« first day (5059 days earlier)      last day (31 days later) » 

12:02 AM
in this page of A&M, they say theres also a longitudinal magnetoresistance, but naively, id guess it's $\frac{E_y}{j_y}$ but in Hall effect there's no $j_y$, so this seems problematic. what am i missing/how is this thing defined?
@Relativisticcucumber you have to read the footnote carefully: The longitudinal m.res. is still the same equation as (1.14), but with the magnetic field parallel to the current, while here the magnetic field is orthogonal to it
@ACuriousMind oh no i dont understand. thers no H here, right?
what do you mean?
in the formula i mean
wait
let me think ab what im saying
the l.h.s. seems to pretty clearly display an $H$ as the parameter of $\rho$ :P
12:13 AM
i thought the point of this hall effect is to put H dependence in since it's not in 1.14 but should be
i do see that it says $\rho(H)$ but i thought that was just for fun idk
so what is meant by "magnetic field parallel to the current"
it's when the $H$ is parallel to the current
I'm not really sure what other answer you expected :P
like when the applied $H$ is parallel to the current? like its just a separate magnetic field entirely?
i thought the hall effect is like we have a field (and current) orthogonal to the magnetic field? so how can it be parallel?
@Relativisticcucumber no one said that the longitudinal magnetoresistance is related to the Hall effect
the text is simply pointing out that, if you want to be pedantic, there's another kind of magnetoresistance one might consider in principle
so to be pedantically correct you need to call the magnetoresistance relevant to the Hall effect the "transverse magnetoresistence"
yes but i need to compute magnetoresistance for both longitudinal and transverse for a hall bar geometry XD
i assumed hall bar geometry meant hall effect somehow bleh
hmm but then why isnt transverse magnetoresistence $\frac{E_y}{j_y}$
@Relativisticcucumber because there's no $j_y$?
12:21 AM
but you said we leave hall land i thought
the labels of the directions are arbitrary anyway
All the text is saying that if you have an electric field (i.e. a voltage source) and you add a magnetic field in the same direction as that of the electric field/current, you might observe that the effective resistance (i.e. the resulting current) changes
this effective resistance as a function of the magnetic field parallel to the electric field is called "longitudinal magnetoresistance", in contrast to the Hall effect where the magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field and hence the effective resistance observed is called "transversal magnetoresistance"
ah ok i think i see
thank you
nothing about these definition is really specific to the Hall effect or anything else - you just observe that there is a relation $\vec J = \sigma \vec E$. In general $\sigma$ is a matrix/rank-2 tensor called the (inverse of) resistivity, and if there is also an external magnetic field $\vec H$ one observes that $\sigma$ depends on $\vec H$
for $\vec H$ parallel to $\vec E$ one calls this phenomenon "longitudinal magnetoresistance", if they're orthogonal it's "transverse"
12:51 AM
@ACuriousMind Not the inverse of resistivity; that's a mouthful, but rather the conductivity. Of course, the conductivity matrix is the matrix inverse of the resistivity matrix and vice versa, but of course you know that too.
 
2 hours later…
3:19 AM
hullo, is there a h bar discord server?
 
3 hours later…
5:53 AM
@qwerty nope; what would be the advantage? SE chat is open, from SE itself and searchable, Discord is closed, third party and hard to search.
4
@naturallyInconsistent I first wrote resistivity and then remembered that's actually the inverse :P
And if I had written conductivity I would have invited the justified question why it's not magnetoconductivity ;)
123
123
Hello Everyone...
6:07 AM
@ACuriousMind there's magnetoconductivity???
6:18 AM
@ACuriousMind mainly because the format is conducive to multiple streams of asynchronous dialogue, channels and threading; so seems to be easier to follow when dropping in and out and also to avoid interrupting conversations. especially for more off-topic chat. i don't find discord hard to search myself.
@naturallyInconsistent no, that was my point: I say the resistivity varies with the magnetic field, so that's called magnetoresistance. If I had called it conductivity then the name magnetoconductance would have seemed more appropriate :P
@qwerty SE chat has channels of sorts, too, but the feature is underused: everyone can create new chat rooms, after all
i suspect it's underused because it's clunky ;)
@ACuriousMind Then you should have chosen to write it as the relation $\vec E=\rho\vec J$
@qwerty what subjects are you interested in
6:32 AM
many.
