« first day (1840 days earlier)      last day (3387 days later) » 

00:00
You get down
You do the same thing with the other two mountains
It's a bit of a workout but it's not too complicated
back to the triangle
how do I make this triangle
@0celo7 He just told you.
You don't make it
It's an abstract figure
Of course, that's assuming the light goes along geodesics
The triangle has the three mountains as corners, don't you see?
@ACuriousMind but the spacetime geometry can change by the time I get to mountain 2
00:02
Well then you are fucked
you're not looking at the same mountains
You live in an incomprehensible universe
@0celo7 Then get three people to do it while Einstein sychronized, or something.
the mountains go along their timelike geodesics
You are doomed to never know
00:02
@ACuriousMind how do you synchronize in GR
won't there be time dilation and crap
@0celo7 With a lot of luck and hope, I guess.
what if one mountain is like a black hole
@ACuriousMind you're not taking this very seriously
@0celo7 If one of your mountains is a black hole, you have completely different and more urgent problems to deal with
I don't think I should try to be reasonable with you people
maybe @dmckee understands my plight
this is something for an experimental person
@ACuriousMind NO
the mission comes first
let's start this again
how do I get a triangle
Help
@0celo7 is turning into Duffield
00:07
maybe this should be an SE question
neither of you want to answer me
@0celo7 Just...choose three points, and connect them with the shortest string you can
@0celo7 confirmed for Duffield
@ACuriousMind how do you connect them
what if the geometry is changing when you do this
@0celo7 Then you can't do shit, the strings will snap.
@ACuriousMind which would imply curvature
@ACuriousMind WAIT
how is "attach to point" even defined
are there little hooks in spacetime
00:11
@0celo7 Choose a point on a solid surface, nail the string to it.
@ACuriousMind solid surface??
@0celo7 : Towards the end of the 19th century, people debated about what could show that spacetime was curved
There was an argument that said that we could not decide between "spacetime is curved" and "a force is causing it to be of that shape"
And that argument is correct
You can either say that spacetime is curved, or you can say that there's some tensor field acting on particles
The principle is the same here
exactly
Pauli-Fperson
Either light travels in a straight line, in which case you can determine the geometry by just using some surveyor equipment
Or it doesn't, and then what can you do
exactly
00:13
Well what more do you want
we don't know that light is on a straight line
Well yes.
That's just a model.
The point of physics isn't metaphysical truth
exactly, which would very well be wrong
the more I read about GR
@0celo7: Are you having some sort of epistemological crisis?
the more I'm confused
@ACuriousMind no
I just want to know how to show spacetime is curved
00:15
@0celo7 Yeah, but as Slereah said, you can devise models in which it isn't curved but the same happens. We've just collectively as physicists decided that the "curved" model is neater than the others.
You can describe GR as curved spacetime
You can describe it as spacetime torsion
You can describr it as a field
Just as we've mostly decided that Bohmian theory is for crazy persons :P
You can describe it as entropy
Whatever
@ACuriousMind we've gotten off track
To quote Duffield, the map isn't the territory
00:16
how does one measure the length of a spacelike geodesic
@Slereah what
@Slereah what
@Slereah what
Don't you know teleparallel gravity
never heard of it
Teleparallelism (also called teleparallel gravity), was an attempt by Einstein to base a unified theory of electromagnetism and gravity on the mathematical structure of distant parallelism, also referred to as absolute or teleparallelism. In this theory, a spacetime is characterized by a curvature-free linear connection in conjunction with a metric tensor field, both defined in terms of a dynamical tetrad field. == Teleparallel spacetimes == The crucial new idea, for Einstein, was the introduction of a tetrad field, i.e., a set of four vector fields defined on all of such that for every the...
The entropy thing is a bit more obscure
ok, can we please focus on the spacelike geodesics
Entropic gravity is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—not a fundamental interaction mediated by a quantum field theory and a gauge particle (like photons for the electromagnetic force, and gluons for the strong nuclear force), but a probabilistic consequence of physical systems' tendency to increase their entropy. The proposal has been intensely contested in the physics community but it has also sparked a new line of research into thermodynamic properties of gravity. == Origin == The probabilistic description of gravity has a history that goes back at least...
00:19
@Slereah what do you know about Fermi coordinates
They are like Riemann normal coordinates
Except it is 0 along a curve
how does one construct them using clocks and rulers
@ACuriousMind just wait until I get bored enough to read about quantum interpretations
@0celo7 Why would you get bored? There's so much else to learn!
@ACuriousMind I've completely given up on QFT, ST, Alg. Top., and more
so I will run out of things
@0celo7 :( Still, so much else!
00:26
@ACuriousMind I have many years to give up on that too
I'm convinced @ACuriousMind and @Slereah now think I'm insane
@0celo7 Just slightly
@ACuriousMind :(
I should ask a question
maybe someone on the main site will actually understand what I'm going for
or maybe @ChrisWhite can hit me up when he gets on
@ACuriousMind You willing to read a paragraph in Straumann to hopefully get where I'm coming from?
If yes, it's 2.10.6 on page 56 until eq. (2.169) on the sequel
and if you read that
I want to know how to calculate $s$ in my lab
this is all
00:54
@0celo7 Hmmm...what makes you think that's something you can measure? I mean, it's just a choice of coordinates.
@ACuriousMind no, $s$ is quite physical
it's the geometric length of the geodesic
@0celo7 Yeah, the proper length is what rulers measure.
But a geodesic is not a physical object
There is no reason to believe you can find out in your lab what the geodesic are, at least I see none
@ACuriousMind timelike ones certainly are
and null
@ACuriousMind ok, this is what I was looking for
@0celo7 Not really. Physical objects move along them, and the length of the geodesic reflects in e.g. the elapsed time of a clock sent along a time-like one, but that doesn't make the geodesic itself a physical object.
@ACuriousMind the geodesic is physical in the sense that it represents the path of a physical object
but what about spacelike geodesics
00:59
13
Q: How does one measure space-like geodesics? Or: What is the physical interpretation of space-like geodesics?

