« first day (1772 days earlier)      last day (2271 days later) » 

12:08 AM
@HDE226868 I so wanted one with displays on the same surface you draw on, but those puppies start at US$1000.
That's too steep for me. Especially just to learn if the tool is right for me.
 
@dmckee I was thinking screen-less, and I was hoping for <$200. It ended up as a question on Hardware Recommendations beta.
 
man I forgot how dark it gets when the weather gets cooler here
 
Mine is an Intuos Medium, and I paid US$187 plus tax in a store.
 
@dmckee There's an upload image button. Or just use imgur.
 
either I should grow up and not be scared of the dark or I should not live alone :p
 
12:14 AM
Gain some weight
 
not sure how that will help
 
People don't fuck with big guys
 
Fancy that. It's been there all along and I just edit it out of my visual field because I never use it. I literally had to mask off sections of the screen before I saw it.
Humans are weird.
 
Palm tree physics 101
 
12:17 AM
I've always used a tree and a bike to indicate two frames in relativity. Those are the tablet versions.
I also did a surfer, but he's a little battered.
Right after I bought the tablet the class I would have used i the most for got given to another teacher in a big rescheduling snafu we had this semester.
So I don't have as many examples as I would have expected.
 
I couldn't draw those with a mouse and whatever drawing program I would use.
 
@dmckee Impressive
I should get one so I can save all of my proofs and derivations
 
For proofs and stuff like that you don't actually need the pressure sensitivity of a art tablet, and there are some other choices.
Androids and windows tables with styluses.
Microsoft surface and Samsung Notes and things like that.
Not that I'm getting much out of the pressure sensitivity yet, but I convinced myself the brush tool lets me butcher japanese caligraphy much like I do in real life.
 
12:43 AM
I'm not buying a whole tablet
I have an iPad already
 
1:37 AM
lalala
 
 
1 hour later…
2:41 AM
@FenderLesPaul GR talk tonight
 
obe
2:52 AM
D:
 
why D:
 
3:06 AM
@obe what do you want a GR talk
i can do a GR talk with you
 
obe
@0celo7 That would be really cool.
I have a phone now also.
 
I'm actually in the humanities building now
maybe I can steal a whiteboard
do a skype video call
now that would be epic
 
obe
You should sleep.
 
uh, I don't have class until 9, mom
and even then, that's just LA
 
obe
I should be asleep. Though I have data now.
 
3:12 AM
data?
wait don't you start class tomorrow
 
obe
For some reason it begins on monday.
Even though other classes begin tomorrow.
Reminds me, I had to do volunteer work for 3 days.
I'm only on chapter 13.
What order should I finish the rest of the book?
@0celo7 Cellular data.
 
brb getting shooed away
 
obe
Done being shooed away?
 
yes, in my room now
So are we discussing GR or not
 
obe
3:39 AM
Dude I have no GR to discuss, carroll ch3 remember?
I think it would be cool to listen to you and FLP discuss.
 
well he's a bum
 
3:50 AM
Heyo
I never understood how one measures a wave function.
How do you do it?
 
you don't
 
Ok. The only property I know it has is $\psi^*\psi$ is the probability of finding it at a point at a particular time.
What else characterizes a wave function?
@0celo7 like for instance, if I can't measure $\psi$, why is it more fundamental than the probsbility itself? Like why not just use the probsbility distribution?
 
4:12 AM
@StanShunpike well for one you can construct many different matter waves (1 particle schrodinger) with the same psi squared
or rather, the same $\langle x|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|x\rangle$
@0celo7 that would be pretty cool, actually!
 
