« first day (4869 days earlier)      last day (40 days later) » 

4:07 AM
@lucabtz Nice work :) Not nitpricking much, but I would point out that there are weakly coupled bulk gravitational theories which do not have an usual Fock space representation. For example quantum gravity on dS space. For example see the intro to this relatively recent work.
But whatever you wrote is correct because obviously you are not discussing general quantum gravity in that context. I think it is not much well known and I myself came to know recently, so pointed it out...
 
 
2 hours later…
123
5:47 AM
Hello Everyone....
 
6:02 AM
@DIRAC1930 If you want complicated theoretical math and real world applications you should go into fluid mechanics
 
@Slereah Fluid mechanics has complicated theoretical math? What's the most ``theoretical treatment" of fluid mechanics that you have seen?
 
I don't go into it much but I know they certainly do
Lots of analysis there
 
Hmm...I myself have seen some cool group theoretical applications to fluid dynamics as in here for example. But I thought that these dont fall into mainstream fluid dynamics...
Even deriving a Lagrangian description is so difficult because the equations("of motion") are 1st order ones
 
One of the application of kinematic groups I've seen is fluid dynamics
 
7:01 AM
oh
Why is this the definition of $O(n,n,\mathbb{R})$ given in most treatments of T duality in string theory? I thought that the matrix which is preserved is $\text{diag}(-1,-1,...,-1;1,1,..,1)$ where there are $n$ number of $-1$s and $n$ number of $+1$s?
 
123
7:49 AM
Now it becomes perfect results for perfectly elastic head-on collision between Earth and ball (when ball was dropped from the building) which look outside the Earth frame then convert into Earth frame. Results
 
 
1 hour later…
9:22 AM
@DIRAC1930 Theoretical physics is extremely broad. It's not like you have to restrict to those areas which are at this moment detached from experiments
There is not just QFT and QG
Consider e.g. theoretical condensed matter physics
Now, the reason why I joined the room:
I need to borrow your strength, fellows. Once again, I need to walk down the path of the quantum world and believe me, I'd rather just reject it at once! Leave me to my beloved classical - Hilbert space free - world, for God's sake!
 
@SirCrackpot echoes from multiverse
 
9:46 AM
@Sanjana nice to know
thanks
@SirCrackpot i think @DIRAC1930 does not want to realize this
 
fqq
@Sanjana I don't know much about t duality but the two preserved matrices are related by a simple change of basis so the definitions are equivalent
 
10:17 AM
@naturallyInconsistent echoes but no meows
 
@SirCrackpot mew mew mew .... mew mew mew ... mew mew mew...
 
QUACK
 
CRACK
And that's also something I wanted to say ever since I became a crackpot
2
 
cant find the will to actually do something today
i have to hand in the thesis on friday
 
10:26 AM
@lucabtz welcome to my life
Imagine going from the marvels of GR to quantum phase transitions
 
i have all these little problems that need to fit together and i dont know which one to tackle and which one to leave for future work
i mean my advisor said we are going to write a paper on this work so soon i will have to deal with all of those
 
@lucabtz that's wonderful
Not all theses become papers
 
yeah i am happy about it
there has been some interesting results even though i feel like most stuff can be found already somewhere in the litterature
but sure there is a somewhat different perspective on it
 
Ive been rushing my friend's thesis. She did all the work, but she doesn't know LaTeX like miao miao does.
 
10:41 AM
In the def of principal fiber bundles here, is the fiber preserving property of the group action enclosed in property b)?
 
