« first day (1745 days earlier)      last day (3482 days later) » 

03:03
I figured out how to Springer
time to download everything...
@ACuriousMind oooh that book on twistors and sheaf cohomology is within my grasp now
@0celo7 Physical or mental grasp? ;P
@ACuriousMind hey
I actually have no idea what a twistor ist, so just kidding :P
> ist
Dr. Hines' secretary did that the other way around: she said is while speaking German :)
@ACuriousMind it's a pair of spinors related by a PDE or something
I'm using English/German about 50/50 of the time, I sometimes have difficulty choosing the correct language to reply when actually speaking :D
@0celo7 Veeeery specific ;)
03:11
@ACuriousMind yes, also sheaves
and projective spaces
Sheaves and projective spaces I know.
ok why do we have some random book on twistors and HE, BLT, etc. but not fucking Wald
this library needs to get its shit together
+1 to the counter
We even have MTW
@ACuriousMind I can walk over and get QoGS
but no Wald...seriously?
hah, Zee is all checked out
@FenderLesPaul someone must like it :P
@0celo7 or they checked it out so no one else has to suffer :p
@FenderLesPaul D:
that's really mean
I can get Zeidler's analysis saga
of course every copy of Rudin is gone
damn math nerds
@FenderLesPaul are there any interesting GR books on Springer that you know of?
besides Straumann
03:28
Only Straumann
:p
well I have that in hard copy
I do know an SR book on Springer
that's incredibly good
"Special Relativity in General Frames"-Gourgoulhoun
ooh I wonder if Straumann's QM book is here
I really want to read that
imagine QM with Straumann rigor
"Gourgoulhoun" sounds like a demon's name to me :D
he has a QM book?
wtf
03:31
damn no luck
it's in German
well relativistic QM
I'll read it if I can get my hands on it
damn drunk people in the hallway
user54412
@0celo7 Those are your new friends.
@0celo7 Just skimmed the table of contents. I fell in love with it when I read "Projektive und unitäre Darstellungen" before he even starts talking about spin.
@ACuriousMind can you get ahold of it
Just chill ith the physics people
user54412
Seriously though, the single most important thing to do for the first several weeks at college is to make friends.
03:37
just kidding
don't chill with physics people
they're annoying as fuck
@0celo7 I thought you have access to Springer now? It's here: link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-32175-7
Also, listen to @ChrisWhite
@ACuriousMind no I have access through the library website
@ChrisWhite I need to find people who are not drunk in the hallway...
@FenderLesPaul the engineers seem cool
I met people through gigs I played and they were really chill people-most of them were like engineers or liberal arts majors
really cool people
can't stand physics people though
Yeah, a hallway doesn't sound like a good place to be drunk to me, either. Comfy chairs are more suited to that :P
they won't shut the fuck up about their research
in any environment
03:40
whoa he has a QM and a RQM book?
user54412
@ACuriousMind Americans don't know how to get drunk. Least of all college freshmen.
user54412
They always seem very stressed out about the whole thing.
@FenderLesPaul 800 page SR book?
Yeah
it's a really nice book
@ACuriousMind I can't access either Straumann book
user54412
03:44
My advice falls on deaf ears...
user54412
Is your door at least open?
@ChrisWhite No, my roommate and I don't want drunk people wandering in.
@ChrisWhite Well, college is there to learn, isn't it?
@ACuriousMind yeah but there is a lot of merit to what @ChrisWhite says
user54412
When I was an upperclassman mentor/counselor, I made sure my freshmen didn't shut themselves in their rooms. The ones who did tended not to last long.
03:45
I was pretty depressed my first two years because I didn't make any friends
@FenderLesPaul Look at what I referenced :P
I didn't mean learning physics :D
@0celo7 Good book, take the course. Well, maybe not very practical, but was probably my favourite course in "pure" math.
@alarge that course looks more interesting than the geometry one tbh, so that might happen
That said, do go out and make friends like @ChrisWhite told you. Only later will you understand what you missed if you don't.
2
03:49
do I get to sleep too
Sleep isn't so important
21 hours ago, by DanielSank
Respecting your body's need for sleep, good food, and recreation is a huge key to success in college (and life).
user54412
^ was just going to link that
@0celo7 Sometimes other things are more important. No matter what DanielSank says.