@NeuroFuzzy Uh, I hadn't thought of that!
That's a good point
 
@StanShunpike On a related note I was actually looking for reviews of this answer physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206269/…
 
@StanShunpike I swear to Master D.J. Trump that we've discussed this before
 
@0celo7 We have.
Lolol
 
I just started playing Splinter Cell: Double Agent
 
4:24 AM
What is that?
 
old school stealth games are crazy
no tutorial, I'm sneaking into some base or something
well night y'all
@NeuroFuzzy the issue is that I'm pretty sure using my front-facing laptop cam will show everything backwards
I wonder if I can stream footage from my phone's back cam
something to figure out tomorrow
 
4:44 AM
@0celo7 or to mirror it!
night
 
5:05 AM
@0celo7 oh I thought it was Friday night
can we do it Friday night if you're free?
 
5:39 AM
@dmckee Which one is Alice and which one is Bob
 
5:51 AM
0
Q: Why is @_________ deleting his answers citing 'in order to comply to the site policy'?

user36790While I was waiting for answer for my newly posted question, I noticed one question: A confusion regarding an example in The Feynman Lectures; there @user posted an excellent answer; I cherished his answer especially for the amazing pics he used. But there it was written: Answer deleted by __...

 
6:45 AM
there needs to be more fields using Alice and Bob
Currently it's just QM, relativity and computer science
 
7:29 AM
@StanShunpike The wavefunction is a mathematical convenience, much more than a real physical object. Let's say that due to the mathematical formulation of quantum theories, hilbert spaces emerge naturally (and therefore wavefunctions, that are associated to quantum states).
A state on the other hand encodes all the information of a quantum system about measurements. To operationally "measure"/identify a state is a quite difficult task in my opinion.
In fact, a first problem is the fact that a measurement modifies the state, hence you need to be able to prepare a lot of identical states to test
A second problem is that either you are lucky enough and your state is an eigenvector of some operator with multiplicity one (so in principle measuring many times such observable would help you identify unambiguously the state, for you obtain the same measurement over and over, and such value is associated to a single state)
or you need to test many observables many times to identify it; in principle, you would need to test all the observables (that are usually infinite) an infinite number of times each, so it goes without saying that it is not an easy task.
As far as I know there is people who disputes (in research work, not on forums) the structure of some a priori well-established type of states
for example that the state of light produced by lasing is not a coherent state; but a mixed states with certain properties
 
8:11 AM
I HAVE COME FOR YOU
SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT
@yuggib Plenty of QM formalisms don't have wavefunctions
Well, maybe not plenty
But at least 1 has no equivalent
Does stochastic QM have a wavefunction?
 
8:25 AM
I know; but everyone of them has the Gel'fand-Neumark-Segal construction; for the observables are always assumed to form a $*$-algebra of (maybe) non-commutative objects. Therefore, even if the theory does not nedd wavefunctions (in the broad sense of Hilbert space and vectors), you can always construct such a representation
 
@Slereah not even QM in general, just quantum computation, and then because that's mostly computer science
Then again QM tends not to involve people very much :-P
 
Well, it is also used for mixed states in general
 
it may not be the better/most convenient one, but it is always there. The point is that to not admit wavfunctions you have to radically change the notion of observables
 
Well they are all equivalent to some degree in the end
 
@ChrisWhite I couldn't let this go: faculty get more interaction, but grad students are creepier per capita, so... I'd have to go with grad students
 
8:28 AM
It's not that incredible that you can recover one from the other
 
well, keep in mind that even states that are not pure can be represented as Hilbert space vectors in a suitable GNS construction
Well, in principle the meaning of formulating a different theory would be to predict something more than the old theory
if else there is no need for the new one, and becomes just a matter of interpretation
 
Well yes but the old theory predicts everything that happens
So far not much need for a different thing
Can you recover wavefunctions from the quantum logic formalism?
 
I am not so familiar with quantum logic; but indeed you can recover them from quantum set theory
I suspect that quantum logic is different though
not an expert anyways
 
Neither am I
It just seems to be pretty different from most formalism
Basically it redefine basic propositional logic
 
but the scope is to define a new logic inspired by the quantum theory, or the contrary?
 
