The h Bar

6:08 AM

Good morning beautiful people

7:46 AM

@bolbteppa Well I mean

a fermion isn't quite the same thing as a spinor

it still has to anticommute, unlike bosonic fields

8:43 AM

> General Relativity is a great example of a doctrine that is simple enough for self-taught "scientists" to put their noses into, and complicated enough for them to make numerous mistakes.

You call that simple? It is MUCH HARDER than quantum mechanics

(ok, much simpler than QFT)

9:39 AM

I'd say GR and QFT are about the same level of awfulness, if you go fully into it

GR also needs a lot of math to comfortably read everything about it

10:04 AM

yeah, just the differential geometry my head is already spinning

11:16 AM

@Secret the principles are more understandable than the madness undergrads get taught as QM

' The state collapses' is a great example of a sentence so ambiguous, that unravelling it takes years

Sure, the principles are relatively straightforward for GR, but you intuition will totally fail you e.g. trying to use the concepts of time dilation and curved space alone to figure out what happens as you fell into the black hole without computing any connection coefficients

But I agree with you about undergrad QM teaching. They typically rely too much on analogy and vague statements

as well always start with the historical path, which often obscure the meaning of some principles

@Mithrandir24601 The words "collapse" and "observer" should be blacklisted from any intro to QM course :P

I prefer Susskind's approach of starting straight from qubits, because QM is not supposed to be something that fit well with our intuition. Might as well start at where it is weirdest and get used to thinking the weird way

@ACuriousMind my word, yes

As should "wave-particle duality", really

11:22 AM

@Sebastiano @NovaliumCompany was joking. Explanations are very welcome

@Secret yep. Modern QM makes sense - if they taught aspects of QC&QI before 'normal' QM, it would be so much easier

@NovaliumCompany I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic :’) sadly I don’t live in the stack exchange site

Right, definitely no one here is an AI that resides on the SE servers.

8

@ACuriousMind definitely ;)

I prefer to think @JohnRennie is one large hoax pushed by the chemists to make us think they’re good at math

3

John Rennie

@ACuriousMind The AI doth protest too much, methinks

@JakeRose I'm actually rubbish at maths. I'm just good at Googling :-)

Q: Angle between velocity and acceleration vector, and interpretation of pathway

11:26 AM

"good at Googling" makes you the local expert in everything in some places :P

John Rennie

It is astonishing how much info you get from Googling these days. There are large areas that I have allowed to slip from my memory because Google now acts as an extended memory. Trigonometric identities for example.

dalta

1

I just started studying mechanics, and I am stuck with the following question: $$\vec{r}(t)=a \sin(\alpha t^2)\hat{x}+b \cos(\alpha t^2)\hat{y}$$ I was asked to find the formula that expresses the angle between the velocity vector and the acceleration vector, as a function of $t$. $$\vec{r}(t)...

could anybody perhaps help out re the above?

@JohnRennie Basically all trig identities can be derived fairly easily from exp form

@ACuriousMind just do it all from a quantum probability perspective

So that it sounds horribly boring

@JakeRose I didn't know at all. On the contrary, with all sincerity, I get angry when they treat me wrongly and for futile reasons. I use often deepl translator. Thank you for your welcome. I also believe that a pinch of serenity and not having the gift of omnipotence would not hurt at all when at least I ask a question on the main site or I answer.

11:46 AM

@JohnRennie there’s hope for me yet then

@JohnRennie I know the feeling very well. But my exams suffer badly!

@Sebastiano I see where you’re coming from. But this is an English based site, and unfortunately English is the main language of the science community. You can’t blame people for using the language as they know how, you need to be patient with them until they understand what level you are at

@Sebastiano I currently don’t see anyone treating you wrong. In any case I’m not a moderator so I couldn’t do anything anyway :)

12:07 PM

@JakeRose I am not interested in the scores, but in voting against or trying to close a question just because I do not use a current physical notation, all this seems abnormal to me. The sensations are also felt when you write with the keyboard of a PC and also when you read certain paranormal comments. :-)

12:25 PM

@JakeRose I'm not sarcastic, I'm just feeling thankful. I respect people who are willing to go against me (in thoughts, ideas, decisions) because they help me see things from another perspective. So yeah, ur just swag. Your swagness doesn't need a reason ;)

@ACuriousMind yeah u bet

Mobile version of the chatroom doesn't have the dimming of people's icons when they haven't typed for some time but are still in the chatroom.

fix

PM 2Ring

@Sebastiano People generally don't downvote or vote to close a question that has unusual notation. However, they will downvote or close vote if they think the question is unclear. But often in that situation people will use comments to help you clarify the question, like G. Smith did here.

@NovaliumCompany Mobile chat is pretty limited. It's bad enough for the normal users, but it's even worse for ROs, as most of the RO tools are inaccessible. And those tools are painful to use on a mobile device if you switch to the desktop view. The lack of ghosting of avatars is a minor inconvenience. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the SE devs to fix this stuff. ;)

1:00 PM

@Sebastiano I think you might be taking some things too personally. Last night you seemed pretty irritated that I downvoted an answer of yours because it didn't answer a question; but that was not personal. As I tried to explain, downvoting and leaving a comment about what I thought the issue was is how I try to treat every answer like that. It's part of improving site quality for all readers, not a personal attack on the people I downvote.

