« first day (2696 days earlier)      last day (2234 days later) » 

8:01 PM
How does one even break into oil exploration?
 
@Slereah I thought that went up and down all the time and can make rather a volatile career?
 
Geology
 
I think someone in this chat had been working for NASA for 10+ years, went to big oil, and then they had that price crash and I think he went back to aerospace
 
hmm interesting
 
I forget who, now
 
@bolbteppa yeah such a good lecture, he develops the subject using trig
I will watch it again tonight
 
The later chapters of this book archive.org/details/courseofmodernan00whit are the basic thing you're 'supposed' to know, actually knowing it is a completely different matter :p
 
wow , yeah gotta love the "basic" things :P
great book
 
Anonymous
@alarge David Hammen
 
8:09 PM
wow
 
@Blue Indeed. From the description it looks like it wasn't big oil, but a startup, but still.
 
small oil
 
8:24 PM
The difference between scientific proof and legal proof can be seen in a case
of fare-dodging. A former student of physics at Imperial College decided that
public transport should be free. He produced a pamphlet advising travellers
to travel without any money and without a ticket, and to declare this at the
ticket barrier. Provided that you give a name and address, you will be let
through, he advised; London Transport will never check up and ask you for
the money, as this action costs more than it brings in. Moreover, if you give
my sides
 
that person doesn't seem very wise. clever, maybe
 
@Semiclassical similar to
 
lol
@EmilioPisanty I hadn't looked at them before, but now that I am the visualizations page for integrals with coalescing saddle points in the DLMF are crazy
also, this page is cool: dlmf.nist.gov/36.3.F1b.webgl
 
Hey physicists
I have a topological apology for you all
 
@BalarkaSen How many holes does it have in it?
 
8:35 PM
I'll let you decide after I ask my question :)
 
Jesus
Streater spends a lot of time rambling about Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
I mean it vaguely illustrates a point about probabilities, but not worthy of an entire chapter
I think he has an axe to grind
The UK government probably stole his baby
that's the most talk about dead babies I've ever seen in a physics book
I might skip the rest of the chapter
 
nobody said physics was a bed of roses :p
 
well yes, but at its worse I expect physics to be about destroying the universe
not dead babies
 
So, given a conducting planar loop in the 3-space we can consider it as a magnetic dipole where the north and south poles of the loop are the "front" and "back" of the disk that loop encloses.
Further, the magnetic dipole moment is $p_m = I \cdot A$ where $I$ is the current through the loop and $A$ is the area of the disk the loop bounds (this is justified by computing the magnetic field at a point on the axis of the loop, which correctly turns out to be $B = (\mu_0/4\pi) \cdot 2p_m/x^3$ in analogy with $E = (1/4\pi\epsilon_0) \cdot 2p_e/x^3$ in the case of electric dipoles).
In particular the arrangement of the magnetic field lines generated by the current-carrying loop is easy to describe. Question: What if the loop turns out to be a nontrivial topological knot instead of a planar loop? It doesn't bound a disk in it's interior, but rather a Seifert surface.
How does the magnetic field look like?
 
I do not know!
 
8:44 PM
And you call yourself a physicist?? (<--- a joke)
 
Well at least I didn't kill any babies
I mean, it's not like this book is MTW, just a giant book where you could just throw in random facts
It's 160 pages
there's one chapter on Munchausen syndrome by proxy and one chapter on marijuana and schizophrenia
 
@ACuriousMind @JohnRennie Perhaps you two will have some thoughts to share about my question above ^
 
@EmilioPisanty Heya
What tag?
 
This sounds similar to considering: Suppose I have a loop of current-carrying wire. Formally, I can write down the magnetic field produced by this wire using the Biot-Savart law. I can then pick another loop and compute the circulation of the magnetic field along this loop; by Ampere's law, this will just be the current enclosed by the loop. But that in turn will be some integer multiple of the current in the wire.
 
Good observation
 
8:49 PM
If you write that out formally, you'll end up finding that the double line integral that you write out is just Gauss's integral definition of the linking number
 
Oh great of course that makes sense
I was about to say that it should be exactly $\mu_0 I$ for the Hopf link
(i.e., $n = 1$)
This is fabulous.
 
right.
 
Oh god now I want to make a electromagnetic invariant for determining that the Borromean link is nontrivial
2
 
I'm not sure it helps you directly, since you wanted a knot not a link
 
Yeah but this is fantastic, I love it
 
8:52 PM
What if the space isn't simply connected and the loop isn't trivial :O
what is the magnetic field then!
 