03:50
food and sleep are detrimental
That said, I tend to view sleep as secondary to enjoying myself.
but in all seriousness I wish someone like Chris had told me to go out of my way to make friends when I first came to Cornell
would've made college so much better
So I'll rather go and have fun and sacrifice some hours of sleep for that
instead of just going to the library, doing problems out of Wald, then going back at like 1am
user54412
My personal strategy was to burn out from college just as I graduated. Study hard. Party hard. College hard. Or something like that.
03:55
ah well
hopefully grad school is better :p
hears laughter in the background
user54412
@FenderLesPaul The same advice applies
Making friends is so hard haha
::silence falls as the room contemplates the truth of this statement::
04:11
:p
Huy
Huy
05:03
@0celo7: Settled on the Logitech & Corsair 100%?
 
5 hours later…
09:59
hey hey
No more work this month B)
10:14
@ACuriousMind Also the classification of surfaces (topologically)
@ChrisWhite I guess we can give up on his social life :P
11:03
@Huy Yes but I'll send a test letter to make 100% sure I can get mail properly.
11:27
I don't quite understand this question, would someone explain this to me? can I use argument of symmetry to obtain the result? Or is it the rigorous proof that the OP asking?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200476/a-question-in-special-relativity
11:52
Ah, I see I'm getting the serial downvotes again, thanks to 0celo7.
12:06
thanks 0celo7 :-)
Is that^ what you're trying to say @JohnDuffield?
@JohnDuffield I left two comments.
you didn't answer my last question to you @0celo7
12:25
@Danu: The Widescreen is just an addon for Firefox (or if you want, you can add it manually as a greasemonkey/tapermonkey script as the original author can tell you--this method allows a bit more control than the add-on, but is a tiny bit more work)
@0celo7: No, Mezzacappa does not ring a bell.
@JohnDuffield I see you have still not understood that several people downvoting an answer of yours because it is a bad answer is not serial downvoting, which would be one user downvoting many of your answers in succession for reasons unrelated to their content.
how is that like a serial killer?
@KyleKanos The addon without controls just looks horrible in most cases, imo
is it the presence of a pattern...
@ACuriousMind Agreed, hence my use of the greasemonkey script
12:31
@skillpatrol I'd say a serial downvoter maliciously downvotes many posts in succession for his personal gratification. Replace "posts" by "people" and "downvotes" by "murders" and you've got one definition of a killer instead :P
I always thought that a serial killer was someone who killed multiple people at separate locations over a larger period of time
@KyleKanos Why separate locations? If I kill them all in my basement, I'm not a serial killer?
(I bet I could find examples, but I don't feel like reading Wiki articles about killers right now :P)
@ACuriousMind That'd be more of a mass murderer in my books (e.g., the major shootings in the US)
And Wikipedia confirms: ...with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant break (a "cooling off period") between them.
@skillpatrol huh?
@ACuriousMind re your question why I want to get to know these professors: scholarship money and internships
there are department scholarships and grants, plus most of these guys work at ORNL
Three former classmates of mine are now postdocs at ORNL
They were all in the same office, that we're now naming Oak Ridge Junior
12:40
cool
@ACuriousMind I think "targeted downvoting" is a more accurate description.
Though a "targeting downvoter" does sound a bit odd to me :-/
@0celo7 this?
12:59
um..... could someone help me on this question?physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200476/…
I don't quite understand this question, would someone explain this to me? can I use argument of symmetry to obtain the result? Or is it the rigorous proof that the OP asking?
@skillpatrol no clue what that is
@0celo7 "Have you visited the Fort?"
@0celo7 The Fort
@skillpatrol Trendsetter :P
Huy
Huy
13:07
-__-
Huy
Huy
hi pal
@ACuriousMind : I understand collusion and "targeted downvoting" orchestrated by people in this chatroom who like to spend their time closing down questions.
Apr 10 at 17:29, by ACuriousMind
In contrast, exhausting my close votes every day does not make me feel victorious :(
@JohnDuffield what is it you claim to understand sir?
13:10
I don't like closing questions. I nevertheless believe it is necessary for the quality of the site.
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are...
Hmmm, I thought this edit might be an edit in an actual language. Google translator says it's Cebuano, but translates it as gibberish. I'll never know what it actually was :/
Also, why the fuck did someone approve that?
