« first day (1419 days earlier)      last day (3806 days later) » 

00:40
@ChrisWhite Perhaps adding it anyway might benefit a 3rd perspective that might be unique?
 
2 hours later…
02:29
sigh. Why is there always a few drops of beer at the bottom of a bottle that can never be drunk
2
02:56
Because of surface tension?
Lol
03:29
@ anyone Can I use average distance (g) in the equation F=(NI)^2 * mu_0 * A / 2g^2?
Ah, heck. I'll run some calculations and see if they make sense.
 
2 hours later…
05:26
0
Q: Did the Big Bang happen at a point?

John RennieWell, no, as well all know. However this misapprehension comes up time and time again, and surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a single question addressing precisely this issue (though it's covered by lots of related questions). So do we need a Danuesque canonical question and answer(s) with t...

05:41
Haha yay my first case of serial upvoting :D
@ChrisWhite I have this problem too, except I know that most of them will also be written by people that understand what they're writing a lot better than me ;)
 
4 hours later…
09:17
Does anyone know how one can prove an integral is non-elementary, other than using differential Galois theory or the Risch algorithm? If not, can anyone recommend a decent introduction to the former, accessible to a (theoretical) physicist?
09:43
@JamalS why not post it as a question? ;)
@Danu although it would be a question for Mathematics, not us (cc @JamalS)
 
2 hours later…
user54412
11:42
@JamalS That problem is fraught with undecidability, for example Richardson's Theorem.
15:36
@KyleKanos You active?
15:58
Of course it happens that just as I become active, the guy who wanted me leaves
:D
@Danu: did you ever discover which physicist it was who was going to sacrifice his right testicle on the altar of supersymmetry?
@JohnRennie I have discovered that itwas about LEP rather than LHC
"There is this apocryphal story of a prominent Italian physicist who vowed to cut off his testicle if superpartners are not found at LEP. It isn't clear whether he had balls to do it. " from the Resonaances blog
:-/
So, I believe it is chat session time
So, David, do you know which physsicist it was?
16:02
I've never heard that story actually
damnit
Google found me the Resonaances blog post.
It sounds like the kind of thing someone would make up as a joke
As well as lots of other, erm, interesting sites ...
what does uncertainty mean for particles? how do you measure the momentum of a particle if you don't know where it is?
16:04
No, it's also on Lubos' blog
I believe it's a really a story
it may not be actually true
Haha John, nice nice
;-)
@zounds in short, because you don't know where the measurement device is either
I'm happy you are showing up in chat more recently! :)
@zounds It's generally the case in quantum mechanics that particles don't have well defined positions. For example the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't have a position.
famous Italian SUSY physicists
can't be that many
Instead it has a probability distribution that tells us where it's likely to be.
16:06
Bruno Zumino?!
Must be it
or Riccardo Barbieri?
say if you fire an electron through a tube with two gates. you time when the electron passes through the gates, and from that you know its position at the first gate, and you calculate its momentum based on when it passes the second gate
getting into some really risky google searches now
"zumino LEP testicle"
:P
@KyleKanos Hello.You said-"We wouldn't be able to model circuits with inductors if KVL/KCL required conservative fields"-why is that?
Hilariously getting a lot of hits including the word ball ;D
oh google, sometimes your smartness is so dumb
@zounds It's not that simple to time the electron. To time it you have to know where it is, and we usually don't know that.
16:11
@soumyadeep Because of inductors; if the non-conservative field inside the inductor mattered, then Kirchoff's laws wouldn't be true
@zounds To measure the electrons position means we have to interact with it, and that will change its momentum.
But we can do it, so it does work w/o requiring conservative fields
"Did you mean: Zumino left testicle?" ...oh god
@JohnRennie cc @zounds although I would point out that bypasses the true meaning of the uncertainty principle a bit
@JohnRennie it's okay to change the momentum when we measure its position at first, but i thought the issue was once its position is measured at the first gate, its momentum has no value at all
16:13
Left or right? Depending on their momentum we may not be able to tell.
@JohnRennie I honestly don't know who you're replying to!
@KyleKanos You said in your answer that what happens inside does not matter.And now you are saying" if" the non-conservative field inside the inductor mattered, then Kirchoff's laws wouldn't be true.Why does this "if" come?
@danu I only reply to you about testicles - I figure you already know about the uncertainty principle.
@JohnRennie LOLOLOLOLOL
16:15
That's one for the ages
@soumyadeep By using logical induction.
@zounds David is telling me off because the real situation is rather more complex than I'm implying.
Not to displace any of the 3+ conversations simultaneously happening now, but we may also want to discuss this:
28
Q: Should we rename the homework tag as "problem-solving", or such?