MarcIn general relativity, time-like geodesics are the trajectories of free-falling test particles, parametrized by proper time. Thus, they are easy to interpret in physical terms and are easy to measure (at least in principle). Is there a similar interpretation/measurement for space-like geodesics?...

Did you even think to search the physics site you're on for this? :D
@ACuriousMind Nope.
Thanks for that
Sadly no books talk about spacelike curves
And you got a nice answer from Valter Moretti basically telling you what Slereah said - if your spacetime geometry is horribly fluctuating, you're fucked.
after HE I could sing a song about the others ones
@ACuriousMind well I knew that!
time to get some dinner and read this
Doing a 3+1 split is cheating.
@ACuriousMind This seems very lost in math.
@0celo7 Really?
On a phone.
01:10
It is GR, wtf did you expect? A picture and someone quoting a math-free paragraph of Einstein?
What are you referencing
@ACuriousMind In this instance, I was hoping for that.
@Slereah My god, you were right :P
Well, all the diff geo in the world doesn't help some poor chap trying to measure things in the sky
So I'm wondering how the heck we measure ANYTHING in GR
But all of these books are too lost in math to discuss that...
And no, I'm not trolling.
I know how you think.
He's not the only one who thinks that way :P
So either
A) They don't know how it works
B) It's trivial
In case A) I think a lot of what @JohnDuffield says is starting to make sense.
In case B) I'm just not cut out for learning GR.
01:21
C) Most of the things are intermediate steps in the math no one claims to be able to measure.
What you can measure are the effects that fall out, like frame dragging, gravitational lensing, etc.
No one ever claimed you can actually measure the length of a space-like geodesic. You just decided one should be able to do that because "they're physical".
And I think your answer to "Are you having an epistemological crisis?" should've been yes. :P You see, from the empiricist's viewpoint, physical theories are gigantic blackboxes: You feed them some input, you turn a crank, and some predictions (like gravitational lensing) fall out. None of the intermediate steps get any ontological status. They're not measurable, not real, and asking how to measure them misunderstands the nature of a physical theory.
I have a question
I'm trying to evaporate water
without using a heat source by electricity or fire
I had an idea to create 1. a vacuum
or 2. Place it in a system of high pressure with salt/sugar/some mixture water nearby
01:37
@ACuriousMind Zee does.
And the whole point of Fermi coordinates is that one should be able to set them up in a laboratory.
@0celo7 Then he had something like Moretti in mind where the spacelike geometry doesn't change over the course of the measurement
Well fermi coordinates just get you rid of acceleration and rotation
Yeah
I mean
Do you remember the paradoxes of special relativity
Measurement was a big part of it
really if you want to know what measurements in GR look like
The real measurements are the variables of the post newtonian parametrization
those are the things you actually get out of experiment
From such things you can reconstruct the metric
@ACuriousMind Ok, I am having a crisis then
(hopefully)
1
Q: Operational Definition of Reference Frame in General Relativity