@0celo7 I replied. The last sentence should say "Note how you confused space and spacetime". I notice you got upvotes for your comments even though they're dripping with misconceptions. Now follow my links. I'm not making this stuff up.
@JohnDuffield have you read any of Einstein's original work?
@ACuriousMind re I don't like closing questions. I nevertheless believe it is necessary for the quality of the site. I don't believe you. I see questions closed by people who have given a non-answer to a similar question. This drives away new contributors who really do have "a curious mind". And I notice that many expert contributors have voted with their feet.
13:19
@JohnDuffield I don't understand what you mean when you say "voted with their feet"
I regularly use my right foot to press the voting button. It just feels right.
Foot voting is the ability of people to "vote with their feet" by leaving situations they do not like or going to situations they believe to be more beneficial. It has been described as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live". == Usage == Communist leader Vladimir Lenin commented, "They voted with their feet," regarding Russian soldiers deserting the army of the Tsar. The concept has been associated with Charles Tiebout and Ronald Reagan. == See also == Dollar voting Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Jurisdi...
@skill patrol : yes, I've read just about all of Einstein's original work. I'm forever pointing out the difference between what Einstein actually said and somebody's popscience misunderstanding of relativity or gravity etc. @Danu : voted with their feet means they aren't contributing any more.
@skillpatrol Man, there's a Wiki article for eveything
@JohnDuffield Let me try an anlogy: Saying modern GR is wrong because it is not exactly what Einstein says is akin to saying modern quantum mechanics is wrong because it doesn't work like the Old Quantum Theory of Bohr, Sommerfeld and others. They started us on the right path, but they weren't automatically right about everything.
3
13:25
@JohnDuffield It is kind of appealing to authority
@JohnDuffield The fact that you say the speed of light varies means you have not understood the core tenet of GR: the Einstein Equivalence Principle.
2
@0celo7 tenet. I don't believe GR rents out rooms ;)
@ACuriousMind but what about the left one
@ACuriousMind thank you and that was no not the only error
13:27
@Danu Lefty with my hands, righty with my feet ;)
@JohnDuffield "aren't contributing any more" Again, it is unclear what you mean. Those who VTC do contribute to the VTC queue being processed
@JohnDuffield I did misread your thing about spatial curvature but that does not make you correct. Please explain why inhomogeneities make a gravitational field but there are spatially homogeneous gravitational fields.
Edit: I see a comment
@Danu thank you for a second voice of reason
Hello ! I have two quick questions from an exercise. First of all, if somehow someone is beamed to a remote planet at the speed of light, it will not age right ? (as in, the time percieved of the travel would be $0$ ?) Secondly, we now beam someone to a planet moving at a speed $q*c$ from initial planet, and he stays there for a year as measured on the new moving planet. At the end of that year I need to find how much he has aged, and I don't
see how it's different from when the end planet was not moving ...
@Danu VTC?
@0celo7 : I understand the Einstein equivalence principle. You don't. See the end of the second paragraph here. It applies to an infinitesimal region only. It does not apply to the room you're in.
13:36
@Hippalectryon Massive objects can't move at the speed of light. There is no reference frame for something moving at the speed of light, so you can't talk about its "perception".
@JohnDuffield I'm not saying it applies over larger distances at all.
@JohnDuffield Perhaps there is no conspiracy to downvote you
@ACuriousMind I know, but that's how the exercise is worded, let me take a screenshot
Perhaps your answers are just terrible
2
@Hippalectryon Well, then the exercise is rubbish ;)
Which is all too common, especially in special relativity, I'm afraid.
@Shing : it isn't appealing to authority. It's getting it right. And the evidence backs that up. Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, not because ju-ju goes slower, but because light goes slower, just like Einstein said.
looks like they are misinterpreting the twins paradox
@Hippalectryon Okay, my opinions: a) is stupid, they told you she is disassembled and then reassembled. They're asking how much she ages while she is disassembled, that doesn't even make sense in the Star Trek universe :D b) one year, duh. c) probably the only remotely interesting question here.
@Hippalectryon e) is indeed different from c), she spends one Zircon-year, you have to convert that into Earth-years and you have to take into account that the distance between the planets has grown during the Zircon-year, I think.