Dimensio1n0It seems that many users find the homework tag "demeaning", e.g. here. There have been many other instances of this, which has also lead to various posts being locked. The users refute that "This is not homework!!!", often, too. I suggest that we rename it (for example, as proble...

The relevant quote from Lubos' blog: An otherwise cautious Italian physicist promised his student to cut his right ball if SUSY isn't discovered at LEP I. ;-)
@DavidZ it's a clear yes from the community (me included)
@DavidZ I didn't comment because I'm clearly in the minority, but I hate the proposal.
16:17
@JohnRennie oh, I would think being in the minority is more reason to comment
The point of blocking homework is because it's too localised (remember when we had a too localised close region?)
(it could even be that the minority is actually the silent majority)
Homework is blocked because it's of interest to only one person
Calling it problem solving doesn't make it any more interesting, it just makes it sound superficially more reasonable.
@JohnRennie my question is that even if measuring position completely destroyed the previous momentum, after running the experiment, don't we have both the position and the momentum at time t when the electron passes the first gate?
I do kinda like the idea of swapping it to problem-solving because it would stop people from complaining "I've not been in school for X years, this isn't homework"
But, in the end, it doesn't really change anything
It's still likely off-topic
16:19
@JohnRennie I think the change is just to prevent people from complaining about their questions being close (what Kyle is saying)
I'm not against changing the homework tag to something else, but problem-solving sounds too reasonable. How can you justify closing something on the grounds it's about solving a problem?
2
We could change it to, erm, how about too-localised ?
@KyleKanos Right.You answered the question once and for all.Now forget inductors.What i ask now is -does KVL requires conservative field?
@JohnRennie I agree with that... which is why I brought it up, I'm hoping we can come up with a better option for the tag name
I've been thinking recently that the class of questions which should receive the tag (or whatever we rename it to) and the class of questions we close using the homework-like close reason are not the same.
Basically, the reason we have the tag in the first place is so that people who don't want to see pedagogical questions can filter them out
@soumyadeep No, I do not believe it does.
I agree that a homework question can be interesting and useful to lots of people. After all that's why physics books include exercises.
16:22
I like because it is more closely aligned with the Physics.SE definition of homework
I think David is making an excellent point
I hadn't thought about it like that before
@JohnRennie well, I don't think I'd quite agree that that's why physics books include exercises, but that is a reasonable point: questions relating to homework can be interesting to more than just someone working on the exact problem
but they have to be asked in a certain way
In a way that's not too localised you mean :-)
Yeah, pretty much
Basically our hw-like close reason tries to encapsulate that way
I think this comment of mine is something to think about:
I'm not opposed to this (considering it was kind of my idea!) but I would like to think really hard about whether there isn't some better name to use. Recently I've been thinking that we call the HW policy a homework policy because the original motivation behind it was to exclude homework questions - but what we're really trying to do is exclude a broader class of low-/no-effort, non-conceptual questions which are not in line with the goals we have for the site. So I think a name that doesn't make any reference to "homework" would be a big plus. — David Z ♦ Sep 18 at 18:41
2
although since then I've come around more to the view that the close reason perhaps should be separated from the tag
I agree
(including the modification)
16:26
Me too
So, thinking out loud...
for the close reason, I think we should think about what makes a question inappropriate for the site. Not its being homework specifically, but its being low- or no-effort, because we don't want to be known as a place that facilitates cheating, and also because we want questions that are interesting to a broader user base.
and for the tag, we should think about what sorts of questions should not be closed but which high-level users would want to filter out
and choose a tag name based on that
worked-examples ?
For the tag I mean
Not a bad suggestion, but I think it might be broader than that
@JohnRennie I don't like it
I guess, I don't exactly know what kinds of questions people want to filter out, because I'm not one of the people who does it. It would be good to get input from those who do. Maybe I'll make a meta post about it
16:30
@DavidZ Well not everyone does cheating.This site is also for physics enthusiasts and unfortunately for users (like me) there are not many people around, whom i may trust.
The thing is that homework is pretty much ideal for use as a filter
Anything as effective is going to be a synonym for homework
@soumyadeep Right, but the kind of questions that often come up in that context are simply not the ones we aim to answer on this site
Not saying there are no exceptions, but one has to keep in mind we are not a replacement for a university or similar institution
@JohnRennie yeah, I do think the main motivation for switching from is to keep people from complaining that their non-homework questions were marked with the tag
OK, I think we can agree that the tag name should be a synonym.
But I think the really important question is the one David raised
what is it exactly that we don't like about many of these HW-type questions
@Danu That they're "Do my homework for me" questions
And whether it's from Wald or Holliday & Resnick, I don't really want to do their work for them
16:34
RIght
But some of my questions arose as actual homework, yet I think they were good questions
@KyleKanos well, but questions which are really asking us to just do a homework problem should get closed
@Danu Remember the distinction between the tag and the close reason. The tag is use to specify what we don't want to see, while the close reason is what we don't think should be on the site.
@JohnRennie I know, I'm trying to explain that to Kyle
Maybe Conceptual-Problem? I have seen that many of them are meant to test knowledge or to challenge the knowledge of the concepts in physics....
@DavidZ I vote to close those types of questions.
16:36
@KyleKanos yeah, which is why I don't think it's important to choose a tag that applies to them. The name of the tag should IMO reflect the kinds of questions which we don't want to close, but which certain people don't want to see.
@JohnRennie I'm not convinced they're different
@KyleKanos there have been homework questions that I've found interesting, and that I've learned from.
@KyleKanos did you follow the discussion we just had?
Where did we lose you?
i.e. where did you start disagreeing
@KyleKanos to be clear, they're not really different now, but we're thinking they should be (not sure if that was clear)
@JohnRennie I don't doubt they exist, but from what I see, they are few and far between
16:39
@KyleKanos but that indicates the HW tag and VTC reason are not referring to the same set of questions
@KyleKanos Hmm, I've just searched for [homework] in the hope of finding an interesting question and found nothing in the first few pages.
However in the past there have been QM and GR related homework questions that I did find interesting. But I concede your point that these are a (small?) minority.
@JohnRennie they are rare, though also we're not as consistent about applying the tag as we used to be, I think
@Danu Perhaps, but it applies to a large percentage
@KyleKanos sure, and it all works fine as of right now, but we're trying to improve regardless
@JohnRennie What do you think about this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89611/…
it wasn't tagged as HW for lack of space, but it should've been
1
A: Confusion about proper time