So if I take a single component of the Borromean link, conduct current through it, I would get $0$ if I integrate the field over the other two components
Question: What is the electromagnetic arrangement that tells me the information that they are linked in toto?
 
What invariant would you calculate in knot theory?
 
A very complicated one called the Massey product
I have no idea how it works though, I probably should. That should give some clues
Let's see
 
looks messy
 
@unsym Speak of the trefoil knot...
 
9:00 PM
@BalarkaSen Well, that explains why you ducked the question in my little joke. I defer to you folks with more abstract math than I have.
 
Hahah
I liked the joke. More specifically, Seifert surfaces usually have nonzero genus. The more complicated your knot, the worse the Seifert surface! (For the trefoil knot it's genus 1, but not easy to see)
So many holes indeed
 
looking around, it seems like most modern research involves not current-carrying wires but magnetic helicity
which sorta makes sense: the former is a bit artificial, whereas latter arises naturally in discussions of plasmas and magnetohydrodynamics
but I've yet to find a good explanation of it
 
I haven't heard the term before
 
yeah, me either
The helicity of a smooth vector field defined on a domain in 3D space is the standard measure of the extent to which the field lines wrap and coil around one another. As to magnetic helicity, this "vector field" is magnetic field. It is a generalization of the topological concept of linking number to the differential quantities required to describe the magnetic field. As with many quantities in electromagnetism, magnetic helicity (which describes magnetic field lines) is closely related to fluid mechanical helicity (which describes fluid flow lines). If magnetic field lines follow the strands of...
 
That's a strange object to define, at a glance.
 
9:08 PM
agreed
it's not something you encounter in a standard E&M class
see in particular that picture at the bottom
(I sorta wish they did a toroid there, since then the picture literally would be a trefoil knot)
 
I see, it's supposed to measure the linking of the magnetic field lines
 
right.
that's a little ill-defined, insofar as there's usually infinitely many field lines.
I imagine there's a way to think about it, though.
 
I think you can define it if you think of the foliation by the field-lines as a fibration
 
maybe.
 
The picture that crosses my mind is that of a Hopf fibration
Two far-apart circles are always linked with linking number +1
 
9:14 PM
magnetohydrodynamics is a tough field, as I understand it
@BalarkaSen if you're intrigued, I'd look here: arxiv.org/pdf/1207.1793.pdf
though I mostly just have in mind up to page 4
 
This look like a nice paper
Mm, I see how one would define the Gauss map $T^3 \to S^2$ corresponding to a link with three components in $\Bbb R^3$. I dealt with it for a link with two components here:
3
A: Techniques for computing the Brouwer degree of a smooth map

Balarka SenLet us try to understand $\lambda$ first. Suppose in general that $L, L'$ are two linked (but disjoint) circles in $\Bbb R^3$ and you look at the map $\lambda : L \times L' \to S^2$ defined analogously. Then $\lambda(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ is truly the unit direction vector from $\mathbf{x}$ to...

@Semiclassical I see, so restricting the integrand/4-form of the integral in the definition of helicity to closed integral curves of $V$ gives precisely the Gauss's linking formula
By which I mean, say $\gamma$ and $\sigma$ are closed integral curves of $V$ in $\Omega$, then pullback the integrand to $\gamma \times \sigma \subset \Omega \times \Omega$
 
9:34 PM
right.
 
It seems the definition of the Gauss map for a three-component link in $\Bbb R^3$ crucially uses the duality of 1 and 2 dimensional Grassmannians, which is in turn used heavily in E&M
Or so it seems to me
 
yeah
$*dx = dy\wedge dz$ makes things a lot simpler
 
Yup
 
the other thing is just that magnetohydrodynamics inevitably involves some discussion of the electric field
which makes things complicated.
 
For time-dependent currents?
 
9:37 PM
I think so?
well
you don't have current carrying wires in those settings
the currents are current densities corresponding to the motions of actual charged particles
which means there's the further complication that those fields will drive the motion of said particles
and thus stuff gets coupled and complicated
 
Ah OK. I guess I meant more generally that changing magnetic flux gives rise to electric potential.
 
oh sure.
there's a bunch of time-dependence in all of this, fo rsure
 
Gotcha
Wow this paper is full of actual math. Who the fuck wrote this
Surely not physicists
 
lol
the one I linked?
it's definitely not a physics paper, no
 
Yeah
 
9:41 PM
I just found it by googling
 
I mean their exposition of the mathematics shows signs of physicist-exposition influence but that doesn't diminish it's quality, not at all
This is 11/10
 
once you get the hang of that, you could look at the following dissertation: maths.dundee.ac.uk/mhd/Pdfs/mayer.pdf
see the title of chapter six in particular :>
 
