« first day (2699 days earlier)      last day (2241 days later) » 

12:22 AM
user image
3
I wonder if we can make a quantum field to behave like that
 
God I'm sick of Word crashing on me when I'm trying to work
 
12:47 AM
@SirCumference that's your fault for using word
 
@0celo7 As opposed to what? LaTeX?
 
Does anyone have any idea how to treat this integral in the limit of large $a$?
$$\int d^3 y\ d^3 z\ d^3 p\ \frac{e^{i p \cdot (\vec{z}-\vec{y})}}{p} e^{-(|y-x|+|z-x|)/a^2}$$
 
@SirCumference yes
 
@0celo7 Latex is only more difficult
 
@SirCumference Yes, probably
But more stable for sure
 
 
2 hours later…
vzn
2:58 AM
 
?
 
3:28 AM
Prepping notes for a (programming ) class I have to teach(in the 5000-mile radius hehe). Yeah I guess this is happening lol
I start teaching tomorrow
 
 
2 hours later…
5:03 AM
@Blue I wonder if your regional settings are messed up. The clocks went forward in the UK on Sunday and it seems a strange coincidence that your laptop time should start playing up on the same day.
The Windows install files are the same for all regions. It's only the region settings in Windows that change.
Internally Windows always uses UTC time. All the regional settings do is define the offset to be added whenever the time is rendered for viewing by the user.
 
5:37 AM
@Secret looks like string nets
 
@JohnRennie As far as I know this strategy is the one adopted by most modern OS.
Of course, last time I installed Debian it still had the option to set you motherboard clock to local time, but only if you (a) ran the expert install and (b) expanded several layer of stuff that recommended you accept the default unless you knew what you were doing.
But Debian doesn't like to throw stuff away, even when it is bonkers.
 
6:03 AM
@Secret The one thing I hate is when physics concepts are introduced in math courses. It should strictly be the other way around
Math has no physical dependence
 
@dmckee I did my first 32 bit Windows programming (on NT 3.1 !!!) in winter, when local time and UTC matched, and I didn't realise until the next spring when my programs started going wrong :-)
 
@ACuriousMind see the link above
 
sir cumference you remind me of the detractors of calculus who said that motion has no place in mathematics
 
@RyanThorngren "Motion"?
I'm just saying that math classes shouldn't introduce applications
 
6:19 AM
@0celo7 Noted and downloaded, it'll take me a while to read it though - I'll probably get to it tomorrow evening :)
@SirCumference Simple applications are often very good motivations, though. Is it not much clearer why one would want to compute derivatives if one knows that the derivative of position over time is velocity?
 
@ACuriousMind Very true. But sometimes they back fire. One of the reasons why parametric functions confuse so many people at first is because they think it has something to do with time.
The limit definition of $e$ bores some people because they assume it has to do with monetary interest rates.
Introducing the line integral with a moving particle, or however, creates the idea that math has a physical dependence
 
Apparently you have encountered very different people than I have...
I've never met someone who thought $e$ had to do with finance :P
 
@ACuriousMind Well, I may have stretched that one a bit
 
Anyway, much as I'd love to discuss math pedagogy, I should go to work. Cya!
 
And I ought to head to bed, it's 2:26am. 'Night
 
6:30 AM
@ACuriousMind Cool
Please let me know about obvious mistakes or whatever, I'm of course not expecting a detailed reading
 
Hey
How do we find the kinetic energy of a body
which has angular velocities along more than one axes?
 
6:45 AM
You add them all up.
 
7:09 AM
mornin
 
@schrodinger_16 A body only has angular velocity along one axis.
But that angular velocity might have components along three different axes. You can, of course, add up the three values of kinetic energy that you get from considering each component separately; as Avantgarde said.
@ACuriousMind Actually, it does. Given a particular per annum interest rate, if you take the limit of effective interest rate as you decrease the compounding period, $e$ shows up in the expression for the result. I won't bore you with the mathematics, because I'm sure you can check this for yourself.
Oh dear. England lost the cricket.
 
7:27 AM
@DawoodibnKareem surprise surprise :-)
 
Well, there was so much rain, it wouldn't have surprised me if they'd managed to hold on until the end and salvage a draw.
 
To be fair they managed a decent score in their second innings, but it was always going to be a struggle to recover form that ... erm ... spectacular first innings :-)
@schrodinger_16 if you have an anisotropic object and it isn't rotating about a principal axis use the moment of inertia tensor and the tensor equation $E = \tfrac{1}{2}I\omega^2$.
 