John RennieThe proper time of an observer is the time shown on that observer's clock. This is because the observer's frame looks locally like flat space so: $$ d\tau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 $$ and (obviously) in the observer's frame the observer is at rest, so $dx$, $dy$ and $dz$ are all zero and th...

That's the sort of question that has to be answered by discussing concepts.
That's not a great example - it's just the first I found
16:44
@JohnRennie Yeah... I would've VTC if I saw it pop up in the queue haha
3
A: Static geodesics in GR

John RennieI think Jerry's point is that if you have a metric that looks like: $$ ds^2 = a(dx^0)^2 + f(dx^1, dx^2, dx^3) $$ where $a$ is a constant and $f$ is any function, then an observer moving in the $x^0$ direction follows a geodesic of the type you describe. An obvious example is the FLRW metric whe...

@JohnRennie I would not have voted to close it because it's asking about which frame to apply the proper time; it's a good question IMO.
I won't bother searching further as tis gives an idea of what I think is worth answering
@KyleKanos it's a good question IMO ah, but it's tagged as homework ...
And that's the point. People may not wish to see Q/As that are basically just me explaining concepts to a student.
@JohnRennie To which I'd argue it probably doesn't need that particular tag. Alemi added that one in after it was asked
@Danu @KyleKanos I wouldn't VTC that one
16:48
Sorry to bother you all-but now is your problem about HW is that they lack standards or they show lack of effort?
@soumyadeep A linear combination
@soumyadeep I think different groups of people have different problems with HW-like questions and we're trying to develop a solution that works for all of them
@KyleKanos But it's blatantly a homework question ...
Question: Is a superposition always linear? :)
@Danu Yes, superposition only works in linear systems
16:49
@JohnRennie I disagree, it's asking why proper time is applied to one frame and not the other. Sure it arose because of OP's homework, but I don't think it's homework.
Well suppose the tag was educational. Would that be a better description?
@JohnRennie +1
perhaps a variation of educational / pedagogical etc?
In looking through the answers, Qmechanic's isn't too bad
I like pedagogical - it sounds posh :-)
16:52
That question may be an interesting case study for our current debate. There are two things to address: (1) should be be closed? (I think not) and (2) would people want to filter it out?
@KyleKanos ooh I kind of like that. I hadn't seen that one.
How do you get the text-in-a-box look?
I like that too
2
A: Should we rename the homework tag as "problem-solving", or such?

QmechanicHow about homework-and-exercises? It is self-explanatory, and that way we still call a spade a spade while simultaneously leave open the possibility that it might not be actual homework.

