "There is no spoon" just to make you wonder what I meant by that :P
 
@ACuriousMind Hirsch has some really good quotes you know
 
The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?
— Jerry Bona
 
> The statement sometimes made, that there exist only analytic function in nature, is in my opinion absurd. - F. Klein
> "Transversal" is a noun; the adjective is "transverse." - J.H.C. Whitehead
 
@Slereah I know that quote and like it, but who the hell was Jerry Bona?
 
he is the quoter of this quote
 
11:08 PM
> Geometry is a magic that works... - R. Thom
oooo
I like that one
 
a thesis I read on non-Hausdorff manifolds had of course this great quote
 
> Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them they translate into their own language and forthwith it is something completely different. - Goethe
 
"Non-Hausdorff spaces, often regarded as a technical nuisance, sometimes produce a global disaster."
- Geometry of non-Hausdorff spaces and its significance for physics by M.Heller et al
 
> The only prerequisites are basic algebra and calculus. - S.W. Hawking & G.F.R. Ellis
I still can't believe that quote
 
that's like Bourbaki saying no requisites at all
Perhaps technically true, but not really helpful
 
11:12 PM
Pretty sure you need more than that for HE
Like...topology
 
yeah, some topology wouldn't go amiss
 
PDEs are usually included in calculus
 
Sobolev spaces are basic calculus?
 
maybe not
 
Haag has some sort-of axioms for how to define scattering states
The Haag Ruelle scattering theory
 
KAAAAAZOOOOOOO
 
I probably should read Haag's book fully at some point
Peskin and Schwartz are alright but they don't really fill me with certainty as to why QFT works
semi-rigorous QFT is pretty ugly
 
Rust is pretty much glorified brainfuck
 
Brainfuck is just a glorified Post machine
The article Turing machine gives a general introduction to Turing machines, while this article covers a specific class of Turing machines. A Post–Turing machine is a "program formulation" of an especially simple type of Turing machine, comprising a variant of Emil Post's Turing-equivalent model of computation described below. (Post's model and Turing's model, though very similar to one another, were developed independently. Turing's paper was received for publication in May 1936, followed by Post's in October.) A Post–Turing machine uses a binary alphabet, an infinite sequence of binary storage...
They seem to do this weird thing which I'm guessing is due to the lack of proof of the mass gap where they project the Hilbert space to some ugly Hilbert space
$\hat E(\{0\} \cup M_m \cup V_m) \mathscr H$
With $M_m$ the mass shell and $V_m$ the free multiparticle spectrum
 
11:49 PM
if you have a thing named after you, how do you refer to it
 
The me theorem
Overall physics papers are very impersonal
 
physics?
c'mon
you're not a physicist
why does everything have to be physics with you
we talk about math
 
because physics chat
You get weird thing where authors refer to papers they wrote without mentioning that it is them
It is beyond gauche to point it out
 
Some do
 
they are very uncouth
 
11:52 PM
@Slereah I've observed in talks that people will not write out their names
Like they will call it the theorem of "Blah, Blah, and -"
Or just their initials
This is only in math
In engineering people hog all of the glory
 
Feynman or someone like that should have just written a paper with all the things named after him
As you see, the Feynman diagram for the Feynman theory of weak interaction can be solved with this Feynman integral
 
Ah, you should read Colding & Minicozzi
They're two giants in their field, and half the results are named after them
Similar with the books by Schoen-Yau, Li
 
heh
 
Hormander doesn't even need a bibliography, he invented the theory he's writing about
 
It's pretty hard to invent your own theory these days
You have to invent some weird thing like the interuniversal Teichmuller theory
 
11:57 PM
@Slereah CM reference themselves 29 different times
 
I think the greatest faux pas is of course to name a theorem after yourself before others did it for you
Especially awkward if it turns out that theorem already existed
 
@Slereah There's a dyanamical probability guy who named a theorem by an acronym
 

« first day (2371 days earlier)      last day (2564 days later) »