@qwerty what, mainly?
Trying to read some Zermelo writing but it is untranslated
The horror
Some good ideas are raised in the debate like pan-proto-psychism. But overall, Carroll showed a good attitude, was prepared to change his mind. But Chalmers almost never lets him speak as if he is the only one who understands the topic
@Slereah are you reading set theory?
Only the Mengenlehre
Fortunately google translates also works with images these days
7:49 AM
are many highly active SE users also wikipedians, or does there tend not be much overlap?
I have written a Wikipedia article, but on Hawkwind not physics :-)
8:10 AM
Ahah
Found the comment
> The attempt to explain the abstraction process leading to the "cardinal number" by conceiving the cardinal number as a "set made up of nothing but ones" was not a successful one. For if the "ones" are all different from one another, as they must be, then they are nothing more than the elements of a newly introduced set that is equivalent to the first one, and we have not made any progress in the abstraction that is now required.
8:46 AM
Why does Lawvere just throw references around and not specify where they are
One of them is just in the collected works of Grassmann and the first volume is 1000 pages
9:32 AM
@Slereah one modern approach to cardinals is to first construct ordinals
instead of using sets of 1s, we use sets of empty set
when Cantor first made cardinals, he didn't have this stuff in mind
back then, set theory was supposed to be just another branch of math, so intuitive approaches were fine
but later, set theory was used for foundations. and then people had to formalise the notions of infinite cardinals
9:54 AM
i am aware
10:33 AM
first order logic is defined to have a countably infinite list of variables
this means the language is aware of infinity, before we define it using the axiom of infinity
some formalisations would label the variables of logic using notation like A, A', A'', A''',.....
this is to ensure u r only using a finite bunch of symbols in the language : in this case : A and '
11:10 AM
You don't need variables to define FOL
No need to involve infinity in there
11:37 AM
@Slereah see the syntax ---> alphabet section en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
it has an infinite list of variables in the language to quantify over
and do relations and functions over
counterpoint
Combinatory logic is a notation to eliminate the need for quantified variables in mathematical logic. It was introduced by Moses Schönfinkel and Haskell Curry, and has more recently been used in computer science as a theoretical model of computation and also as a basis for the design of functional programming languages. It is based on combinators, which were introduced by Schönfinkel in 1920 with the idea of providing an analogous way to build up functions—and to remove any mention of variables—particularly in predicate logic. A combinator is a higher-order function that uses only function...
hmm this seems like an alternative to first order logic
it says it eliminates quantifiers, but maybe it still has an infinite supply of variables
it does seem to have variables
but idk if it's an infinite list
It does not
It's entirely curried
One argument per function
12:00 PM
You only even need 3 characters to do it really
cf.
12:38 PM
@Slereah oh
@Slereah wow
Sounds cool but it really isn't
That is what in the biz we call a Turing tarpit
> Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.
@Slereah do you like algebraic geometry?
@Slereah characters are finite in first order logic too. It's just that we also define allowed strings inductively i guess
I am not big on algebraic geometry
Like A'''''''
12:40 PM
Sure it's not really a new observation
so does the new logic resolve this problem too?
it is not too hard to make characters finite. One can just translate it to binary or something
There's no variables for logical combinators
Only functions
oh
And it only needs a finite number of functions? FOL has an infinite supply of functions too
and of relations
Only 3 if you're not being silly, 1 if you are
i guess infinite in FOL supply only means "arbitrarily large" or "as many as u like". Do u agree?
it just allows us as many names as we want
12:43 PM
And 18 if you use my extremely cool version
@Slereah wow
how did u make this stuff
The presence of functions of arbitrarily large variables in logical combinators is due to the S combinators
Since it increases the "size" of the function type returned
ie the identity function $I$ has type $t \to t$, but the $S$ function has type... something long
what is this combinator language idea in simple terms?
an English overview
12:46 PM
(A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C))
What does this have to do with combinator language
this is a law of logic
I'm afraid you have to learn type theory for that
ok. ive heard of type theory
Russel made it
To do FOL, we just take everyday language and symbolise it
symbolise some aspects like only statements
it doesn't symbolise questions/commands etc
@Slereah do combinatorial sentences have English translations and a truth value?