8:33 AM
first one
 
if you change so radically the point of view, it becomes very tough to recover the usual mathematical results
 
user54412
@DavidZ haha I'll keep this in mind next time someone asks me to spend time tutoring undergrads
 
that are based on the ZFC theory of first-order logic
 
Apparently quantum logic couldn't do much and to expand it, you have to use quantum filtering
In quantum probability, the Belavkin equation, also known as Belavkin-Schrödinger equation, quantum filtering equation, stochastic master equation, is a quantum stochastic differential equation describing the dynamics of a quantum system undergoing observation in continuous time. It was derived and henceforth studied by Viacheslav Belavkin in 1988. Unlike the Schrödinger equation, which describes deterministic evolution of wavefunction of a closed system (without interaction), the Belavkin equation describes stochastic evolution of a random wavefunction of an open quantum system interacting...
Which looks pretty similar to wavefunctions :p
 
@ChrisWhite lol
honestly, the undergrads creep on each other way more than anything else
like any college
 
8:36 AM
in quantum set theory you have a ZFC transfer principle, so you can mutuate (to some extent) ZFC assertions to quantum set theory
anyways, occam's razor would suggest that such a radical change is a bit far fetched seen the success of usual quantum theory and ZFC in math
if it is just for computational convenience then it may be ok
but restricted to that domain
 
Well everything is for computational convenience, in the end
 
ahhaha that may be true
long time without JD...I am bored, and I need some divertissement :-D
 
Time has 4 corners
 
9:46 AM
Phew. This could go down as the yuck username for the ages:
 
10:08 AM
:-D
 
10:41 AM
I kinda don't like the whole explanation of Hawking radiation via split pairs of virtual pairs
It's not that helpful
 
11:18 AM
too accurate
"One day Shizuo Kakutani was teaching a class at Yale. He wrote down a lemma on the blackboard and announced that the proof was obvious. One student timidly raised his hand and said that it wasn't obvious to him. Could Kakutani explain? After several moments' thought, Kakutani realized that he could not himself prove the lemma. He apologized, and said that he
would report back at their next class meeting. After class, Kakutani, went straight to his office. He labored for quite a time and found that he could not prove the pesky lemma. He skipped lunch and went to the library to track down the lemma. After much work, he finally found the original paper. The lemma was stated clearly and succinctly. For the proof, the author had written, 'Exercise for the reader.' The author of this 1941 paper was Kakutani."
:D
 
11:34 AM
"You've earned the "Nice Question" badge (Question score of 10 or more) for "Highest symmetric non-maximally symmetric spacetime"."
yay
 
@FenderLesPaul yeah
but I had time yesterday
 
12:02 PM
@0celo7 : no the most complicated and technical books on the market aren't popscience. But some of the stuff you believe is popscience.
@Slereah : the "given" explanation for Hawking radiation is pseudoscience nonsense. Virtual particles are field quanta, not real particles that pop into existence like magic. In addition, there are no negative-energy particles. What there is, is near-infinite gravitational time dilation, which Hawking radiation totally ignores.
 
hush duffield
We're talking real science.
 
12:23 PM
0
Q: Should there be a way to flag comments

Matt SWhen experienced users make the first comment on a "bad" question, they are often condescending. This is fair enough, if the question is bad. However, this discourages other, less experienced users with less reputation, from attempting to answer the question. Particularly if the question is an in...

 
@JohnDuffield you do know that's the popsci definition of Hawking radiation?
Indeed, Hawking radiation can be done within the framework of AQFT, which does not refer to particles at all.
It seems AQ has declared jihad on ISIS again.
Not very original.
 
So anyway
If photons are for seeing
And phonons are for hearing
Where are the smellons
And the tastons
 
@0celo7 I don't know about Planetscape, but Planescape is very good.
 
12:39 PM
@Slereah:
>We're talking real science.
[...] 10 minutes later:
> If photons are for seeing
> And phonons are for hearing
> Where are the smellons
> And the tastons
strange definition of real science :-O
 
@Slereah You forgot about feelons.
 
