The h Bar

0celo7

15:05

Lol

JD vs. JT

@JohnDuffield He doesn't believe in time travel, I've never seen him talk about the multiverse and he dismisses the wrong things Einstein said.

(As should everyone.)

Slereah

15:23

"This question has an open bounty worth +100 reputation from Slereah ending in 16 minutes."

All those internet points lost for nothing

Thanks for nuffin jerks :V

@0celo7 Really I think chronology protection is kind of the last nail in the coffin of time travel

All arguments against it are pretty weaksauce

Also yes, JD vs. JT is gold

ACuriousMind

@Slereah I think the problem is that there is no active user who is actually an expert on current quantum gravity theories, at least no one comes to my mind.

Slereah

Yeah mb not

The only one I can think has a shot at having an answer are fixed background models

So string theory and massive gravity

Those do not suffer too much from spacelike boundaries

"Your bounty on question "Do any quantum gravity theories deal with closed timelike curves?" is completed. You must award it to an answer within 24 hours."

Fat chance :V

ACuriousMind

Does it even make sense to talk about CTCs in string theory? Does that happen when you choose as target space some spacetime with CTCs?

Slereah

I don't know enough about string theory to say

ACuriousMind

@Slereah that's a strange wording. It's perfectly possible to not award a bounty

Slereah

15:33

I know it works in Pauli Fierz

ACuriousMind

And if no answer is at or above +2, no one gets half of it, either

Slereah

Although

I suspect that shit goes tachyonic if you allow CTCs

Not sure what would happen then

Tachyonic fields don't go along well with QFT

ACuriousMind

@Slereah It lives with the Higgs perfectly fine

Slereah

Well no because then you get condensation

ACuriousMind

Yeah, sure, the tachyonic "phase" is unstable

But it's not pathological or something

You just have to find out what happens

Slereah

15:35

I don't have a bloody clue

Maybe I should try it

ACuriousMind

And at the end your tachyonic thing will be gone and you have some other miracle, like massive gauge bosons ;)

Slereah

I looked up basic axisymmetric spacetimes with CTCs in Pauli Fierz once

$p^2$ indeed goes tachyonic

All classical shit tho

JokelaTurbine

15:47

@Slereah If you mean with "vs." =Versus and with "JT"=me, I want to point out that "versus" is often understood as "conflict OR competition with OR against OR alternative to OR in contrast" ..... that none of these definitions fit on me. IMO JD even seems to have a broader understanding in few issues as it is commonly seen. But I am not even claiming that I am the one who are able to judge this.

0celo7

Lol.

@ACuriousMind Do you not think my avatar is hilarious

John Rennie

@JokelaTurbine you and JD make a lovely couple. Have you considered eloping and leaving the rest of us to bask in our ignorance?

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Not particularly

0celo7

@ACuriousMind I picked it just for you though

John Rennie

@0celo7 an oboe player?

0celo7

15:53

@JohnRennie indeed

John Rennie

I played the tuba in the school orchestra. We always thought the woodwind section were a bit stuck up.

0celo7

@JohnRennie I prefer to stew in my ignorance

JokelaTurbine

@JohnRennie That would be fine to me. But do you really need to delete the stuff? I mean if it's voted "-10" it should be enough to turn on the warning "independet thinking is needed", and thus no youngs-innocent-minds should be mentally raped by accident.

John Rennie

@0celo7 Stewing implies discomfort, or at least I'm sure I'd find being stewed a painful experience.

0celo7

Only string players look elegant while playing.

Even flute players make a weird face

John Rennie

15:56

You should see what tuba players look like when at full throttle - not pretty!

0celo7

@JohnRennie Will do next time I go to an orchestra/band/thing thing

Slereah

@JokelaTurbine Shush and FIGHT!

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 A thing thing? Sounds oddly specific!

Slereah

ACuriousMind

@Slereah Wrong image, that's @vzn and me :P

0celo7

16:10

@ACuriousMind Indeed

I'm a very specific kinda guy

@ACuriousMind are there necessary and sufficient conditions for a similarity transformation to be an orthogonal matrix?