Some of them have sort of equivalents in other math fields
But only some
12:50 PM
The identity is just equivalent to the identity function, and it also corresponds to the logical rule $p \to p$
Or the sequent rule $A \vdash A$
The K combinator represents uuuuh falsity IIRC
And maybe weakening I forget
I can't remember if S is anything cool
The mockingbird combinator $M$ represents recursion
Since $M(x) = x(x)$
Applying a function to itself
i think this is useful for computer science. It seems to be related to lambda calculus. it's probably not useful for math
It is
It's lambda calculus minus variables
And it is extremely useful for math
It's part of the whole trinitarianism thing
does it simplify mathematical deductions compared to usual logic
v. important
@Slereah is lambda calculus equivalent to FOL
12:55 PM
Not really, but it can be used to show things about logic
@RyderRude Yes
That's the Curry-Howard isomorphism
@Slereah oh
@Slereah oh
@Slereah what is this
@Slereah wow
So category theory is more analogous to logic than to set theory
I mean the main triangle for the computational trilogy is set theory :p
Using the category of sets
it says "algebraic topology" in the brackets after catgeory theory
is algebraic topology a foundation to math somehow
is algebraic topology equivalent to FOL?
1:02 PM
I think it's that homotopy hypothesis thing
what's it called
u said once that topos stuff is some connection between topology and logic
yeah it's the whole homotopy type theory thing
Although "topology" here is in a very broad sense
is it not manifolds :(
Truth is not a manifold
that would've been the coolest thiing ever
@Slereah so it is like a general topological space
1:11 PM
Probably a topos or something idk
Everything is a topos in there
some $(\infty,\infty)$-groupoid
@Slereah should these three be studied simultaneously or one after other? I want to draw connections
logic, computation and category theory
what route did u take
Whatever you think is cool idk
2:07 PM
Anything you do will involve reading books, which seems to be the biggest hurdle
2:30 PM
I do begin reading books but Ive recently been getting stuck after two chapters due to some unintelligible topic
What may those topics be
the last topic i got stuck on was ordinals. I thought it was poorly written in the book
it was a proof which said ordinals are totally ordered
i couldn't get how the proof worked and then didn't want to move forward not getting it
it is from R Wolf : A tour through mathematical logic. Chapter 2
did you try googling it
no..
i should've googled alternative proofs
but that has rarely worked for me, because i cant get things when out of context
then i started reading another book by Endterton, but this time, i wasn't motivated. it got boring
2:49 PM
this proof is much better written math.stackexchange.com/questions/4562236/…
I should've googled it....
We live in the future
Flying cars, robot dogs
The information super highway
All of man's knowledge at your fingertips
3:20 PM
We r privileged compared to past learners
 
1 hour later…
4:32 PM
in this answer physics.stackexchange.com/a/743740/337317 what is meant by "kinetically limited" in "Furthermore, the periodic state may be thermodynamically favorable but kinetically limited; this is the general reason why we see amorphous solids around us. These so-called glasses want to be crystals."
4:45 PM
@Slereah were u looking for "Homotopy type theory"?
In mathematical logic and computer science, homotopy type theory (HoTT) refers to various lines of development of intuitionistic type theory, based on the interpretation of types as objects to which the intuition of (abstract) homotopy theory applies. This includes, among other lines of work, the construction of homotopical and higher-categorical models for such type theories; the use of type theory as a logic (or internal language) for abstract homotopy theory and higher category theory; the development of mathematics within a type-theoretic foundation (including both previously existing mathematics...
@Qmechanic, sorry to bother you, in this answer of yours, when you compute the expectation value of $K$, shouldn't there be a laplacian instead of a gradient?
@Slereah nvm u already said it.
the math chat referenced this too....they r not too fond of the hype behind this :P
@Relativisticcucumber Somewhat disappointingly, "kinetically limited" is a chemistry term that means little more than that a reaction is "not thermodynamically limited", i.e. in this case the crystal state would be globally the minimum of the relevant thermodynamic potential, but there is some local obstruction, e.g. a potential barrier so that the glass state is a local minimum and there is not sufficient energy supplied to the reaction to overcome this barrier
it's more common as the opposite of "diffusion-limited" for chemical reactions, where a kinetic-limited reaction is one where in principle diffusion could supply more reactants to the reaction site for faster reaction but something else is limiting the reaction rate
5:25 PM
I realized now that I shouldn't have tagged Qmechanic, I forgot about his status in here for a second :P.
