@user20458579510081670432 Apparently I had an hidden assumption that I didn't know. The CIAAW values are taken from AME results, and AME2020 is different from AME2016 because in 2019, there was a redefinition of the SI units. This means that they cannot use the 2016 assumed forms of the CODATA2016 data. CODATA sets SI units. Instead, they have to check all the values all over, and starting from the CODATA2020 electron mass, their AME2020 H atom mass and the ionisation energy data, they produce a new proton mass

So then there is a need to use a different website link for the AME2020 H atom mass and uncertainty, matched with a new AME2020 proton mass, in order to get agreement again. In a sense, AME2020 will update CODATA's proton mass, which will be reflected for the next CODATA update.

Very rigorous, and very nice.

@Claudio I just realized that one of the co-writers (Franck Laloë) of the Cohen volume on Quantum Mechanics is the PI on a seminal paper related to a research project I'm currently working on :P

Thanks for the update @naturallyInconsistent

hi

hey guys, im trying to figure out how to approach a 2.5d packing factor problem of sorts and trying to see how we can. How many credit cards could you throw into a pool, or lets simplify it and say what would be the packing factor of credit cards in the presence of gravity (hence mostly aligning the cards to have their largest side face up).

In "...are perfectly identical only if..." what is meant by "same nuclear spin state"?

@SillyGoose same as when we are considering electrons: They are distinguishable if the $m_s$ values are different, and only indistinguishable if the $m_s$ values are the same.

Why does this derivation of the GC Partition function even work?

The equation after $(7.24)$ is the canonical Partition function. How can they apply the CE to the whole system?

Incidentally, the derivation proceeds factorizing the distributions relative to both subsystems and then the GCE arises

I mean, if you want to consider the total system, the energy is fixed, so you should be using MCE

@Mr.Feynman Not necessarily. Just add a heat bath outside both the system under observation and the particle bath.

@naturallyInconsistent I'd thought of that, so in that way we'd have three systems. The big bath, the particle reservoir and the small system

Of course, the heat bath will have to be absurdly huge because its temperature would have to be unperturbed by the large particle bath, but still

To be honest, this is the worst derivation I've seen around :P

Heck, without even resorting to maximum entropy principle one doesn't need to make things this "complicated"

I mean, I totally dont see the point. Just postulate Gibbs entropy as the correct one, and start directly from GCE

Oh, yeah if you ask me the cleanest way is to just postulate it, still "deriving" it with the reservoir is also cool, it sounds more "physical"

Not like this, though. :P

"We derived the CE from MCE. It is merely a matter of computation to repeat the same analysis and get the GCE. From here on, we will just postulate the relevant GCE quantities to be correct, and instead focus our finite mental strengths on deriving results."

(bye)

@naturallyInconsistent Bye nyan~

miaaa~

Since I'm on vacation I'm doing something fun

Finally do a proper implementation of Lazy Bird

samuel-lereah.com/articles/CS/…

Last time I made one was like ten years ago and it sucked

.... you have way too much free time...

how many hours should one give to physics every day to become good in it

Why minus sign in change in potential energy?

@SillyGoose then you can consider yourself very lucky :P I don't know him honestly but he is definitely a great physicist hahaha. C-T is probably the best physics book(s) I've come across so far.

sorry im gonna workshop that

free will has a somewhat precise meaning that I wasn't aware of.

@Obliv what is it

@RyderRude the belief that one has the ability to choose how the future unfolds

The word "will" itself is problematic.

It has an unusually strong context dependent meaning.

Is will the same as "will power"?

How does one one show

Things with 0 mass must travel at th3 speed of light

It's confusing when u wanna start from an action perspective