@fqq oh, right. Thanks
 
@SirCrackpot P E G
calling the base manifold E isnt the best idea since usually E is the total space of vector bundles
 
@lucabtz I agree
@lucabtz are you just commenting on the notation or is that an answer? :P
 
@SirCrackpot i feel thats the reason the author called the base space E
@SirCrackpot anyhow it looks like so
 
10:52 AM
Sure enough b) encloses G-equivariance
 
even though when they write $\psi_a: \pi^{-1}(U) \to \pi^{-1}(U)$ it seems like they are already supposing $\psi$ is fibre preserving
 
Although those are not the fibers I see why you say that
 
@SirCrackpot right they are not
idk
 
So rather than "enclosed" I would say it is understood
@lucabtz still there would be some kind of assumption in that direction as a generic action might map you well outside of your neighborhood $U$, so I think your idea is right and it's just implied
 
@SirCrackpot yeah G-manifold morphisms are G-equivariant maps if im not mistaken
@SirCrackpot yeah im not really sure with that
 
11:08 AM
Where is ACM?! We're talking about Trautman now
Who by the way I learned is a physicist and not a mathematician as I thought
 
@SirCrackpot in the past few days i havent seen ACM, just some messages yesterday
 
11:28 AM
I know, and my GPS tracker is not communicating either
No wait, that was classified
 
12:18 PM
@DIRAC1930 real world physics can be interesting too. e.g. standard model and GR. u need not study hypothetical models to have interesting math
@SirCrackpot u will love it this time. quantum world has the best rides.
 
12:34 PM
I loved GR because I understand Riemannian geometry
Until I devote to hardcore functional analysis I will pretend to despise QM
 
@SirCrackpot i should do the same
 
1:09 PM
@lucabtz devote to FA or pretend to despise QM
 
 
1 hour later…
2:14 PM
@SirCrackpot devote to FA
what do you use in latex in between the domain and codomain of a function like $f: A \longrightarrow B$, I kinda like \longrightarrow, but ive seen \to used sometimes too. what is your preference?
 
2:34 PM
@Slereah My interests are really only really in QM/QFT but in the latter, moreso low energy/ medium energy phenomenon and not so much stattering stuff so all the low hanging fruit has already been picked. And all the stuff in the former is either interesting but difficult to get funded in, or not so interesting mathematically (even for my not so high level)
 
@DIRAC1930 in QM there are plently of interesting mathematical problems
for low energy QFT I mean we dont really know much about it
there are plenty of open problems
 
@lucabtz By low energy QFT I meant cond matter
 
@DIRAC1930 i mean also there there is still a lot to do
many interesting theories
which apply to reality too
also for some reason you dont like QCD, but we basically know nothing about QCD
 
I feel so out of place in cond-mat departments. Even brilliant cond mat theorists haven't heard of a positron so the language barrier is quite large. And then their fundamental aim is often technological applications and not finding from QM/QFT/stat-mech macroscopic laws of the universe
 
at low energy
@DIRAC1930 i doubt they dont know about positrons tbf
 
2:43 PM
By QCD at low energy, is this in the realm of why a proton at low energies exist?
 
of course its not about fundamental laws if its condensed matter though
@DIRAC1930 i mean yeah also, confinement is a millenium prize problem
 
@lucabtz Their language is more so using the terminology of holes however this is very different. They have no need for positrons
It is completely different world
 
@DIRAC1930 i mean holes and positrons are not the same thing, this isnt a terminology problem its just two different concepts. they dont speak about positrons because ordinary matter is made of electrons not positrons
 
Exactly
 
@DIRAC1930 i mean i know about quasiparticles, i took some condensed matter
i think its fun and you get the connection to reality you seek
 
2:48 PM
I wish I found it more interesting
I did used to find it interesting
Learning QFT has ruined my life
 
@DIRAC1930 do u also want to have a physics career
 
I'm not sure anymore
I would like to research physics for my life
 
oh
then u hav to pick stuff based on funding, yeah
 
But I would rather work on something every 5 years and not publish it
 
if u just like learning physics, then u can read whatever u find interesting but u probably wont be able to contribute to physics in that life path
 
2:52 PM
@ACuriousMind have you ever though that you could change your username to become a superhero?
ACuriousMan
You could also be like Chainsaw Man "Save me ACM"
 
