« first day (4351 days earlier)      last day (570 days later) » 

12:17 AM
I feel silly but i.imgur.com/apOQFdk.png how exactly is this an equation of a pulse? Is it dampened over time because as x increases the y decreases :o
and it's not even a wave
what latex editor do u guys use to write up papers and such?
does matlab have a free one
 
12:51 AM
i just use text editor, but my boss likes us to use overleaf
 
The name of it is text editor?
 
as for that equation i'm confused too, what is m supposed to be?
geany
 
meters i'd imagine.
 
ah perhaps not being a wave it is the envelope
of the pulse
 
Does geany convert to pdf?
And is the latex built in like it auto 'compiles'
 
12:54 AM
well, in geany i can bind an f key to run a command, that command executes pdflatex against my .tex in the chosen directory
use a pdf viewer which autoupdates on file update, and you get near instant updates every time you press the key
 
Can you see your math symbols before you convert to pdf though? like a chatjax type button
 
not currently, perhaps its possible. tbh i like to see the original latex when i'm working with it
i'm far from an expert, others in here can give much better ideas i'm sure
 
1:09 AM
Yeah true but sometimes it's nice to see the finished product so you know whether you're missing brackets or something lol
For more complicated stuff
 
yeah so i have text editor taking half the screen, pdf viewer taking other half the screen
everytime i press eg. F5 key the pdf updates in < 1 second
so im like 1 keypress and a glance away from seeing the rendered equation
 
Ooh okay
 
btw i think the equation you posted is the envelope of the pulse. ie. what you multiply the wave equation by
 
I'll have to set that up later
 
yeh i like it
 
1:44 AM
Also apparently a pulse is just a single disturbance moving through a medium which makes sense that the amplitude diminishes as x increases
due to damping or whatever
Just don't understand what it's asking by "what is the amplitude of the pulse"
Haven't heard of envelope functions :\
 
2:01 AM
Wait it's just when x=0 nvm
got it
Hmm I have to write an equation for the pulse w.r.t. position and time now
Nvm got it, was given velocity and t=0
uhhh I think I'm going in the right direction. given $y(x) = \frac{6}{x^2 + 2}$ at t=0, v=3m/s so I go for $x=\sqrt{\frac{6}{y}-2} \to \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = 3 = \frac{\partial \sqrt{\frac{6}{y}-2}}{\partial t}$
not sure how to go from there
 
 
2 hours later…
4:23 AM
@Relativisticcucumber Maybe you're already aware of this, but the Higgs mechanism is only responsible for a small proportion of mass. See physics.stackexchange.com/q/474084/123208 and frankwilczek.com/core.html especially The Origin of Mass.
That article by Wilczek doesn't discuss the Higgs boson. It just discusses how mass arises in QCD if you start with massless quarks & gluons.
Gravitons are rather elusive. We may never be able to detect single gravitons directly.
 
does anyone happen to have quantum mechanics lecture notes by robert littlejohn at berkeley
i can't access the website that they seem to be located at
 
thanks so much ill look at those - i did not know it was only a small proportion of mass @PM2Ring
man i hope we can find a graviton. the asymmetry of the SM bothers me
though i suppose a graviton would just make it worse
are there other things that are predicted to be in the standard model if we can find them ?
@SillyGoose did you see @Feynman_00 hates pigeons its in the starred messages
 
With all the excitement over the Higgs at the LHC a few years ago, it was rarely mentioned that most mass isn't due to the Higgs. :(
 
>:0 @Relativisticcucumber
 
Neutrinos are really hard to detect, although we've been detecting them for decades. However, even our best neutrino detectors only work on neutrinos with sufficiently high energy, and they only register around 1 event per billion of those high energy neutrinos.
 
4:38 AM
is that detector at one of the poles a neutrino detector?
 