@Shing Vote To Close
@ACuriousMind c is the only one I can do xD thought I still have a problem with related to question e. Let me make a new question from it : someone is teleported somehow to a remote planet that moves from earth at a speed of q*c, after a year on that planet how much has earth aged ? When I calculate the interval from earth, I get $I^2=c^2(t^2-d^2)$, but should d^2 be the speed times the earth time or the speed times the zircon time ?
13:42
Ah, e) is a variant of b), still you have to convert the Zircon-year into Earth-years
@JohnDuffield Any chance you could explain to me in what sense you feel that some people are "not contributing" by reviewing posts that may/may not be closed?
@Hippalectryon Well, you have to measure $d$ in the same frame you measure $t$ in, right?
@Danu well, then I have to say a word, my questions have been voted to closed twice, (one earned its redemption though) though unpleasant, but it compelled me how to think how to ask question more keenly and specifically and most importantly how to ask a well posed question. I say overall, it is a contribution.
@JohnDuffield
@0celo7 : Danu is wrong. I'm not, and nor was Einstein. There are no spatially homogeneous gravitational fields. If space is homogeneous all around a light beam, it doesn't curve. If space is homogeneous all around your pencil, it doesn't fall down.
@JohnDuffield You do know what the FLRW metrics are, do you not?
13:47
More popscience, I'd wager.
@ACuriousMind Ah right :-) thanks
You also know that we can distinguish them by purely spatial measurements on the CMB (which is like a "snapshot", taken at an approximately "single instant")? Then it's absolutely hilarious that you'd think they do not display spatial effects of gravity, despite being homogeneous.
The only problem I see is there should be more room for the "why" questions. but it is quite hard to define good why question from bad why question.
Note that Einstein never conceived of the FLRW metrics and was not a big fan of them. I wonder whether that has something to do with your apparent lack of awareness of them (and their importance)
@Shing That's a question of scope of the site, and a valid one. However, after meta discussions [I'll leave it to some others to dig them up] it was decided that "why"-type questions are typically not a good match for this site. This was a community decision.
@Shing I find "why" questions annoying because it is rarely clear in what sense the "why" is meant - it's far better to specifically ask for theoretical reasons, experimental reasons or similar things, I think.
13:49
@JohnDuffield Please disregard that deleted comment if you saw it. I'd like to search the literature for the exact conditions.
@ACuriousMind : your analogy is wrong. So is your understanding of GR. Light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved, it curves because the speed of light varies with position. Because space is inhomogeneous, Because the energy tied up as a massive star "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties, this effect diminishing with distance.
Because I tend to answer "why" questions by launching into formal derivations, while others might begin to dig up experimental data
Einstein totally worked on the FLRW metric, though
true and understandable.
@Slereah I was referring to him having a lot of conceptual problems (initially, mostly) with cosmology.
13:51
he wasn't the only one
true dat
Not that it mattered that much back in the days
Because people didn't even know if there was an initial singularity
It was only one possibility
@Danu : yes I do know what the FLRW metric is. Now watch my lips and listen carefully: where space is homogeneous, there is no gravity.
Ironic since the "classical" part of GR is actually related to the time component of the stress energy tensor
@JohnDuffield Okay, so for you the spatially closed, flat and open FLRW universes with, let's say, purely radiation content, are gravitationally indistinguishable? That puts you well outside the accepted understanding of GR, and shows me that there is no further point to this discussion.
13:54
Don't argue with him really.
He has his mind set on one thing
And does not actually understand either math or GR
@JohnDuffield "The speed of light varies with position" is a coordinate-dependent statement. The curvature of spacetime is coordinate-independent. The principle of general covariance (physics is the same no matter our coordinate description of it) heavily implies to prefer coordinate-free statements over coordinate-dependent ones.
This idea of coordinate-free description, of recognizing the power of symmetries in all cases, is one of the hallmarks of modern theoretical physics. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't make it less powerful or less true.
@Danu : I understand GR, you don't. Run away if you wish, that's your choice.
Gosh >.> this room is slowly turning into the math room
Too much drama
@Hippalectryon :(
The math room has drama?
14:05
I don't think so, actually. It's typically pretty chill in here.
@0celo7 mathematicians be crazy, yo
They don't have to concern themselves with reality ;)
@0celo7 The math room - a dramatic play in $\pi$ acts.