@SirCrackpot you can change yours to CrackpotMan
 
@SirCrackpot lol
 
But please do not act like him when you save someone
@lucabtz feel responsible, for this is my villain origin
@DIRAC1930 wait
 
Ideally I would do 2 PhD's, one in quantum optics and one on the boundary between cond-mat and hep-th
 
I know that feel
Feb 6 at 11:42, by Mr. Feynman
Hawking has ruined my life
@DIRAC1930 most people don't even finish their PhD, I think getting 2 is a bit of a stretch
It's not like getting two degrees
 
2:56 PM
inside a human, there exists a large ecosystem of smaller living beings
 
why does the cosmic web resemble the human neuron system?
 
is that a well accepted view
 
@SirCrackpot I agree
 
@KellanHeerdegen im hearing this for the first time
 
2:58 PM
oh
I believe the web shape is a common shape because of strength and connectivity
shoot I gtg
 
there is the integrated information theory of consciousness en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
maybe one can apply it to the cosmic web
but this is all speculative
 
3:14 PM
Hello?
This isn't a question, but theoretically if we could go faster than light we could go back in time, but if we went back to earth it would be normal, so even if we could go faster than light we could only see the past, not experience it.
Also, the movie Interstellar is a work of art.
 
@lucabtz I prefer the long arrow when equations are not inline
I use \to only when I'm feeling lazy in the chat
Otherwise \rightarrow (which as far as I can tell displays the same as \to)
Just that \to is the one I use for limits (this is my personal preference though)
 
4:09 PM
$\to$
it works. i had been using rightarrow. thanks
$\rightarrow$
 
4:45 PM
@SirCrackpot but then I would take away the possibility that I'm not a man of flesh and blood :O
 
5:02 PM
Can somebody have a look at something I asked a few days ago here?
 
Your questions are research level and it is difficult for the general populace to help you...
 
@naturallyInconsistent Umm...is it? But they are just finding near-horizon geometry in a different way...just basic calculus...I hope maybe it is not that difficult this time :)
 
maybe, but someone needs to first understand what even the question is. We usually integrate over the entire configuration, so why is it only integrated over angular variables?
 
5:24 PM
@ACuriousMind AI confirmed
That's why you hate chat GPT, you feel replaced
And now save me, ACM
Maybe a bit above
 
helloo
 
@SirCrackpot yes
 
Mad
5:45 PM
"As the volume of a d-dimensional sphere of radius R is $S_d R^d / d$" what is $S_d$?
Wikipedia page getting something bit different.
Nevermind.
 
@Mad The pure constant that is the hypersurface area of a unit-radius sphere in $d$ dimensions.
 
Mad
Yes i figure.
Read that thing 30 times only figured it out when i bothered to ask a question
Very wierd human mind, very wierd.
 
6:08 PM
@ACuriousMind so G-manifold isomorphisms are not G-equivariant but also fiber preserving
 
6:20 PM
@SirCrackpot I mean I don't know how the text defined "G-manifold" but the second diagram that should commute in (b) is clearly the condition of fiber-preservation
 
Do the classical Maxwells equations get modified in the limit of distances of the order of light years as an example?
i.e. $e$ changes with energy scales due to renormalization group arguments, does this effect the classical laws at that energy scale
 
@lucabtz because internet providers suck I currently only have irregular internet access; my presence will continue to be spotty for a few days
 
@ACuriousMind that can't be happening in Germany
You liar AI
 
6:40 PM
@DIRAC1930 Large distances = low energy limit, and we already are taking all the low energy limit behaviour into exact account in Maxwell's.
 
Aren't the classical Maxwell's equations formulated at a length scale in and of themselves though?
i.e. the classical Maxwell equations (discovered at a length scale $L_1$) are then quantized, and then taking the limit is returning back to the classical Maxwell equations at a length scale $L_1$
 
6:55 PM
Maybe the vacuum Maxwell equations at most become Maxwell's equations in matter depending on the situation at long distance scales, but on short distanced QED takes over
 
7:11 PM
Can two different photons interfere with each other just like how EM waves interfere?
Also in a region of constructive interference of two identical EM waves are the number of photons being doubled since the superposed amplitude is 2x initial amplitude and hence energy being increased 4times..where are these extra photons coming from?
 