Fortunately, many of the neutrinos coming from a nuclear reactor or the Sun have a lot of energy. But unless their kinetic energy is a million times their rest mass-energy, we can't see them.
@SillyGoose Yes. The "Ice Cube" in Antarctica is a neutrino detector.
The IceCube Neutrino Observatory (or simply IceCube) is a neutrino observatory constructed at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica. The project is a recognized CERN experiment (RE10). Its thousands of sensors are located under the Antarctic ice, distributed over a cubic kilometre. Similar to its predecessor, the Antarctic Muon And Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA), IceCube consists of spherical optical sensors called Digital Optical Modules (DOMs), each with a photomultiplier tube (PMT) and a single-board data acquisition computer which sends digital data to the counting house on...
We don't know the rest mass(es) of the neutrino, but it's likely to be somewhere around 0.1 eV.
The universe (probably) contains many low energy neutrinos (and antineutrinos) which were released during the Big Bang: the Cosmic Neutrino Background. We may never be able to directly detect them, either. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
 
5:06 AM
@Relativisticcucumber pigeons are not gooses :P
 
but @SillyGoose loves pigeons also
they are a thriving species - its actually kind of amazing
i love the pigeons in Denmark especially - they are circular
 
and poofy
 
Denmark has rotationally invariant pigeons?
 
write the group action for SO3 acting on a spherical pigeon
 
5:11 AM
my lecturer for group actions was very.... unilluminating ;P
 
Greg Egan has a pretty SO(3) applet: gregegan.net/APPLETS/01/01.html
 
is there a thing with Sci-Fi writers not wanting to be seen? Thomas Pynchon, Greg Egan (it seems)?
 
Magpies are cute birds, though
 
No, I think SF writers are much the same as everyone else. Some are flamboyant and some are reclusive.
Greg Egan is notoriously reclusive, but I don't think he's typical.
 
And chubby sparrows are even better
 
5:22 AM
penguins also
i see
 
I agree about penguins
 
@SillyGoose Here's a story you'll probably love. We Accidentally Adopted An Abandoned Wild Gosling. Mona & Lisa's dad had a popular music recording studio in Austria, attached to their house. So they got to meet lots of musicians when they were young. And learned how to use a studio. They've been putting stuff on YouTube since they were kids. They love 60's music & have done tons of Beatles covers, but they write their own songs too.
Many years ago, an old school friend was visiting me. He said, "One of the young programmers at work has written a science fiction book. I think you'll like it". I had mixed feelings, expecting to wade through a hackish amateur manuscript. On his next visit, he gave me a copy of Greg Egan's Axiomatic, and I've been a fan ever since. :)
 
5:51 AM
omggggg
so cute
i love all birds
 
ohmygosh !!!! how wonderfully cute
 
which quark flavor are you @Feynman_00
 
@Relativisticcucumber I think top is the most badass
 
 
1 hour later…
7:40 AM
For a free particle, or a wave packet in a region without potential, would one use the time independent schroedinger equation?
 
Free particle's energy eigenstates are not wavefunctions, because they are not normalizable
if you use the TISE, you won't find a lot of interest
 
@imbAF It depends what you are trying to do. The solutions to the TISE are the energy eigenfunctions and a lot of the time that's what we want because that corresponds to what we observe.
I started out in quantum chemistry, and if you're trying to calculate the properties of molecules from QM you use the TISE since we're normally observing the molecules in a state that's an energy eigenfunction.
 
@JohnRennie All lies
Unless you're dealing with boundary conditions, that is never true
Typical free particle solutions will look more like coherent states
 
So, a monochromatic EM-wave or matter wave has no wave function, which describes the quantum mechanical system?
One more thing, usually when we talk about a quantum mechanical system, we mostly picture a particle, or a cluster of particles, or a finite object, in most cases
but for wave, when we say this wave is described by the following wave equation, which is the system here? the wave?
@Slereah so, when we use TISE and we find an eigenvector to it, that indirectly implies, that we are dealing with a wave packet,right?
 