@ACuriousMind Har-har-har
@ACuriousMind : "The speed of light varies with position" is an Einstein statement. I'm not denying anything, you are. Coordinate-free statements do not stop optical clocks going slower when they're lower. All observers agree that the lower clock goes slower. And note that when you open up that clock, what you notice is that there ain't no time flowing through it.
"Einstein statement"
How is that not an appeal to authority again?
Guys, let's stop discussing this.
We won't agree, and I think we should keep the physics disputes to (1) the main site (2) private chat rooms where those interested can go into prolonged discussions
14:10
We could switch to a less controversial thing and discuss whether the uncertainty principle is "due to the wave nature of particles" or not :D
Would an easy way to renormalize thermal states be like
@ACuriousMind I do think the interpretation in terms of properties of the Fourier transform is the most natural
I'm really annoyed by that being the explanation when it does not explain the uncertainty relation between variables that are not Fourier conjugate.
$\langle F \rangle_\beta - \langle F \rangle_0$
@Danu The uncertainty relation is more general than the Fourier relation!
14:11
@ACuriousMind Sure
But the classic one
yeah, the thing is that if the theory isn't linear, you may not be able to apply a Fourier transform!
@Slereah But QM is linear.
Well it is linear in the wavefunction
Not always in the operators
@Slereah You always have the Fourier relation between $x$ and $p$ thanks to the Stone-von Neumann theorem
But this, to me, shows that the Fourier relation, too, is a consequence of the concept that operators do not commute
Does it apply to QFT too, though
14:13
@Slereah $x$ and $p$ do not occur as operators with a canonical commutation relation in QFT
I know
Hence my question
With $[\phi, \pi]$
@0celo7 : Einstein said what he said. Dismissing Einstein and the evidence of optical clocks in favour of what this guy says is an appeal to authority. Especially when you don't know the difference between space and spacetime. And doubtless think light curves because spacetime is curved.
Nothing applies in QFT
But I think you could Fourier transform wavefunctionals in $\phi$ to wavefunctionals in its canonically conjugate momentum
@Slereah Yeah, interacting QFTs don't have the canonical relations in the interacting space, Haag's theorem all over again
Whaaaat
Do you mean $[\phi, \pi] \neq i\hbar$?
Or some other relation
14:15
That stuff is all ill-defined and everything
It works, but nobody knows why
The generic state of anything you know to be true in QFT
yeah it is quite annoying
@ACuriousMind But how could anyone argue this about the generalized version. The x-p version sure...
Can't we just ban Duffield
2
@Slereah Ah sorry, I have to phrase it slightly differently - you do have the canonical relations, but the Stone-von Neumann theorem doesn't hold because they have this extra $\delta$ in them: Their representation is not unique as the representation by Fourier conjugate variables, so we have no ground to choose that representation among all the possible inequivalent ones
@JohnDuffield I don't know what Kip Thorne has to do with anything.
14:18
@Slereah : what for? For referring to Einstein and the evidence and discussing physics?
@JohnDuffield I've had enough of your insults to anyone who dares disagree with you.
2
You spooked me right there
Because the basic idea of quantization is just classical + canonical relation
Discussions can be held in a civilized manner, but it appears you're once again struggling with this. Please try to be more polite in the future.
@0celo7 : he is one of the authors of Misner Thorne Wheeler.
14:20
@JohnDuffield So?
@Danu I think it is bad to discuss this for the x-p version before introducing the general relation, because it makes the x-p version seem "special"
But this is probably due to the fact that I don't like "wave mechanics" in general. Heisenberg all the way (conceptually)!
@Slereah Yeah, I said it wrong, sorry!
It's too bad there is so little of the wave mechanics version of QFT
I saw it exactly once
Though it is quite a long one, I suppose
@Slereah It's just kind of useless.
One can do it
$\Psi_0[t, \Phi(\vec{x})] \propto e^{-\frac{1}{2\hbar c}\int d^3x\Phi(\vec{x}) \sqrt{-\nabla^2} \Phi(\vec{x})} e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}E_0t}$
@Slereah Now prove Lorentz invariance.
14:24
@0celo7 : a lot of physicists obtain their understanding of GR from MTW or from people who were taught from MTW. In some important respects it flatly contradicts Einstein whilst appealing to his authority. Wheeler's "spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve" is wrong on so many counts it takes the breath away.
Well it's the wavefunction at a time t
So I guess it's not Lorentz invariant
Although I suppose the norm would be
@JohnDuffield Hawking-Ellis was written before MTW.