That's true. Most of the batsmen made decent scores in the second innings. No centuries, but four were over 50. It was just not quite enough in the end.
To be fair, Williamson should have declared way earlier, with an innings in hand and the weather looking dodgy.
 
7:44 AM
Umm, could you check this particular problem please?
0
Q: Rotating Cone - Finding Energy and Momentum

schrodinger_16I think I've a conceptual lacuna that needs to be filled, when it comes to a rigid body possessing angular velocities along more than one axes. Here's my doubt - Consider the following solid cone (mass $m$), with semi-vertical angle $\alpha$ and radius $r$, rotating about the Z axis with some ...

 
Isn't that exactly the same question that Avantgarde, John Rennie and I have all just answered for you?
 
8:28 AM
Howdy
 
9:02 AM
Hello
 
hey
 
How to lift an object at a constant velocity upwards
 
9:41 AM
@vzn : sorry, but I'm not on the trail of a new fluid paradigm. It isn't really anything new either. Light waves are said to be transverse waves, which means we're talking about a an analogy with a solid, and it goes back to Maxwell. It's more of a wave nature of matter paradigm, and it isn't something I've come up with.
@bolbteppa : "I think the problem is the inability to be happy with uncertainty in thinking that leads one to pretend they know everything and not care if they're shown to be wrong". The problem is that you can't show me a depiction of the electromagnetic field, because contemporary physics pays lip service to Maxwell's unification, and can't even explain how a magnet works. If you're happy with that, fine, but I'm not.
 
@Blue : "I guess it's important to choose one's battles wisely". It's also important to check your facts. Concerning for example the mass deficit: “This missing mass may be lost during the process of binding as energy in the form of heat or light, with the removed energy corresponding to the removed mass through Einstein's equation E=mc²”.
 
10:46 AM
"Saying that the logical consequences of this information spread with superluminal velocity is about as helpful as saying that twice two turns with superluminal velocity into four"
 
11:15 AM
@0celo7 error 404
 
11:55 AM
Literally all literature on Cauchy horizons for wormholes seem to assume vanishingly small radius
what is this garbage
 
but such wormhole can never be transversible even if stable right?, because nothing will ever fit through them
Meanwhile I don't remember if I have asked this before, but can we have wormholes with 3 mouths?
 
Jim
12:07 PM
@SirCumference I have been pinged, did you want to ask something?
 
@0celo7 I seem to recall you mentioned a theorem that you could show global hyperbolicity just from the null geodesics
Is that correct and if so where is such a theorem?
Doesn't seem to be in HE
"APPENDIX: STRUCTURE OF THE CAUCHY HORIZON"
Yesss
 
should not be too far fetched
 
2
Q: Can the mouths of a worm-hole be torus shaped?

PyRulezTheoretically, most wormholes should have spherical mouths (if they exist). Could have a wormhole have torus-shaped mouths? What about other shapes?

 
12:35 PM
@Slereah wald
 
thanks my dude
 
thm 8.3.7
 
0celo, I got error 404, I will interpreted that you already have the thesis submitted?
 
I'll give it a look once home
Tho not much time for physics lately
Lots of packing things in boxes
 
@Secret no, it's still in edit
 
12:37 PM
I'd like to have a look if the thesis is self contained, cause often those outside the field can point out typographical and grammar errors most readily if any
 
"a caustic is the critical value set of a Lagrangian mapping (π ○ i) : L ↪ M ↠ B; where i : L ↪ M is a Lagrangian immersion of a Lagrangian submanifold L into a symplectic manifold M, and π : M ↠ B is a Lagrangian fibration of the symplectic manifold M."
So obvious
 
Wikipedia's article on caustics is a crime
Hm
what's a good place to learn about caustics
Penrose has a tiny page about it
 
12:54 PM
Bumping my question here:
0
Q: Learning physics not axiomatically

Alex K Chen( I saw the threads this and this before, this is not a dupe) I am total newbie (I mean I am an high school senior, but physics taught in my school is basically super bogus) in physics and want to learn it by myself. But while learning physics I always ask "why" and not getting proper axiomatic ...

 
actually no. Open the Stargate first, we will figure out the rest later
anyway, since we stopped here, better check out what physics had to offer in that uni...
Alex K Chen: Unlike maths, often the answer to the "whys" fall beyond physics. For example, you can say the newton laws of motion are derived from the euler lagrange equation, but then one can then ask where the lagrangian came from and why it has that form, which there is no answer
 