JokelaTurbine

16:34

I Think quite opposite, "No Shush & no Fight." I just study "your Language from the "MTW Gravitation" and try to make my self more understandable. Truth neads no fight, It's Truth by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear. said Gandhi.
If I am wrong, It's ok, If I am right, it doesn't change anything. And against who should I even fight? There is > 5 Mrd idiots in this world who doesn't yet understand the thing Archimedes knew 2000 Years ago.

Ali Caglayan

What are they talking about??

user54412

16:49

@JohnRennie which is why us trombone players retained the right to accidentally bop them in the head

John Rennie

@ChrisWhite :-) I think everyone regarded the whole brass section as hooligans.

0celo7

17:04

@ChrisWhite doing ~~Ramen~~ Raman right now

sharaf zaman

17:16

i read when some star dies it can get converted to three forms blackhole, neutron star and black dwarf. i read neutron star is incompressbile but why i don't think any point of repulsion being in a neutron so what is the reason

Anyone?

ACuriousMind

@sharafzaman It's Pauli exclusion. The thing you already asked about a few days ago.

sharaf zaman

SG

that was typo

hey you mean quantum states of neutron gets same after a certain point

Bernard Meurer

@0celo7 It's not an oboe causing that face

John Rennie

17:33

@sharafzaman Do you know about the quantisation of energy levels for a particle in a box?

Particle in a box

In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. The model is mainly used as a hypothetical example to illustrate the differences between classical and quantum systems. In classical systems, for example a ball trapped inside a large box, the particle can move at any speed within the box and it is no more likely to be found at one position than another. However, when the well becomes very narrow (on the scale of a few nanometers), quantum...

0celo7

@BernardMeurer shhhhhh

@dmckee He wants to send me to the APS at ANL.

@yuggib ;)

sharaf zaman

i know what quantisation means but let me read that article @JohnRennie

John Rennie

@sharafzaman Ok. It has a direct bearing on your question because it relates to the pressure needed to confine fermions to a box.

hubot

Hello

vzn

@ACuriousMind lol the real question is which one of us gets Zoe Saldana :P

0celo7

17:39

Huh?

Bernard Meurer

Meh, she ain't my type

0celo7

@BernardMeurer you have a peculiar type

Bernard Meurer

@0celo7 I'm aware

sharaf zaman

@JohnRennie i didn't get you

vzn

@BernardMeurer maybe she needs a boytoy, didnt you say you were seriously thinking about it? :P

Bernard Meurer

17:41

@vzn I'd be her boytoy for money

John Rennie

Suppose you have a particle in a box. It has energy levels E0, E1, E2, and so on in increasing energy.

vzn

@BernardMeurer lol so then its just a matter of $ as it is sometimes said. "madam we have established what you are, now we are only discussing the price"...

sharaf zaman

ok!

John Rennie

Neutrons are fermions, so you can only fit two neutrons into each energy level -one spin up and one spin down

0celo7

Proof?

Bernard Meurer

17:42

@vzn I'm pretty cheap

sharaf zaman

ok

John Rennie

So suppose we have ten neutrons in our box.

sharaf zaman

okay

vzn

@Danu re Perelman, think/ suspect it took quite a few years for him to "fill in the details" himself & think even he did not initially have them. the earlier paper(s) are essentially (brilliant/ correct) outlines...

GPhys

@FenderLesPaul Possibly U Penn will send out today?

John Rennie

17:43

We have to put two neutrons in E0, two in E1, and so on, so the total energy is E = 2E0 + 2E1 + 2E2 + 2E3 + 2E4.

sharaf zaman

agreed!

vzn

also (fyi) for you (us) math fans, something to look fwd to end of april!

in MathOverflow, Feb 28 at 17:09, by vzn

man who knew infinity apr 29th!

Bernard Meurer

@GPhys WHAT

John Rennie

Now, if we compress the box the energy levels all increase in energy because the energy of the levels is inversely proportional to the box size

GPhys

@BernardMeurer ?

John Rennie

17:45

And that means since E0, E1 etc all go up the total energy of all ten neutrons goes up

0celo7

@BernardMeurer is preparing for the worst.

GPhys

@BernardMeurer U Penn hasn't sent out their first round yet, afaik

John Rennie

With me so far?

Bernard Meurer

@GPhys I'm preparing for the worst

sharaf zaman

yes!