7:58 AM
The TISE for a free particle has eigenfunctions, but they cannot be normalised so they aren't physically valid solutions.
If you use a wavepacket instead then that can be normalised but now it's no longer a solution to the TISE because it is a superposition of energy eigenfunctions.
 
What effect, not having real solutions, has in the reality? Because in the real world, you encounter monochromatic waves, so what's something that we cannot do with it, that we can with a wave packet?
 
In the real world you do not encounter perfectly monochromatic waves, only aproximately monochromatic waves.
 
@JohnRennie I was just thinking about that, the part whether a wave packet can be used in TISE, because as you said, it's a superposition
 
Monochromatic waves would have infinite energy for a start
 
A perfectly monochromatic wave would have to have infinite spatial extent, while obviously any real wave has only a finite spatial extent.
 
8:02 AM
and need to have been emitted infinitely far in the past
 
yeah, infinite wide in the position space, and super localized in the momentum space,right?
 
But this is quantum pedantry! For all intents and purposes particles can be described as infinite plane waves.
 
what's the system, when we consider a wave?
the particle?
because we usually talk about a quantum mechanical system, which in most cases has finite dimensions, so for a wave to be called a system, I find it a bit odd
 
 
3 hours later…
10:46 AM
@JohnRennie Sir, why iron fillings when experience magnetic force align themselve in the shape of magnetic field? Isn't that the magnetic field is perpendicular to magnetic force?
F = q v * B where * is cross product.
 
11:09 AM
@An_Elephant Hi :-)
The equation F = q v × B is the equation for the force on a charge moving in a magnetic field. This is called the Lorentz force. It is unrelated to the iron filings line up in a magnetic field.
The iron filings line up because the magnetic fields slightly magnetises the iron filings i.e. each filing acts like a tiny bar magnet. Then those tiny bar magnets line up with the external field just like a compass needle does in Earth's magnetic field.
 
@Obliv I used to use TeXstudio, but I've switched to just using Visual Studio Code
 
11:41 AM
TeXstudio on W10 or Overleaf in the browser. Gummi on Ubuntu
 
If I have $2$ congruent curves. Do they have the same four velocity?
 
@MoreAnonymous 1. What does it mean for 2 curves to be "congruent" - do you mean they are integral curves of the same vector field? 2. What does it mean for two curves to have the "same" four velocity? you can't compare tangent vectors at different points unambiguously.
 
@ACuriousMind 1.Yes 2. Can I Lie drag it over?
 
Lie drag along what?
 
@ACuriousMind Ugh ... Can u see deleted comments?
It would be quicker to explain that way
 
11:52 AM
Yes
 
So this is how I went down the rabbit hole of congruent curves. Here's the original question:
1
Q: Relative velocity and proper time derivative of geodesic deviation?

More AnonymousFrom wiki To quantify geodesic deviation, one begins by setting up a family of closely spaced geodesics indexed by a continuous variable s and parametrized by an affine parameter $\tau$. That is, for each fixed $s$, the curve swept out by $\gamma _s(\tau)$ as Ď„ varies is a geodesic. When conside...

 
I do not see any answer to my question "Lie drag along what?" there :P
 
@ACuriousMind That was me trying to figure things out
:P
The deleted comment mentioned congruent curves
 
so?
your question already starts with a (geodesic) congruence!
the $\gamma_s(\tau)$ are the integral curves of $T^\mu(s,\tau)$, i.e. a congruence
 
@ACuriousMind It didn't use that word so I didn't know that's what it meant
 
11:59 AM
also can't you define a congruence of geodesics given any two geodesics
 
@Slereah So then how does one make sense of geodesic deviation then?
 
@Slereah there might be global obstructions, but locally, sure
 
The point being that those things are partly a choice
 
@MoreAnonymous what exactly do you want to make sense of? what about Wiki's "deviation vector, which is the displacement of two objects travelling along two infinitesimally separated geodesics" is insuffiicent?
 