@JohnRennie" [tag:homework-and-exercises]
[tag:that's_kinda_fun?]
16:54
@Danu Obviously not!
No, it needs hyphens or maybe underscores
damnit
It has to be something that could plausibly be a real tag: <=25 chars, no spaces, IIRC
apparently no special characters either (except hyphens, maybe underscores?)
OK well before we get too carried away tinkering with the tag renderer, what shall we take away from today's discussion? (5 mins left in chat session)
I think a meta post seeking to clarify what sorts of questions people want to filter out is in order
You could lay out some alternatives in a meta post
pedagogical/hw&exer/???
I like hw&ex too
I think covers educational/pedagogical by implication
@Danu I mean, technically we already have that meta post ;-) But maybe a runoff is in order. But I'd like to get a better sense of what we are using the tag to represent first. It may have changed since we first introduced the tag.
16:58
@DavidZ Make sure to link this discussion, and highlight the difference between the tag and VTC etc etc
@Danu good idea, in fact I'll bookmark the chat session so it's easily accessible
You mean we've actually achieved something productive?
Can we go back to talking about testicles now?
4
Seriously
Was it Zumino or Barbieri
I think it has to be Zumino on account of his fame
Do either of them walk strangely?
and early involvement with stuff
16:59
haha, there we go :-)
lmao
You're really on fire tonight, John
It's easy to make jokes about testicles - they're just inherently funny.
In all seriousness, I need to know
Hi Terry. You picked an, erm, interesting moment to join the discussion :-)
Can we somehow get Lubos in here?
17:01
Jester describes the story as aprocryphal, so the sad truth is that it probably never happened.
Or it was said late at night in the CERN bar as a joke
No, of course
Lubos says he said it to some students
so it certainly wasn't on the record
the relevant article
Bad interface, later folks!
Oh, so NOW IT starts working!
@TerryBollinger What is going on?
One-way texts, I could see all of you but not my own texts. Weird.
@TerryBollinger I didn't see any of yours either
first one I see is 'bad interface..'
btw, you wouldn't happen to know the answer to my question, would you?
17:10
Weird, John Rennie could!
You might try posting it on the Skeptics SE
Among all the testicles;),i wanna ask whats that number which is shown beside the name of the users in the users page?
@TerryBollinger All I saw was your icon appearing. I didn't see any of your posts.
@soumyadeep Their reputation score?
@JohnRennie Then there is a serious disarrangement there.
Heh! Btw, what question?
My first five attempts were all the word "Testicles?"
4
17:13
@soumyadeep Total reputation across all SE sites
>My first five attempts were all the word "Testicles?"
Probably not something to put on your CV
The question is
Which 'eminent Italian physicist' promised (off-the-record) to cut off one of his testicles if LEP didn't find SUSY?
both the Resonaances and Lubos' blog allude to it
I think it must be Zumino
@soumyadeep In what way?
Ah! That answers my curiosity about the um, novel topic...
17:15
@JohnRennie There are users below me who have higher reputation.
@soumyadeep That is likely the reputation gained in a particular quarter/month
@soumyadeep The default view shows reputation so far this week. At the top right are links to view week, month, quarter or all.
You may have scored more this week than people with a higher total rep than you
Btw, are you sure this wasn't just a case of promising self-castigation in combination with a scary spelling error? :)
Oops, sorry, the default view is this month not this week
@TerryBollinger Haha, but no, I'm sure
17:18
@JohnRennie hmm
Hi, guys, what do you think of open-review journals?
I like the idea, but then I'm notoriously pro open source.
It's probably akin to communism, in the sense that it is a nice idea which turns out quite horribly in practice
Anyone have any suggestions how to quickly find/make bike lights from household items?
I figured maybe my iPhone's searchlight function could be the front light...
but the red taillight is posing a serious problem