@ACuriousMind like the cryon; not to be confused with the crayon
 
@ACuriousMind mm. Typo
 
@ACuriousMind Planescape is best
Particles are easy to remember
But then you have the laundry list of pseudo particles
Also fuck mesons and hadrons, way too many of them
Like half of the PDG book is mesons and hadrons
 
12:44 PM
@Slereah Well, uh, that's what it's there for, isn't it?
 
I suppose
But still
I want to know more about electrons
Not about the p48589c meson
That only appeared once in 1963
During a full moon
 
@Slereah The word order is off there :D
 
Shouldn't there be a small number of mesons, really
Aren't most of them just superpositions of basic mesons
 
What
Is the game about particles
 
Wrong conversation
Planescape is the best game
It is about
FINDING YOURSELF
Literally
 
12:49 PM
What can change the nature of a man?
 
A hot enough woman
 
I didn't want an answer to the question, this is the question that appears over and over in the game's story
 
Basically you are an immortal dude
But every time you are killed, you lose some of your memories
 
@0celo7 : How about if I ask a question about how Hawking radiation really works, and you explain it? You can tell us all how quantum fluctuations are immune from gravitational time dilation, and how the black hole isn't really black. And isn't really a black hole. And all the other stuff you've got hard mathematical evidence for.
 
So you kinda have to reconstruct what your life was
 
12:51 PM
@ACuriousMind what are quantum fluctuations
 
@ACuriousMind : isn't there some gameboy website where you can ask questions like this?
 
Isn't that your area of expertise
 
@0celo7 I've never seen an explanation of that phrase that wasn't either nonsense or trivial.
 
@JohnDuffield are you ready to finally back up your electron Dirac belt idea
 
The "best" interpretation of the word "quantum fluctutation" I've found is that there is a standard deviation of observables that is not caused by classical (i.e. statistical/thermal) principles.
 
12:53 PM
Basically
 
"Quantum funkiness"
 
Like how quantum fluctuation of the stress energy tensor is <T²> - <T>²
 
But that's a trivial consequence of the non-commutativity of observables/the uncertainty principle, so it isn't really mysterious.
 
So you're telling me the vacuum is not a boiling sea of particles popping in and out of experience
 
@0celo7 I think I've also told you that before, so yes^^
@Slereah Well, oddly, not the times when you are killed during the game (this always irked me) :P
 
12:56 PM
@0celo7 : Ask the question. Meanwhile it's like I said. We make electrons in pair production out of electromagnetic waves. We can diffract electrons. We describe electrons with the Dirac equation, which is a wave equation. We know that in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves", and when we annihilate that electron we get an electromagnetic wave again. And I didn't make up Dirac's belt. A guy called Dirac did that.
I didn't make up the wave nature of matter either.
 
@ACuriousMind that was rhetorical
@JohnDuffield asking a question about your pet theory is by definition non mainstream
I'd probably VTC it myself
I know ACM would and he'd enjoy it too
 
@0celo7 Except for your pet's theory, right?
badumm-tiss
 
Ha
 
@0celo7 : I am. There are no particles popping in and out of existence. That's a lies-to-children non-explanation. Or as Slereah might say, it's popscience crap for kids.
 
@ACuriousMind Depends how badly you are killed, I think
Plus you can die for real during gameplay
Though it is pretty rare
 
1:01 PM
Should I play this game
 
You should
 
Is it not too old
 
I can only remember two occasions where you can die for real
 
Old games are too hard for me
And sometimes too boring
 
If you piss off the Lady of Pain and if you piss off the giant smith guy
I would say it is pretty good
 
1:02 PM
Spoiler alert
 
Well
She is called the "Lady of Pain"
On principle avoid pissing her off
 
For some reason splinter cell double agent is locked at 720p...it's eye cancer
 
@0celo7 It's a different kind of old than Morrowind. The gameplay is not that fun, it's mostly about the story and the world, which is told through giant chunks of unvoiced text.
 