If you want to compare velocities, you kind of have to define what velocity is
If you pick different foliations into spacelike hypersurfaces and different timelike directions, you will have different velocities to compare
 
12:03 PM
@ACuriousMind Oh I was just reacting to Slereah saying "can't you define a congruence of geodesics"
 
Which I think might be basically defining an absolute parallelism
That solves most issues relating to parallel transport
 
It's still not intuitive to me why that fancy math definition where one has a congruence of geodesic curves has the physical interpretation: " In particular, a timelike geodesic congruence can be interpreted as a family of free-falling test particles."
 
free-falling particles move along geodesics, no?
 
Particles are modelled by timelike curves, and free ones are geodesic?
the physical interpretation is nice but I'm not sure it will help you defining relative velocities any more than the mathematical one
@ACuriousMind Any idea of a place that expands on this idea?
The diffeomorphism group lifting to some subgroup(oid) of the sections of the frame bundle
for holonomic frames
 
So when I say: "" In particular, a timelike geodesic congruence can be interpreted as a family of free-falling test particles." Is this in the same foliation? (I'm not sure it makes any difference)
 
12:14 PM
It defines a foliation, yes
Every nowhere vanishing vector field defines a foliation by curves
 
@Slereah Is a foliation always definable?
 
Spacetimes always have a foliation by timelike curves, yes
It's part of the fundamental concept of a spacetime
Basically you can always define a local time direction
This isn't true of all manifolds, ie there is no such foliation for a sphere
 
@JohnRennie Hi. So those two things are very different.
 
@Slereah But thats the example I got here:
1
A: Confusion in Gravitation Foundation and Frontiers?

SeanConsider the surface of the Earth. It is a 2-sphere, i.e. a 2-dimensional manifold, named $M$. The collection of all longitude lines is a bunch of geodesics, each line is labeled by its longitude ($v$). Each point on a specific line is labeled by its latitude ($\tau$). So every point on the s...

(the example of a sphere)
 
It is always true locally
You can consider an open set on a sphere and define such a foliation
If you try to expand it to the entire sphere though, you'll find out that those geodesics converge to a single point
at the pole
 
12:21 PM
@Slereah true
 
Spacetimes are so defined that such a foliation always exists, though
 
Please room members reply this.In our school and country system, relativity is not taught in schools. And I saw many questions here and got to know that relativity is required for understanding magnetism.
So I want to know that you guys when learnt first time magnetism and electricity in physics, had you already learnt relativity for better understanding classical electromagnetism? I am not talking about undergraduates college. Here, I mean school age as approximately when you were 16-19 years old .
 
@An_Elephant Well, its not required for school level
 
@ACuriousMind nvm I guess it is just in arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3532.pdf
I guess it is in that sense that GR is famously of gauge group Diff + O(n)
 
@MoreAnonymous Thanks.Just one last thing But our topics include biot savart law etc which are directly provided without any proof and said that they are experimental. So should I study them as just provided or is it bad to study without understanding it because for understanding these laws relativity is important .
 
12:34 PM
@An_Elephant Study as provided ... Are you from India? I remember the education system being horrible :/
 
@MoreAnonymous Yes
By saying "as provided", I meant to study without proof as proofs and relativity are not taught to us before undergraduation
 
@An_Elephant I'd recommend to learn from JEE books - H.C Verma might be a good pick. I never liked the school syllabus
or the way it was taught
 
Yes I study from HC verma and preparing for JEE. But in HC verma and other books also,magnetism is not taught from relativity and taught as purely experimental.
 
@An_Elephant Yea that's sufficient
 
My book is bashed, Amazon betrayed me again
 
12:40 PM
Ok. In your country, when you first studied magnetism in physics, had you learnt relativity before?
 
@An_Elephant I dont think in any country people learn relativity first
 
@MoreAnonymous Thanks. I thought that you guys have learnt it before.
 