Anyways, in $N$ dimensions, $\langle \psi| \mathbf{P}|^2| \psi \rangle$
@Claudio : In eq. (7) it is the Laplacian. Now int. by parts.
I'm having even more difficulties: this is equal to, in the $\{|\mathbf{r}\rangle\}$ representation to: $\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d^{N}r \psi^{\ast}(\mathbf{r}) \psi(\mathbf{r'}) (2\pi \hbar)^{-N/2}\mathcal{F}^{-1}[\mathbf{P}^2](\mathbf{r-r'})$
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ is the inverse F.T.
no wait, maybe I was right before :P
5:48 PM
As someone who studies physics, how does one knows when he is putting to much emphasis on math ?
6:16 PM
@imbAF Well, at the end of the day what you learn in your physics courses is what is most important. But it is true that the more math you learn, the more deeply you will understand those concepts
It ultimately comes down to what your goals are. If you want to be an experimentalist, you might only need the math directly necessary for your everyday work
If you want to be a theorist, a mathematical physicist, or are just interested in getting a deeply fundamental understanding of what goes on in physics, keep learning more math
You could also mainly prioritize the math that you'll use in your field, and then keep learning new math on the side as a hobby. Could be a satisfying way of changing how you see the world
 
2 hours later…
8:13 PM
If you're looking for a fast way of changing how you see the world, perhaps look to theological studies.
 
1 hour later…
9:30 PM
regarding the isotropic HO, why does Townsend assert that the differential equation $$ u^{''}(\rho)-\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho^2}u(\rho)+(\lambda-\rho^2)u(\rho) = 0$$ becomes, for $\rho \to \infty$: $$ u^{''}(\rho) = \rho^2u(\rho)$$
why does $\lambda = 2E/(\hbar\omega)$ go to zero???
and $\rho = \sqrt{\mu \omega/\hbar}r$
Why do you think when you look at the equation
What's going to happen when $\rho$ becomes large, what's going to dominate
wait, isn't $\lambda = const$
oh ok you mean we just discard at the large limit so as to obtain Weber's eq
ano
another question: the fact that the classical orbits for the isotropic 3D HO are closed means that there's another hidden symmetry
what is the other conserved quantity in this case?
I looked at this but I don't know group theory yet
9:49 PM
That's a good question I can't remember if I even know
I checked, Townsend talks about it at the end of the topic
the vector connecting the apogee and the perigee of the orbit
it remains constant, like the angular momentum
I couldn't have guessed this in a million years :P
The Fradkin tensor, or Jauch-Hill-Fradkin tensor, named after Josef-Maria Jauch and Edward Lee Hill and David M. Fradkin, is a conservation law used in the treatment of the isotropic multidimensional harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics. For the treatment of the quantum harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics, it is replaced by the tensor-valued Fradkin operator. The Fradkin tensor provides enough conserved quantities to make the oscillator's equations of motion maximally superintegrable. This implies that to determine the trajectory of the system, no differential equations need to be solved...
This shows how extremely difficult things get beyond the most basic examples
10:05 PM
that article is scary
how did u find it so quicly
That is just the beginning of the fear
In mathematics, a superintegrable Hamiltonian system is a Hamiltonian system on a 2 n {\displaystyle 2n} -dimensional symplectic manifold for which the following conditions hold: (i) There exist k > n {\displaystyle k>n} independent integrals F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} of motion. Their level surfaces (invariant submanifolds) form a fibered manifold F :...
this looks like something ACM would read in his leisure time
4
@bolbteppa Could I ask something about the discussion Hydrogen Atom in Cohen-T?
last time I couldn't figure it out
You can try
You're asking why the first coefficient in the Frobenius method is non-zero
In mathematics, the method of Frobenius, named after Ferdinand Georg Frobenius, is a way to find an infinite series solution for a linear second-order ordinary differential equation of the form z 2 u ″ + p ( z ) z u ′ + q ( z ) u = 0 {\displaystyle z^{2}u''+p(z)zu'+q(z)u=0} with...
10:13 PM
the diff eq is $$ y_{kl}^{''}(\rho)-2\lambda y_{k,l}^{'}(\rho)+[\frac{2}{\rho}-\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho^2}]y_{k,l} = 0 $$
no no
Im asking how do you get the $c_{q-1}$ in that recuirrence relation
why does it go to a lower index???