yeah, the fighting system is nothing special
Know what else is a great story but a poor game?
I have no mouth and I must scream
 
@ACuriousMind I think the morrowind gameplay is sleep inducing
 
1:04 PM
Great story, great atmosphere, reallly poor gameplay
How long have you played Morrowind
 
@0celo7 : re asking a question about your pet theory is by definition non mainstream. None of what I said above is my pet theory. It's all mainstream. No doubt you'll be dismissing Dirac like you dismissed Einstein, and generally trashing this website with your trollery.
 
I stopped playing morrowind because the walking speed is too slow
 
Yeah that's kind of a problem of morrowind
It starts off pretty slow
Early combat is boring
You miss most of your hits
 
@0celo7 For that, I would forgive you to just set your speed to 100 or something
 
@ACuriousMind how many mainstream authors think electrons are photons going around a loop? @Slereah
 
1:05 PM
It does get better after a while, though
 
@0celo7 Exactly 0.
 
I'm not even sure what that means
 
I seem to have missed all the books that mention that
 
I know plenty of weird theories about electrons, but none of those are that
 
@JohnDuffield sorry, it's not mainstream
 
1:06 PM
Very early atomic physics had the idea that electrons were rings around the atom
There was also the whole electron as spacetime defects
 
And I think my trashing is pretty beneficial
 
Electrons as black holes
Electrons as ONLY ONE ELECTRON
Hm, what else was there
 
What
 
which one
 
Only one electron?
 
1:07 PM
Oh yes
 
@0celo7 A variant of Feynman-Wheeler where it is one electron going back and forth through time :D
 
It never got really made into a real theory, but some wondered if there was only one electron in the universe
 
Huh
 
@Slereah : electrons aren't black holes. You can diffract electrons. In atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves.
 
Sometimes, it emits a photon, and goes back in time as a positron
 
1:07 PM
Yeah @Slereah you know nothin about electron and black holes
 
Well I didn't say the theory panned out
 
@Slereah : that's Wheeler for you.
 
It was just an idea put forward
Well Einstein did put the idea forward of electrons as wormholes
 
@JohnDuffield No, their position probability distribution is the square of something that might be interpreted as a standing wave.
 
Wheeler didn't know the difference between curved spacetime and curved space. If he had, he wouldn't have called them geons. He would have called them...
 
1:10 PM
Can we change John Duffield
I think ours broke
 
@ACuriousMind : that's cargo-cult woo. It's quantum field theory. Not quantum point-particle theory.
 
He is on repeat
 
@JohnDuffield That is literally what you obtain from solving the Dirac or Schrödinger equations.
 
I think the notion of "it's a probability amplitude" is about as old as quantum theory itself
Older than Dirac certainly
 
And that's quantum mechanics. In quantum field theory, you can't have your standing waves or such, because you don't describe electrons or other things as solutions to the Dirac equation there.
 
1:13 PM
Well you can have waves still
But they are
WAVEFUNCTIONALS
 
@Slereah I wouldn't call things that depend on field configurations instead of space or spacetime "waves", really :P
 
Well I wouldn't call something that isn't made of water "waves", but here we are!
 
Bah, anything you don't know about you think is non-mainstream, and yet you believe hook line and sinker in woo peddled by popscience quacks which flatly contradicts not just Einstein/Maxwell/Dirac/etc, but the patent blatant evidence of electron diffraction etc. What planet are you guys on? Oh, and have you ever seen this movie?
 
@Slereah No waves in oil for you?
 
Oil, do you mean THE SINFUL OOZE OF THE EARTH
 
1:16 PM
@Slereah No, I meant the delicious stuff you get when smashing olives
 
Do not shake your olive oil please
 
But perhaps olive oil also has sinful connotations for you...
 