Relativity wouldn't make any sense if you didn't know what it was relative to, in other words relative to Newtonian mechanics, right?
 
1:11 PM
"By his own account, Hörbiger was observing the Moon when he was struck by the notion that the brightness and roughness of its surface were due to ice. Shortly after, he experienced a dream in which he was floating in space watching the swinging of a pendulum which grew longer and longer until it broke. "I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun's gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune," he concluded."
 
1:23 PM
:: crickets ::
:-)
 
2:21 PM
No need to be passive aggressive, this will not net you more answers
 
@Slereah last question. Is the sum of geodesic deviation around a triangle (formed by $3$ geodesic curves) $= 0$ locally?
 
I'm not sure what you mean but remember that the Riemann tensor is an infinitesimal holonomy
 
@Slereah Can you check my latest question?
@Slereah Also I'm not sure what that means :(
 
@ACuriousMind Gosh I must be tired. For a moment I read: abstruse goose
@ACuriousMind I don't think I completely understand it. But is it the answer to my question
?
Also I have more time now since I'm changing jobs :D hurray physics!
 
2:58 PM
@MoreAnonymous It is the formal statement of Slereah's "the Riemann tensor is an infinitesimal holonomy"
 
@ACuriousMind ah okay
 
I don't understand your question - what is "the sum of geodesic deviation"
"geodesic deviation" is either the $X^\mu$ or the $A^\mu$ from the Wiki article, but those are vector fields, I don't know what it means to take their "sum" along a path
 
@ACuriousMind Did you read my latest question? (if its okay I can post it here)
 
@MoreAnonymous same thing there - what the heck is $\zeta$?
you still have this habit of using notation without really defining it
 
@ACuriousMind I call it geodesic deviation in the post as well
 
3:02 PM
yes but you didn't define it
as I said, to me "geodesic deviation" is the $X$ or the $A$ from the Wiki article
this does not imply a notion of some sort of "total geodesic deviation" between two non-infinitesimally separated geodesics
nor does it explain how to "sum" it
 
@ACuriousMind Wait... I wrote: the geodesic deviation $\zeta^\mu_{ij}$ between $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$
 
yes, and for $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$ non-infinitesimally separated I don't know what that means
 
@ACuriousMind It means to take $\gamma_{12}(t,\delta s)$ and $\gamma_{23}(t,\delta s)$ and $\gamma_{13}(t,\delta s)$
 
again, notation without definition
 
wait one moment
I think I got that wrong
@ACuriousMind I think I'm seeing your point :P
Wait
Okay here's whats going on in my head
If I can use a parameter to take $\gamma_1$ to $\gamma_2$
and another parameter to take $\gamma_2$ to $\gamma_3$
 
3:14 PM
what do you mean "use a parameter"
 
Then I can use a continuous parameter to take $\gamma_1$ to $\gamma_3$
@ACuriousMind A parameter to characterize the congruence of geodesics
 
are you trying to say that for two given geodesics you want to take a congruence they're both part of?
 
@ACuriousMind yes
 
that doesn't work when they intersect (like in a triangle)
(but whatever, we can remove the corners)
 
So now, if I slightly shift $\gamma_1$ to $\gamma(\delta s)$ where $\gamma(0) = \gamma_1$
Similarly I can parametrize the curve for $\gamma_1$ to $\gamma_2$ with s'
And slightly shift again and get $\gamma(\delta s')$
Now I want to know the relation between the curves: $\gamma(\delta s')$ and $\gamma(\delta s)$ and $\gamma(0)$ in terms of geodesic deviation vectors
I think this makes sense and the my framing over there doesn't? @ACuriousMind
 
3:23 PM
Where by "geodesic deviation vector" you mean the thing the Wiki article calls $X$, right?
I think your notation with the $s,s'$ is really confusing and unnecessary
 
@ACuriousMind yes
 
For each pair of $\gamma_i,\gamma_j$ you can pick a congruence they're part of and get a deviation vector field $X^\mu_{ij}$ on the inside of the triangle. Now you're asking what happens when you sum these three vector fields.
no need to talk about any parameters
 
@ACuriousMind yes
 
anyway, that's at least a meaningful question (although it is unclear to me why this would be an interesting quantity)
 
@ACuriousMind Is my intuition right it would be 0 in flat spacetime?
 