I have to go chaps. I have a couple of hours to finish reading Slaughterhouse 5 for the SciFi group I go to.
17:28
classic! Bye all here too
Hey @Danu, at least in software it works very well, but that is actually a well-known disguised variant of ferociously free-market ideas trading in the form of software.
Bye for real (he says to a now empty room) :)
I am asking because I am thinking of sending my paper to some open- source journal, which has been rejected by PRA. I do not agree with the referee. I think it might be better if everyone can comment on a paper.
17:52
Ahh...and I missed the chat session sitting in a windowless room adjusting mirrors with tiny screws. Repeatedly.
I hate lab courses.
18:18
@Jiang-minZhang well, you can allow that to happen without submitting to an open source journal - or really open access (open source is a concept that applies more to software), but I do think open access publishing is a good idea because it removes a number of barriers to dissemination of your work.
I was recently reading about some authors who didn't realize that submitting to an open access journal under CC-BY meant their articles could be republished in a book without their approval. But I think that's a good thing.
No, open-access is not sufficient. I think open-review might be more important. By reviewing, I mean discussing actually. I am a stupid guy. I do not understand many papers. But if as a read, i can post questions online below that paper, i think many people can help me and many people can benefit.
Oh, you mean a journal where the referees' comments are made publicly available after the paper is published?
In any case, discussion is usually not enabled by the journals themselves, but there are external sites that do it. Have you heard of PubPeer for example?
18:37
No i have not heard of PubPeer yet. But i am really interested.
Yes, I mean, a journal where the referee's comments are visible to anyone from the very beginning, even before the final selection for publication.
I do not know why journals do not implement the discussion feature. It is technically very very simple. It is definitely good for physics. I do not see any disadvantage at all, actually.
18:50
Thank you very much, David. I checked PubPeer. I really like its philosophy!
@Jiang-minZhang The disadvantage is this - people hesitate to state their (brutally) honest opinions about other people's work if it can be traced back to them. Rejected/criticized people also tend to feel personally attacked and in turn take up personal resentment against their critic. This occurs frequently enough that journals just screw discussion and save everyone from the drama
5
(I'm not saying open-access or open-discussion is bad. But sometimes, open-discussion between fallible human beings is actually detrimental)
Jim
Jim
Is it just me or does PubPeer sound like a place where you can meet people that you'd want to go to a bar with?
@Jim It's not just you
@Jim maybe someone should grab peerpub.com and start that up :-P
Jim
Jim
Friends all working this evening? Check out peerpub.com and find a drinking buddy near you!
6
19:00
No, i mean comment, or discussing, not only criticizing.
If you do not like a paper and you do not want to offend the authors, you can just ignore it.
@Jiang-minZhang And that's the problem. The "not wanting to offend" leads to valid criticism not being uttered, or to mediocre work unjustly being elevated.
But everyone can vote down or vote up a paper. You do not need to voice any word, you just vote down or up as in this site.
And the voting is anonymous
But votes take in the form of boolean so it is not really descriptive
Or we can do it like this. We can check whether when A is against B because B gave a bad comment on A's paper.
Anyway, this is my belief ------ anything technically possible is inevitable. Open review is technically extremely simple, so it is inevitable.
@Jiang-minZhang Nuclear war is technically extremely simple, so it is inevitable :P
19:08
you are right. That is doomed to happen again.