@Arjun from where the destructive interference zeroed them out.
@Arjun photons of the same type can; their behaviour is why we have classical EM waves
 
@naturallyInconsistent In this video (m.youtube.com/…) at about 4min 55sec Barton zwiebach says two different photons can't interfere with each other..because say if they destructively interfere from two photons we go to zero photons..why can't we apply the argument that these photons are showing up somewhere where photons constructively interfere?
 
7:42 PM
Id instead point out that what Zwiebach is probably saying is that the interference pattern is coming from one photon interfering with itself and so the probability distribution is already of the interference pattern form, so 2-photon interference is not needed to describe that.
 
bleb
it seems like open quantum systems is not as big a research area as i would expect it to be. is this a wrong impression?
 
@naturallyInconsistent but did he not say that two photon interference is not possible due to energy conservation violation?That is what has confused me a bit
 
@SirCrackpot the problem is not technical, it's bureaucratic, so it's very German actually :P
 
And also if it happens where and when does it happen? And what exactly does it mean for two photons to interfere?
And in what situations should one use it and in what situations should one not use it to describe what's happening
 
suppose i have an initial density operator $\rho_0$. Suppose I want to describe the dynamics of this system. So, I cook up a dynamics relation. Upon first thought, you want $\rho_0$ to be a density operator at every point in time (so the evolution operator needs to be trace-preserving and completely positive for all $t$ in the evolution interval). Is this condition really necessary?
 
7:56 PM
@Arjun it is way past time to sneepppuu so i'll watch it tmr
 
@it's okay..sleep tight meow..purrrr purrr purrr
 
@Arjun oh, it is a known thing that at extremely high temperatures, 2-photon interference at least via pair production ought to alter the famous Planck's blackbody radiation. It is just that we have yet to achieve temperatures that high enough.
purrr purrr
 
I see
 
@SillyGoose are you saying that you are open to the possibility of your density operator being invalid for some finite short stretches of time?
 
@naturallyInconsistent yes i was wondering about this possibility
 
7:59 PM
@SillyGoose what is the point of entertaining this possibility?
 
@SillyGoose $$\mathrm{Tr}(H^\dagger \rho H) = \mathrm{Tr}(H^\dagger H \rho) = \mathrm{Tr}(I \rho) = \mathrm{Tr}(\rho)$$
Unitarity preserves the trace
 
as it is done (roughly) in say QFT to my understanding. virtual particles don't follow all the expected rules, but so long as your initial and final state is "physical" it seems okay
@naturallyInconsistent well there is more freedom in defining what your dynamics relation is
 
(and what Slereah said.)
 
I should maybe explicitly say that I am considering the evolution of a privileged and open quantum system
so evolution will not be unitary
 
o
Well if your system isn't unitary why expect the trace to be preserved
 
8:01 PM
@SillyGoose but that ought to immediately take you outside of physics.
 
Particles can just disappear if your system is open
 
hm okay maybe then to simplify the situation let's suppose trace is still preserved, but i would like to be open to the evolution being not necessarily completely positive for all time
@naturallyInconsistent why so
 
Like, there are plenty of statistical thermodynamics stuff that become undetermined the moment we lose quasistaticity, so that the thermodynamic functions are only defined for the initial equilibrium state and final equilibrium state; the path in between is non-well-defined. However, if you are talking about a density operator, that should always be well-defined
 
well so how is this generalization of evolution as I have described above different (in theme/concept) than allowing for virtual particles in the dynamics of QFT? (I do not really know anything about virtual particles, so perhaps I misunderstand the reason for introducing them and so on)
 