Bernard Meurer

17:46

But I'm excited nontheless

GPhys

@BernardMeurer I thought you were applying for undergraduate?

Bernard Meurer

yep

I'm boy

I wish I was a buouy tho, mad soap

John Rennie

OK. If we compressed the box and the energy went up then we must have done work on the box i.e. we needed a force to compress the box.

GPhys

@BernardMeurer Don't worry, I highly doubt their undergraduate admission results timing coordinate with their physics graduate admission result timing

sharaf zaman

yes

John Rennie

17:47

So the box has a pressure, just due to the fact that the levels are quantised and we can only get two neutrons in each level.

Bernard Meurer

@GPhys I'm just hoping I survive the month

John Rennie

The more we compress the box the higher the energy goes and the greater the pressure needed to compress the box

sharaf zaman

wait! you mean the more we compress the box the pressure in each energy level increases?

John Rennie

If the size of the box is d then the energy of the levels is proportional to 1/d^2

So every time we halve the box size we need to put in four times more energy

And that means the pressure goes up

sharaf zaman

oh!!! got this point

John Rennie

17:51

Good, we're basically there!

The "box" is the neutron star and it's full of neutrons

sharaf zaman

yes! and neutrons are in energy levels, right?

John Rennie

So to compress the neutron star means raising the energy levels of all the neutrons and that means there is a pressure, just like our example of ten neutrons ina box

sharaf zaman

ok!

John Rennie

The pressure is applied by gravity. As gravity compresses the neutron star the neutron energy levels increase and the pressure increases, until it balances out gravity

And at that point the star stops compressing

sharaf zaman

by ''gravity''?

John Rennie

17:54

If you want to Google for more this phenomenon is known as degeneracy pressure

@sharafzaman gravity is trying to squeeze the neutrons together i.e. compress the box

sharaf zaman

then it means if i bring any external agency(assuming it has a lot energy) to compress neutron star, it will get compressed! ?

John Rennie

Yes, but ...

sharaf zaman

but.......what?

John Rennie

The gravity of a neutron star is absolutely immense. It's hard to think of any external agency that could come close to it.

So in practice you can't compress a neutron star

Convinced? :-)

sharaf zaman

yes!! thanks a lot!!

David Z

18:02

just popping in to bring a bit of high-rep users' attention to a question

John Rennie

@DavidZ I don't see how we can answer this. It's asking what whoever posed the question meant. Isn't that just a matter of opinion?

David Z

@JohnRennie answer the question I linked, you mean? If that's the case, it could be unclear

Actually I didn't look too closely at the question itself... too many flags :-/

John Rennie

Yes. It isn't really a homework question as the OP isn't asking how to do it. He's asking what the question means.

Whether it's a line or volume density.

@DavidZ @dmckee: while you're here can I ask you a question re procedure?

David Z

Sure, I guess

John Rennie

I got this criticism:

@John Rennie : please don't close a question as a duplicate when the answers on the "master" question are incorrect. — John Duffield 4 hours ago

Leaving the contentious stuff, should it matter if the answers to the duplicate are wrong?

David Z

18:09

Nope

John Rennie

Isn't the correct strategy to close the question in the hope someone will supply a good answer to the duplicate?

David Z

Duplication is decided based on the question itself, not on the answers

@JohnRennie yeah, pretty much

at least that's my understanding

John Rennie

That's what I thought.

Anyway, re the question you linked I suspect we all looked at it, shrugged and moved on.

hubot

For humor: in my school teachers have written "Rules. 1. Don't tell about integrals, ghosts, daemons [...]"

John Rennie

No-one cares enough to close it. If the OP wants to offer a bounty I guess it's his rep ...

hubot

18:13

What do you think about this?

John Rennie

What is it with mis-spelling "demons"?

David Z

@JohnRennie k then, I just wanted to make sure it had gotten sufficient attention

hubot

I guess that we need free path to calculate cross section of collision A per one argon atom.

Do I think right?

Danu

18:29

@vzn it is trivial to check that Perelman posted no other papers. It's clear he had the full proof in 2003.