Holy shit
 
plasma physics, I should stress, is mostly outside my domain of knowledge
 
And I thought I was asking an original question. Frick, going to have to go down the ladder of scientific fields ranked by purity to do breakthroughs
 
9:46 PM
hah
 
Physics is still too high up the ladder
Ideally social science is the right place ;)
 
Once you leave the realm of spherical cows (ideal configurations) in physics you become an engineer :p
 
what about a cylindrical cow
 
I aspire to get to ellipsoidal cows for all the basic concepts at least
 
@bolbteppa use this
The superformula is a generalization of the superellipse and was proposed by Johan Gielis around 2000. Gielis suggested that the formula can be used to describe many complex shapes and curves that are found in nature. Gielis has filed a patent application related to the synthesis of patterns generated by the superformula. In polar coordinates, with r {\displaystyle r} the radius and φ {\displaystyle \varphi } the angle, the superformula is: r ( φ ...
 
9:58 PM
I'm sure there's an electrostatics problem which requires that craziness as a solution
 
There's a lot of weird ODE solutions that exist just because of like
Antenna problems
finding out the signal produced by antennas with weird shapes
 
@Slereah That has to be the best named formula
 
My favorite math concept name remains this
 
My personal favorite is the elliptope, and the related concept of a spectrahedron
 
'the largest non-McNugget number is the Frobenius number of the McNugget Number generators'
 
10:16 PM
Hi, everybody.
 
hey
 
vzn
@Slereah lol this is much better sexier $3M breakthru winner Tao talked about em on Colbert check em out :P o_O
In mathematics, sexy primes are prime numbers that differ from each other by six. For example, the numbers 5 and 11 are both sexy primes, because 11 minus 5 is 6. If p + 2 or p + 4 (where p is the lower prime) is also prime, then the sexy prime is part of a prime triplet. The term "sexy prime" stems from the Latin word for six: sex. == n# notation == As used in this article, n# stands for the product 2 · 3 · 5 · 7 · … of all the primes ≤ n. == Types of groupings == === Sexy prime pairs === The sexy primes (sequences  A023201 and  A046117 in OEIS) below 500 are: (5,11), (7,13), (11,17...
 
Did nobody seriously check primes greater than 1000 before 1950
oh wait
It's number of digits
Not the prime itself
that makes more sense
 
vzn
@Slereah pre 1950 is pre computers
 
Yes, but remember
The sieve
it's easy to generate large primes
the current largest prime is apparently $$3 \times 2^{11731850} − 1$$
fairly large
 
vzn
10:27 PM
presumably the largest primes known are all fermat primes
@Slereah dont know what you mean, its always reqd computers.
 
@Slereah No! nononono.
 
8,191 was proven prime in 1456
 
Einstein notation is best understood as an abstract contraction, not a sum.
 
Must have been some old ass computer
@DanielSank boo
 
Ok ok, there's not much of a difference, but remembering that index contraction makes sense without reference to a basis is important.
 
vzn
10:29 PM
too bad none of the so-called mathematicians around here never drop by here :( :P
 
oh come off it
 
I learned numbers in primary school, @vzn
no need for more!
I can count up to like a hundred
 
vzn
my favorite is the connections between riemann conjecture and QM... have no idea about any of it o_O :P
 
Zeta regularization you mean?
 
vzn
@Slereah collected some random links/ papers on it, dyson seemed to notice it 1st. iirc semiclassical looked at it a bit )(.
 
10:32 PM
You know what's also weird?
There's a connection between the Poincaré conjecture and GR
 
vzn
whoa freaky man
 
Basically it constrains the smooth structure of spacetime to the canonical one if it's globally hyperbolic
 
vzn
wants to prove riemann right after collatz o_O :P
 
@vzn I want a dollar every time you type "o_O".
 
oOo_ooOo
 
vzn
10:35 PM
@DanielSank lol! says the guy with as many emotions as Spock :P
 
user image
2
 
God that's beautiful
 
$$\Huge{\text{ꙮ_ꙮ}}$$
 
vzn
ofc you would luv it, its a meme :P ... 2 in 1 even
 
It's just a lolcatz
memes are much more cOmPliCaTeD than that
very SubTle
 
vzn
10:38 PM
almost as subtle/ complicated as new physics™ :P
 
11:19 PM
@vzn You know... that's not very nice.
1) How can you possibly know anything about my emotions?
2) How is that relevant here?
3) How is calling someone unemotional ok under the "be nice" policy?
6
 

« first day (2696 days earlier)      last day (2234 days later) »