Asking "why" is the wrong question :p
You're not gonna get an intuitive answer because all physical theories ever made basically ran counter to intuition
Any "why" is just gonna be answered with different axiomatic statements in the end
I don't even think that Aristotle's ideas satisfied students back then
 
Anonymous
@JohnDuffield I am clearly not interested in continuing this conversation with you. You can give it a rest.
 
approximately 1 hours before reaching Location.home
 
1:10 PM
hint hint
wink wink
nudge nudge
 
ignore is sooooooooo overated
 
Also is @secret stalking me
 
I don't think I can cause I am on the southern hemisphere
But anyway, that gone off to a tangent because there are some interesting physics in that uni (which you have mentioned in your AMA)
It's interesting how there are two chemistry domains in your (past?) uni
For reference, ours has a nanoscience hub, a chemistry building and some engineering stuff
France is focusing quite heavily on renewable policies, thus I will imagine unis there will have a large department to accomodate relevant fields of research. I have not follow much about france lately, though
 
1:36 PM
@Jim Er, sure. Are you a theoretical or experimental cosmologist?
 
Jim
@SirCumference theory
 
Neat
What math is useful to learn to do that?
 
Jim
all of it
tensor calculus is best
PDEs as well
Some would argue in favour of group theory and/or set theory
 
Are analysis, abstract algebra, or topology useful?
 
I think you'd group PDE under analysis, and group theory under abstract algebra
 
Jim
1:39 PM
topology can be very useful. But I was not formally taught most subjects in math, so I can't tell you what subjects are most useful. I just use math and am unaware what type of math it is
 
for topology: point-set topology, probably not. algebraic topology, though, does show up
e.g. classification of topological defects (domain walls etc)
How much do you use QFT methods versus GR or QM?
 
Jim
GR is to cosmology as a kitchen is to cooking
 
nobody does point set topology
point set topology is a myth
2
even mathematicians don't
Also algebraic topology is used for like
Regge calculus
 
Jim
I prefer reggae calculus
 
@Jim oh please
 
1:49 PM
Also I don't think GR really uses abstract algebra all that much
 
You’re not using ANT
 
That's more of a QM thing
 
No one has used ANT in GR
 
ANT?
 
@Slereah God I feel like I'm learning stuff I will never use...
 
1:50 PM
Algebraic number theory
 
Well I mean, if you do QFT on curved spacetime, you'll need abstract algebra, but y'know
 
@SirCumference that’s called school
 
maybe not the best thing to learn first
@0celo7 How do you count spacetimes
If you don't know how to count
Chernoff faces, invented by Herman Chernoff in 1973, display multivariate data in the shape of a human face. The individual parts, such as eyes, ears, mouth and nose represent values of the variables by their shape, size, placement and orientation. The idea behind using faces is that humans easily recognize faces and notice small changes without difficulty. Chernoff faces handle each variable differently. Because the features of the faces vary in perceived importance, the way in which variables are mapped to the features should be carefully chosen (e.g. eye size and eyebrow-slant have been found...
 
@0celo7 I'm particularly referring to algebra. There surely needs to be some application of this to physics
Otherwise it's completely abstract
 
But really if you want to do basic GR, learn analysis and linear algebra for now
 
1:53 PM
@Slereah I know linear algebra. What analysis should I know, real or complex?
 
Some geometry is nice, too
and group theory
 
There is plenty, but the nice thing about GR is it doesn’t use devil math like algebra
 
Real analysis
Not a whole lot of complex analysis in GR
 
Twistors
 
yeah you have the weird Penrose-Newman formalism
But that's fairly rare
Also really, learning all kind of abstract stuff isn't that great for GR if after that, you're not capable of doing basic manipulations
 
1:55 PM
And what exactly is the difference between point-set topology and algebraic topology?
 
Like solving geodesic equations
 
The above is probably more than enough to deal with most of GR, other than more exotic stuff like branching spacetimes and ... branching wormholes/wormhole with many mouths (?)
 
Solving geodesic equations isn't as glamorous but that's a lot of the "hard" part of GR
 
@SirCumference the difference is too large to describe
what is your issue anyway. either you want to be a mathematician or not
 
a lot of the everyday GR stuff is like
knowing a lot of calculation tricks
to simplify calculations
and that's mostly just doing a lot of calculations
to get the hang of it
 

« first day (2699 days earlier)      last day (2241 days later) »