3:29 PM
why rely on intuition when you could just compute it?
 
@ACuriousMind some of us are lazy :P
 
then they need to stop being lazy :P
 
You hear that other people in the chatroom? :P
@ACuriousMind I shall stop being lazy and rely on the fact that you "It's not even true in the flat space!"
 
but really, the first thing to do when you have a hypothesis is to actually try it out for some examples
 
@ACuriousMind dang
@ACuriousMind I did... I visualized some geodesics on a cylinder in my head
:P
Honestly I'm a bit tired. I need a break. Been doing physics from morning
 
3:59 PM
@ACuriousMind If I'm correct its a new way to detect curvature?
Also I'm back now
 
@MoreAnonymous I mean, you can detect curvature already from one congruence of geodesics because the Riemann curvature is part of the geodesic deviation equation
I don't see how using three congruences of geodesics is an improvement :P
 
@ACuriousMind The geodesic equation involves an order derivative more than mine
 
if you know $X^\mu$, I don't see what difference that makes
 
If you want to know how to detect curvature from geodesic triangles it's in Synge's book
 
@Slereah great minds think alike :P
 
4:14 PM
@MoreAnonymous I'm pretty sure the method Slereah is talking about involves the angles of the triangle, not whatever you're doing
because angles can actually be easily measured, in contrast to a continuous field of geodesic deviation
it's a classic exercise in diff. geo. to compute the angles of geodesic triangles on e.g. a sphere vs. flat space
so if all you're after is an answer to the question how one can use a triangle to determine curvature, I'm afraid you've run the wrong direction
 
@ACuriousMind I've seen it in visualizing diff geo by tristan (i think)
 
5:11 PM
@ACuriousMind Hey, cats are lazy and look what they've got
They get to sleep all the time and free food
Tomorrow I'll have my first lectures as a grad student! :D
5
No wait, maybe I should say graduate
I've always been confused about this: what do you call someone pursuing a master's degree? Graduate student? Because gradschool should be PhD
 
"grad student" is simply ambiguous (because master's degrees seem to be rare in the US they didn't have the need to invent distinct terminologies)
 
@Feynman_00 A masters student is usually referred to as a graduate student.
 
@ACuriousMind oh now I understand the problem
 
5:26 PM
As opposed to an under graduate student.
 
It's like "differentiate", that usually means to take the derivative
But also take the differential
In Italian I've heard two different words for this :P
A better example would be "differentiable", maybe
For smooth functions you don't really care but in Real Analysis "differentiable" in English can be interpreted either as "admits a derivative" or "there is a linear functional that approximates the function locally (differential)"
 
If you've graduated you're a grad student, if not you're still an under grad.
 
Yes, I understand. The problem was with the ambiguity given by gradschool in the US
So I'm a grad student :P
 
 
2 hours later…
fqq
7:16 PM
@Feynman_00 master's student
 
 
2 hours later…
9:17 PM
I still haven't got my head around this
Can a kind soul explain what wiki is talking about?
In the theory of smooth manifolds, a congruence is the set of integral curves defined by a nonvanishing vector field defined on the manifold. Congruences are an important concept in general relativity, and are also important in parts of Riemannian geometry. == A motivational example == The idea of a congruence is probably better explained by giving an example than by a definition. Consider the smooth manifold R². Vector fields can be specified as first order linear partial differential operators, such as X →...
 
9:48 PM
@MoreAnonymous what exactly do you want to know/do you find unclear?
 

« first day (4351 days earlier)      last day (570 days later) »