FFS. Talk about chatroom trolls. I volunteer to be a moderator.
2
 
Ahahah
 
@JohnDuffield What's up? People are allowed to chat here, and that's what this is.
 
1:26 PM
-1
Q: Can jet fuel melt steel beams?

Max RuuliCommon sense suggests that steel beams should not yield under burning jet fuel without presence of other substances that produce very high temperatures when burning, such as thermite. So can jet fuel melt steel beams?

How timely
 
1:39 PM
I think I was chat banned.
It said "room is read only"
 
were you
 
What did I do?
 
did you deny Einstein and the Evidence
 
@0celo7 This time around, I didn't see anything banworthy.
But there is one removed message from you, I just can't remember what it said
 
This time around?
Are you saying I've been rightfully banned in the past?
I have to seriously disagree with that...I think. Although there might have been that one time where some idiot starred something obscene or something.
 
1:42 PM
@0celo7 Well, in the other cases, I at least knew for what you were banned. This time, I have no clue
 
I blame the astronomer for that one.
 
@0celo7 Not in all cases.
 
This is my third ban.
 
@0celo7 Yeah, I'm thinking of that
 
I can't remember what it was.
I guess it shows how much time on 4chan. I wouldn't even think of flagging something "inappropriate"
 
1:44 PM
Did you talk about the Tits group perhaps
 
Oh ffs it was my lady of pain comment
Who the hell flagged that
 
lol what
 
what did you dooo
 
How the hell was that even flag worthy
I said "I like my ladies to give me a bit of you know what"
I swear to god if I get banned for that again
 
:D
 
1:46 PM
You know what rhymes with train
 
brain
 
Grain
 
Gain
 
Cellophane
 
T-pain
How do chat bans work
I can't believe someone actually flagged that
 
1:48 PM
@0celo7 You're banned from chatting.
 
ban @0celo7 to demonstrate
 
@ACuriousMind thanks
Do multiple people have to flag?
 
Ah, how you get them? I think they're either dealt out by hand by a moderator or if flags on your posts are deemed valid (either by a mod or by enough 10k users (2, probably))
 
@ACuriousMind you seriously thought I wanted to know what "chat ban" means
I have plenty of experience
 
Nah, one person flags them, and then all 10k users get a blue thingy where they can look at the flagged post and deem the flag "valid", "invalid" or "not sure"
@0celo7 No, I was just messing with you :D
 
1:50 PM
Did you say valid
 
I didn't even see a flag
 
Who on earth said valid??
 
But I was away from my PC for a while vacuuming, so I probably missed it.
 
That was totally not ban worthy, was it??
 
I'd not have thought so, but we'll never find out what exactly the thought process here was.
 
1:56 PM
@ACuriousMind well as long as you believe in me
 
2:18 PM
0
Q: What is the Cleanup badge awarded for?

AniketIt is written in the 'Badges' page that the 'Cleanup' badge is awarded for the "first rollback". What does this mean? I could not understand. Can anyone help?

 
@0celo7 tsk, tsk, tsk :P
 
2:36 PM
I need a new avatar.
 
Get one
 
What should it be?
 
I was considering that
 
2:44 PM
I need to figure out if I'm in the Orange or white section
I think we're checkering
 
a picture of Einstein dressed as Sherlock Holmes
EINSTEIN AND THE EVIDENCE
 
:D
Elementary my dear
 
Do it.
Who is the shoop master here
Maybe @dmckee could draw it on his fancy tablet
 
The redskin logo is cool.
 
Oh I'd probably get banned for something so offensive
 
2:48 PM
how about an ocelot
 
That's what it is right now.
 
The hell
I'm paranoid about bans now
This is sad
 
Hm
Should I flag this as not an answer perhaps : physics.stackexchange.com/questions/190222/…
 
@Slereah It has been flagged as NAA at least twice I think
It also already has two delete votes on it, only one more 20k user required.
 
2:59 PM
That is good.
 

« first day (1772 days earlier)      last day (2271 days later) »