1:38 PM

@NovaliumCompany but you were sarcastic in the “no explanations” comment no? I wasn’t referring to anything else

2:31 PM

Congratulations to our newest 10k-rep user, @NorbertSchuch!

4

vzn

3:24 PM

@ACuriousMind lol! nearly anti bohrian/ copenhagen sentiments there o_O

vzn

3:37 PM

@Sebastiano welcome to Physics chat. see that you have over 10k on TeX - LaTeX. question closing here is probably not more strict, its typical across all SE sites. looking at your latest question you seem to be interested in spiral motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field with relativistic considerations? can you cite something on this to begin with? does seem "unclear what youre wasking" physics.stackexchange.com/questions/491287

rob

@EmilioPisanty It looks like that user isn't a regular chatter and won't notice that you've congratulated them on their reputation milestone. Unless a moderator were to summon them with a superping. Congrats to @NorbertSchuch !

3:52 PM

Bohr more like bore

Transactional is the only proper QM interpretation

PM 2Ring

@Slereah Now you're talking! Pity Cramer hasn't made much progress with it...

4:36 PM

@PM2Ring In the meantime, good afternoon. I will try to be synthetic. I love the calm. I prefer that, as you do on TeX.SE., you leave a brief comment to understand what does not work in my question or answer. With all sincerity I do my best and I expect the other side to understand that someone, like me, is looking for an answer because they need it and not continually criticism or quarrel.

@PM2Ring @vzn @JMac I teach in a high school and do not deal with these topics every day as if I were eating bread every moment. Do you think it's easy for me to write? As I get the comments, I try to adjust my question to make it as clear as possible.

@Sebastiano Do you think I should try to figure out the history of each person when judging questions? I try to only act on the contents of the question/answer not on the person asking/answering. I generally don't consider how easy or hard it is for someone to write when I judge the quality of the content, because I'm judging the content quality, not the writer. Adjusting things based on comments/votes is exactly what you should do, and a good thing. Just don't take them personally.

For example, the question you asked with unclear votes had all the votes removed once the details were added to clear it up.

@vzn Even though I have a high reputation on TeX.SE I am not very interested in it. Because I'm more interested in knowing, understanding, etc. to help others. That's my spirit. There are many users on TeX.SE who ask direct questions like: do you create this work or this code for me? All of us go do not vote below -1, on the contrary if there are any questions with -2 the compensation I pay. It is correct to help others if they are not smart or just seek immediate help.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

@JMac Empathy is part of every person. I didn't write that you need to know everything about my personal life. But a little tolerance doesn't hurt at all. I also removed a question about where to look for the formula $\text{tensor} F=-\mu_0 \text{tensor} J$.

@JMac If my question is not clear, write to me. We comment on it, we modify it, but we do not make a drama. In a little while I'm leaving. I'm waiting for the sun to drop a bit, since in Sicily we're around 40 degrees. My greetings to you and to all of you.

@Sebastiano The votes are not personal. Empathy is not a factor when I vote, and it shouldn't be on a site about accepted scientific principles. I have tolerance for people; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't vote down bad answers or bad questions by anyone when I see them.

@Sebastiano I did write to you. I left a comment with my downvote explaining why it didn't seem to answer the question. I could have also just flagged it, downvoted, and let the system take over without explaining to you. I think that might have been rude. When I pointed out the mistake you said that I "should be more serious and correct on this site", which I feel I was acting both seriously and correctly, and you took it personally instead.

5:41 PM

@Slereah reference frames and resource theory all the way!

I'm still holding for Wheeler's theory to be relevant!

danielunderwood

@Slereah quantum databases?!

@JMac no, you should feel free to do that if you want, although commenting is of course preferred (I'm talking generally about SE as a whole)

Norbert Schuch

@rob Thanks, @EmilioPisanty and Rob! Lots of new features to discover :) (And I learned about the superping! :-o )

5:59 PM

@danielunderwood even worse

It's the one where you have particles going in the future and past

@Mithrandir24601 I agree that I'm free to do it, I just find it a bit rude and potentially unproductive compared to explaining if it seems like a misunderstanding.

6:34 PM

@JakeRose oh, yes. I was sarcastic there :¶

7:08 PM

@NorbertSchuch indeed there are. The 10k tools are kind of abandoned TBH, but things like seeing deleted answers and auditing the full review-queue records definitely change what you can do.

7:22 PM

@EmilioPisanty Seeing deleted answers has been a huge difference. I wasn't really expecting all the other stats in the tools though.

@JMac yep, I agree.

but have you seen e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/history ?

pre-10k you'd only be able to see your own reviews

(i.e. what you get from the link at bottom right)

@EmilioPisanty Is there a link anywhere to access that?

physics.stackexchange.com/review, click on a queue, click on history

I see it now

"Review" is the default tab

7:38 PM

@JohnRennie tssk, tssk

danielunderwood

8:38 PM

So I've heard of theories that consider $c$ to be variable...are there theories (with any following) that do the same for $G$ and/or $\hbar$?

How do we know the solar system isn't moving? I mean, does it make sense to say that something is stationary relative to some global coordinate system? Maybe spacetime?