I get a $c_{q+1}$ instead lol
I'm working with $y = \rho^{l+1}\sum_{q =0}^{\infty}c_q\rho^q$
but the end result should be the same just some 1 or two powers above
the point is: he lowers the index $q \to q-1$ on the first derivative term and the one depending on $\lambda$
but you can't do it, you can only do it for the second deriv term and $y/\rho^2$
basically I end up with a recurrence relation with $c_{q+1 }, c_q$
instead of $c_q,c_{q-1}$
this ones better
this ends up clashing with the quantization of energy levels
anyways, either I'm wrong or Cohen is lol :P
what is that emotional energy theory on new feed
dang -7 already, poor guy
@bolbteppa, sorry for the tag,what do you think of all of this, I'm open to anything at this point :P
10:37 PM
When he finds $s = l + 1$ in (C.30a) and plugs it into (C.26) then just relabels things doesn't $c_0$ go to $c_{-1}$
No, my professor, and thus me in turn, did all of this already starting with the correct value of $s = l+1$
Oh wait
no he does not plug it into c-26
you can't have c_{-1}
the first non zero coefficient must be $c_0$
by definition
Where does he lower the index
that's what I want to know lol
When you're reading it, where does it break down
good question
well the point is:
Setting the coefficient of the term in $\rho^{q+s-2}$ to 0
this means that he managed to rearrange all the sums into one big sum depending on $\rho^{s}$
and in doing so, he must've redefined the index of the two sums involving the first derivbative $d/d\rho$ and $y(\rho)/\rho$
but If I do the computations, I can only manage to change the index of the other two terms
10:49 PM
I've done all this before but I'm not fully into it so you're going to have to tell me exactly where he does that and I'll read that part properly
pag 794 and subs
Around C.?
Cohen-T vol 1
the whole thing starts at 792
(C.2?) (C.3?)
chapter 7
10:51 PM
Which equations roughly
I sent the book photos before
these are from the pdf I read
Which one is giving you trouble, what equation is the first one that stops making sense
c_31
the implicit passages before obtaining c-31
let's put it like this
this is painful
hope that natInc doesn't look at this lol
wait you studied QM on C-T?
Below (C-28-b) he's just telling you that you're supposed to plug (C-26), (C-28-a) and (C-28-b) into (C-24), when you do that you should immediately get (C-31) maybe after re-labelling
So I did correctly, thats exactly what I did. It's time to give up then
11:01 PM
Ah I see, at the bottom of your page, you have $c_{q+1}/c_q$, if you just send $q \to q-1$ you get (C-31) no?
yeah
wait that's it????
now my soul is filled with a sense of complete annihilation
That's it as far as I can see, your sum accidentally started from $c_1$ near the bottom when you evaluated everything because you relabelled things to match one of the derivatives you took, you should have brought it back to start at $c_0$
wait where?
Oh yeah
Above 'In definitio'
(definition?)
thats because $(l+q+1)(l+q)-l(l+1)$ is zero for $q = 0$
I can't avoid that
like where I wrote il 1° termine è nullo in red with an arrow
11:07 PM
We got (C-31), let's just take the win
lol I knew what I did was correct lol
I'll tell you another thing
Have a re-think of the rest of it now and hopefully the rest makes sense, if not let me know another time
there's a big mistake when Cohen derives the behavior of $R_{k,l}(r)$ at $r\simeq 0$
he sets $R \sim Cr^s$
then you plug it in and he get $s(s+1) = l(l+1)$
instead of $s(s-1)$
interesting
anyways, thanks
when did you study the HA for the first time?
L&L get that $s(s+1) = l(l+1)$ from a general analysis of the radial equation as $r \to 0$
Landau
he's correct lol
I forgot about the multiplication inside the second deriv
dang
I must rest too
11:14 PM
No worries, this is not easy, even Schrodinger had to get help from a friend the first time he was solving this kind of stuff
lol
I will go to bed now, thanks again for the generous help @bolbteppa
11:47 PM
so its possible to have transverse and longitudinal resistivities. furthermore, the scattering time is related to the resistivity by $\tau = \frac{m}{\rho ne^2}$. in the case of transverse and longitudinal resistivity, this would imply two unique scattering times, but this does not make sense. what am i missing here?

« first day (5059 days earlier)      last day (31 days later) »