HeavisideMost treatments of GR begin with the assumption that spacetime is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (or, sometimes, that it is a more general manifold). But this entails quite a few tacit assumptions about the nature of space and time. I would like to approach things from a much more fundamental poin...

I have no freaking clue how to answer this.
01:41
@PhyCS This is called "vacuum drying". It is a well developed technology that simply works.
Would I be able to do it with a simple pump or something?
Or is it more complicated then that
@Slereah yes...
Simple pump might be a bit tough
@0celo7 Y'see, the thing with the patches and "what type of manifold", that was pretty much what I was on about with GR determining the "global structure" . And you proundly quoted Wald that you can do evolution from an initial slice and whatnot. What has changed?
I understand that
01:43
@PhyCS Well, you need a draw a good rough vacuum, and the speed of drying depends on how fast your pump is.
@ACuriousMind I'm not convinced by that theorem
because I'm not even sure how one gets the initial data
it seems lost in math
So you need a pretty basic class of vacuum pump, but you want the biggest one you can get if you have to remove much volume of water.
"much volume"
I don't think you're supposed to get the initial data. It's a theory of how the universe behaves, we are never supposed to have all the initial data
I think @dmckee is channeling Strong
01:44
Well what you can do is just
@0celo7 Yeah. Bad writting. You got me. But I'm distracted at the end.
Look at the initial data in a region
Wait, I'm confused. So if I have water in a sealed box and I start pumping the air out of the box, that would be vacuum drying?
That gives you the evolution in the domain of dependance
Getting ready to go to a rock concert.
01:45
@ACuriousMind Well I'm asking from an empirical point of view
Or is it something else that I am missing.
@Slereah what does that even mean though
how do you get the initial data
By looking?
LOOKING TAKES TIME
You usually know what matter fields are within a region
01:46
MEASUREMENTS HAVE TO BE ON A CAUCHY SURFACE
well yes
But that's a thing about physics
You are always limited by your measurements
@0celo7 Yes, measurements are not idealized and you're gonna get uncertainties.
What's the problem about that
You can never know the true temperature of something, because the thermometer has a calorific capacity
That's nothing unique to GR
You can't know the current, because your ampermeter has a resistance
01:46
@ACuriousMind Ok
Let me rephrase
How does one minimize error in GR
How does one get the absolute best measurements of the initial data
I think that's gonna be a case by case thing?
@0celo7 How does one get the absolute best measurements of the initial data in classical mechanics?
You can't answer that in that generality, either.
For a pendulum you have to do different things than for a race car
That's the challenge of doing experiments, but that's always there
I don't get what so suddenly upsets you about it in GR
@ACuriousMind all of it!
01:49
Remember when they launched the LHC?
And there was a weird thing
That happened every day at the same time
And they later found out that a train passed a few miles from there
And that was the problem
...did they just get rid of the train? :D
That's about the kind of shit you have to deal with in experiments
I also seem to recall truck vibrations fucking up gravitational wave detection
You just look at the data available, you do your best, then you run your experiment
@0celo7 but what upsets you? It's always been like that. Theory and experiment are not easily connected that's why we have the split into theorist and experimentalists in the first place!
If it doesn't work out, either you look for problems in the setting or you change the theory
@ACuriousMind neutrino beam out of nowhere!
@ACuriousMind all of it!
it upsets me that @JohnDuffield is right
these books are totally lost in math
they never discuss how to measure anything
01:52
Well if you want there's books on experimental GR
@Slereah Oh?
Try this maybe
really a big part of experimental physics, as it relates to theory, is knowing which terms you can ignore
whoa so much profanity
in this chat
@PhyCS really?
where
Siereah
01:57
what, fuck?
that's hardly profane
c*** and mother****er are the only profane words
bah
only two of them actually offend people
Well this was the 70's

« first day (1840 days earlier)      last day (3387 days later) »