@SillyGoose Something like Einstein's argument as to why all conservation laws should be local. Feynman lectures included it. Prior to SR, it was perfectly fine for conservation laws to only be global, as in, stuff disappear here and pop up instantaneously somewhere else, or pop up eventually in time. But with SR, the time ordering is no longer sacrosanct, and so the conservation laws are forced to become local.
@SillyGoose Technically, the unitary time evolution operator and the S matrix still exist for finite times. It is just that we have no computational tools to get at them analytically. It is just a complication coming from our mathematical failures that the quantities that we can calculate are only well-defined in the infinite time limit, with lots of fake virtual particles appearing in the middle of the perturbation calculations.
 
8:08 PM
okay so you're saying virtual particles are a mathematical convenience that happens to give pretty good answers, and it would be perhaps a different (or perhaps an interpretation on the other end of the spectrum) to see virtual particles as genuine parts of a system's evolution?
 
@SillyGoose there are many posts on P.SE that assert the fundamental truth, that virtual particles are perturbation theory fiction.
 
hi
An elevator in the Marriott Marquis skyscraper in New York has a run total of $190m$. Its maximum speed is $5.08 m/s$, while its acceleration is $1.22 m/s^2$.

a. Starting from rest, what distance does it take to reach the full speed?

Solution: $l1 = 10.6m$

b. How long does the complete race take, taking into account the phases of acceleration and deceleration?

Solution: $t_{total} = 42.6s$
i found the point a , can someone help me solving the b, pls
\[
v^2 = u^2 + 2as, \quad (5.08)^2 = 0 + 2(1.22)s, \quad s = \frac{(5.08)^2}{2(1.22)}
\]
i solved point a with this
is correct?
 
8:40 PM
@Pizza correct
b is 41.6s
 
What's the term used to describe a fuel's energy to waste ratio
if such a term exists, and also I'm guessing it's dependent on numerous conditions
if I have two fuel types (for combustion, let's say) $A$ and $B$ where $A$ produces the same exothermic energy as $B$ but far more "waste", is this possible?
I need to learn chem >_<
It's because in the derivation of efficiency for a diesel engine we have $W = Q_h - Q_c$ for some reason i'm trying to figure out
nvm I got it
 
9:36 PM
@naturallyInconsistent How did you find b? Pls
 
10:21 PM
@ACuriousMind hope you go back soon, i may need some algbro-geometric to complex-geometric translations
@SirCrackpot yeah i do the same, except i always use the long arrow even in inline math
 
hi I guess that people visiting this chat to promote their question on stackexchange are seen as annoying and unpolite, right?
 
i dont know
whats your question
it is crazy that this simple Schroedinger equation knows about conformal field theory
 
10:40 PM
oh, nothing quantum. it's just plain old boring springs and masses...
there must be a dumb error somewhere or something I can't see
0
Q: Classification of equilibrium configurations for particles subject to elastic force constrained on a circle

ebenezerI am interested in classifying all the possible equilibrium configurations for an arrangement of $l$ equal point particles $P_1, P_2, . . . , P_l$ $(l > 2)$ on a circle of radius $R$ and centre $O$. The costraint is smooth and the $P_i$ is attracted to $P_{i−1}, P_{i+1}$ with an elastic force ($P...

 
@l4teLearner the coordinates you pick seem clever
also i would expect those configurations to be stable too
@l4teLearner not boring, its an interesting problem
 
it's from Fasano, Marmi Analytical Mechanics
I must have done a dumb computation problem somewhere or a mistake in the modeling
 
11:03 PM
anyways, thanks for having had a look. cheers
 
fqq
11:22 PM
> Fasano, Marmi
Do we have another Italian user? :)
 
right! they wrote an english version, by the way
 
11:41 PM
Me and @SirCrackpot are also Italian
 
ciao :) nice to meet you guys. a presto
 

« first day (4869 days earlier)      last day (40 days later) »