@0celo7 I'd actually like to discuss parts of that chapter with you if you have time later or whenever; gotta finish some calculations to give to my professor tomorrow then I can head home
There's a problem at the end of the chapter on computing superradiance behavior for EM waves incident on kerr black holes and for the life of me I've never been able to figure that calculation out
Haha thankfully not and yeah sure Skype sounds fine
@KyleKanos Take a look at what Jamal wrote. It more or less says that if I claim my math question is motivated because I was thinking about physics, then the question is ok for Physics.SE.
Maybe that's ok, but I have one major complaint: this lenience is not extended to other topics such as engineering.
I just realized that I was running a current through my entire body (with my heart on the shortest path) by touching my laptop with my hand and my desktop with my foot simultaneously
I was starting to wonder why I kept on getting this shitty shock-like feeling
@Danu Hmmm...it appears we dealt with the seesaw mechanism where you have full mass matrices instead of just numbers, and then this problem...doesn't appear, really. It's odd
The aren't any parameters I could set to zero of something, I have to plug in diagonal matrices...I think...and we only did this on a problem sheet, not in the lecture
Hmmm...my final result states $v_L^c = \chi_1 + \frac{m_D}{m_R}\chi_2$ and $N_R = -\frac{m_D}{m_R}\chi_1 + \chi_2$ where $\chi$ is a basis in which the total mass matrix is diagonal.
Problem is, we did the diagonalization procedure with the full matrices, so I can't see why everyone else is getting negative masses while we don't right now :P
@Danu : my answers refer to Einstein and the evidence. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content and all that. If you know of any bodies that contain less than zero energy, Stockholm awaits.
@ACuriousMind : "this chirality/helicity thing also always confuses me". If it confuses you, say so, rather than making comments that confuse chirality and helicity.
@JohnDuffield ...which is why I went to reread the relevant things. I restated my comment in clearer form, 2. is/was preemptively meant for the case that you meant helicity where you said chirality.
@dmckee The naive Higgs field - not the perturbation around the VEV - has a "mass term" in the Lagrangian that has the wrong sign. It'd be a tachyon if it didn't get a VEV.
@JohnDuffield You didn't listen to my or @ACM's comments, did you? It could be a wrong vacuum, or something else that is completely standard and acceptable
...or do you really propose that you just found an inconsistency in the seesaw mechanism that everybody just "brushed over" 'till now? :P
@JohnDuffield No. It's exactly like relativity happened, because it takes exactly the same amount of energy to make an anti-<whatever> as a plain <whatever>. So you expect them to exert the same gravity.
@Danu : Wrong vacuum? I didn't see that. But I can tell you this: the seesaw mechanism contradicts E=mc². How's that for brushed over? And is there any part of "yet to be observed" that you're not clear about? Ask a question.
@dmckee : I want to raise a complaint. There's people here flagging up my answers for serial anonymous downvoting. Search the chatroom on Duffield. There's abuse there too. Please moderate.