I don't deny that open-whatever forms of traditional ways are to be welcomed. But making everything open introduces the social element - which science strives to eliminate from its conclusions - into everything with considerable impact, which will (in my view) in many cases be worse than the faults the hierarchical traditional peer-review has
wow pubpeer even has a chrome plugin
19:24
Understand.
@Jiang-minZhang Some criticisms of this site involve the fact that votes are anonymous & do not require any comment from the voter
@Jiang-minZhang It is not how the publications work. You can have 7 billions people upvoting your papers, but one valid criticism or loophole can disprove all your results. Democracy just doesn't work here. A tiny group of people who really understand your results and discussing with you is more useful than those irrelevant comments.
@Jiang-minZhang It is not technically simple. There are thousands of journal out there. Implementing individual commenting system is not quite useful. What you need is some general protocol to collect all comments to different papers. Also, it is dubious how to preserve the information for a long time since most sites are usually close in less than 5 years
The usefulness is also questionable, as you may see, those place with commenting on journal results usually attract only trolling comments.
Then how to make sure that people focus on science itself?
@Jiang-minZhang How does the current system of people in the field reviewing new articles not do that?
But the current system is not efficient
19:39
But it works, so who cares about your version of efficient
I don't quite mean that to be rude or anything
you can never offend me
But trying to change something that works to something that's untested and questionable (at best) seems to be a bad line of thinking
Look at Vixra.org and compare that to arXiv.org
The articles on Vixra are not peer-reviewed
One of my collaborators told me, every year he review 4-6 papers for various physical journals, like PR series. He never spends more than 15 mins to review a paper!
The articles on arxiv usually are, but sometimes aren't; all require a .edu email address
@Jiang-minZhang Its hard questions. That's why I said the general commenting is not as simple as you thought.
Usually, the journal will pick the people with background so that they can at least give related comments.
19:43
@Jiang-minZhang Then he is either a bad reviewer and someone should inform the journal editor about his practices OR he really knows his stuff and can read & review the paper that quickly
My advisor is an editor for a major journal & can spend a few minutes reading papers & understands the arguments (faulty or not) in that time
@KyleKanos My supervisor is not editor, but he can also do the same things in few tens minutes. I am not quite sure how he does it so quickly
I find I have to read a paper twice in order to figure it out; that usually takes me about an hour.
Depending, of course, on the length of the paper
20:25
0
Q: The navigation is borked in Chrome

ChrisFWhen I open the site in Chrome - either main or meta I get this: rather than this: I think this is the CSS used to display the elements in the list: line-height: 1; text-align: center; color: #444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: #fff; min...

 
2 hours later…
21:58
Gosh, I knew it! Moderators are actually bots! They didn't even bother noticing that I replaced constructed content with a very dumb and useless question! They didn't bother to ask why: they just keep on doing their bot jobs (well, this is actually what bots were made for). I really have nothing to do here anymore: please keep on going with your silly game, I won't be part of it. Bye bye. — Gael 9 hours ago
doesn't even make sense... lol
22:46
@DavidZ Eh?
On the other hand, if he means it about not coming back then perhaps it's not worth figuring out.
@dmckee That's what a bot would think, isn't it?
Syntax error. Does not compute. Reset cheese.
8
Gotta love conspiracy theories
23:06
My simple Chrome fix to the formatting issues is really a big deal :D (11 upvotes on meta is a lot in my eyes)
23:18
@Danu We seem to have a lot of chrome users.
@dmckee lucky me ;) I gotta go to bed now, gnight

« first day (1419 days earlier)      last day (3806 days later) »