@Slereah So it's a bad object to work with in QFT because the crucial point is to be Lorentz covariant, right?
I think this is the reason why one doesn't see it often - it destroys manifest covariance, but adds nothing
There's plenty of things that aren't Lorentz invariant by themselves in QFT!
A lot of QFT is done by separating time
@ACuriousMind Weinberg takes a nice smelly dump on covariance. Everything is done by separating time.
14:30
Maybe not manifestly, but it's all Lorentz invariant
@Slereah Yeah, but only in the course of the derivations - the results always are covariant again
Also @0celo7
Well the wavefunctional isn't a result
You can't do LSZ without separating time. For covariance in the treatment, the path integral is better.
Hell you can even do GR non-covariantly
In fact, most people that do practical GR work probably work in the ADM formalism...
14:32
ADM is best for numerical simulations
By the way, one thing I wonder is
What's the link between QFT and RQM
What's the demonstration that QFT reduces to RQM in some situations
@ACuriousMind Yes he proves Lorentz invariance. But I need to do an oscillating integral to complete it.
In/covariance
In what approximation can we assume that the wavefunctional and the operator obey the same equation
@Slereah I don't think it works like that, since the wavefunctional is not a function of spacetime.
@0celo7 : there's issues with Hawking-Ellis too. See what I said about black holes here. It's important that you don't treat a textbook like a bible. That's an appeal to authority. Especially if you then end up dismissing Einstein and the evidence and believing in time machines instead.
It should be more like "QM is 0+1 dimensional QFT".
Only that doesn't work for RQM. I never really learned RQM, though, I went non-rel QM -> QFT
14:39
Well it's a function of the field which is a function of spacetime
RQM has problems but it does work for low energy processes
So I'm wondering what's the math between the relation QFT->RQM
I guess I could try to like
Take that wavefunctional expression
Feed it into the KG equation
And see what happens in the $E \rightarrow 0$ limit
I haven't searched if we have it yet, but I think "How does QFT reduce to RQM" would be a good physics.SE question, @Slereah!
Oh wait
I guess I need to rewrite the KG equation though
$\partial_x$ might have to become $\delta/\delta \phi$
maybe
I dunno
@Slereah RQM is the fantasy we had before QFT. It's nonsense
Well yes, but it works okay for physical calculations
So there is probably some limit where one approximates the other
AFAIK the equations were ok-ish but the interpretation was just completely wrong
14:49
Sure, but why do the equation kind of work
Hm
Let's see
IIRC the limit where RQM really breaks is $E \approx m$
So probably small E
@Slereah Because QFT is so good it retains a glimmer of truth even when you completely butcher it ;)
At small E you have $\Psi_0[t, \Phi(\vec{x})] \approx e^{-\frac{1}{2\hbar c}\int d^3x\Phi(\vec{x}) \sqrt{-\nabla^2} \Phi(\vec{x})} $
I guess you just need to make precise what it means for particle number to be conserved, and take this limit to obtain RQM from QFT.
Maybe yeah
Also I think you'd need to stick with positive frequency solutions
@Slereah That terminology should be banned
14:53
^that
Seems like a dumb question: why
Negative energy doesn't really mean anything
In the end, it can be traced back to just a minus in an exponent, and its popularity due to the interpretation of positrons as "negative energy electrons" is not of any physical interest, but rather a historical curiosity that misleads many even now :P
15:12
$i\partial_t \phi < 0$, if you prefer :p
@Slereah another stupid question: how is < defined on complex numbers
it's not.
the modes have a real value for that, though
15:56
Mornin folks
or afternoon I guess
Hello
I am actually in a timeless oblivion forgotten by man
god damn it did I miss another Duffield moment
No need to feel bad
they are all identical
I am excited for when he will find a new bit
15:57
@Slereah You too?
@FenderLesPaul : you missed a physics discussion, that's all.
Maybe he will say that QFT is all wrong!
All electrons are in the Dirac sea
Is it eternal night or eternal day in your oblivion?
I want to play Oblivion now
15:58
oooh
oblivion
@Slereah Are the electrons breast swimming or front crawling through the Dirac sea, I always wondered?
they're drowning
They just kind of sit there
Unless you create positrons

« first day (1745 days earlier)      last day (3482 days later) »