In his famous essay on "what is mathematics?" Thurston describes how he, too, understood proofs many years before his colleagues, and just never had to write out the details for himself but would certainly be able to do so when needed

John Rennie

Must go. It's time to settle into my armchair with a glass of whisky and a good book.

Danu

In any case, I find it absurd to suppose he'd publish a proof he himself didn't quite understand.

What's your favorite dram, @JohnRennie

vzn

@Danu afaik even experts do not think he had the full/ complete proof with his 1st paper. he had (seemed to) a full/ complete outline. was not asserting he had other papers than on arxiv. it took quite a few years to verify/ validate the proof, building on later papers & experts analysis.

Danu

I think that that's not true. Can you give me any statement by an expert that didn't believe it?

The papers are fully correct and completely contain the proof.

vzn

@Danu am not an expert on this proof. the point is that later papers were substantially different than the outline. they are long. that alone is an indication. one cannot keep dozens of pages of papers/ many formulas in ones head. am not disputing his intuition was correct.

Danu

18:38

I also know the proof was accepted within a year, with expositions posted 3 years later

Clearly not much was left to do

vzn

@Danu no, it was not accepted by the community until years later. there was a lot of controversy.

Danu

I think that's wrong

vzn

@Danu its all documented. there are good histories written now. maybe AMS notices, recall reading one once. its one of the big controversies in math of the early 20th century.

hubot

I guess that I need calculate free path of argon atom and apply formula \pi(lambda_1+lambda_2)^2

Danu

@vzn show me! To be perfectly clear, I'm claiming that there was no serious problem or big doubt after the series of three papers was completely published on arxiv, and that the proof was verified at least within 2 years.

As I said, by 2006 expositions were published

vzn

18:42

am reading wikipedia myself

Grigori Perelman

Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman (Russian: Григо́рий Я́ковлевич Перельма́н; IPA: [ɡrʲɪˈɡorʲɪj ˈjakəvlʲɪvʲɪtɕ pʲɪrʲɪlʲˈman] /ˈpɛrᵻlmən/ PERR-il-mən; born 13 June 1966) is a Russian mathematician who made landmark contributions to Riemannian geometry and geometric topology before apparently withdrawing from mathematics. In 1994, Perelman proved the soul conjecture. In 2003, he proved Thurston's geometrization conjecture. This consequently solved in the affirmative the Poincaré conjecture, posed in 1904, which before its solution was viewed as one of the most important and difficult open problems ...

iirc he posted more than one paper...? anyway verification took ~3yrs and other papers by other authors filling in the details...

Danu

3 papers as I said

The fields medal was already awarded 3 years later (fastest possible)

vzn

it takes time to verify big results by the community. agreed?

ACuriousMind

You claimed:

20 hours ago, by vzn

@BernardMeurer cool factoid about perelman. he originally posted his proof to arxiv. nobody could make heads nor tails of it afaik. couldnt fill in the details. so he did in later papers.

Danu

I think you're just wrong about there being any serious controversy. It took less than 2 years to verify (quite short, others have taken up to 20 ish years)

That claim ACM just posted is completely wrong, I'm more than 90% sure of it

vzn

@Danu uh, not sure exactly what your point is (ppl in here sure like to argue...). a few years might be regarded a "short" controversy in math. but its a lot of time.

the controversy is quite well documented. why would there not be?

different experts had different opinions initially. it took years for it all to line up.

Danu

18:46

Note that the three papers were posted in rapid succession with no serious feedback on between, so there is no question about him correcting things

I don't believe what you're saying ; show me any evidence of controversy

The wiki page fully supports my view

vzn

do you reject that controversies happen in math?

newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny

Danu

Hahaha, no I'm saying you're wrong about this case; there was no real controversy

It would be plain stupid to say there are no controversies

Let's have some wiki quotes

On 25 May 2006, Bruce Kleiner and John Lott, both of the University of Michigan, posted a paper on arXiv that fills in the details of Perelman's proof of the Geometrization conjecture.[19] John Lott said in ICM2006, "It has taken us some time to examine Perelman's work. This is partly due to the originality of Perelman's work and partly to the technical sophistication of his arguments. All indications are that his arguments are correct

vzn

> In the April 18, 2003, issue of Science, Yau was featured in an article about Perelman’s proof: “Many experts, although not all, seem convinced that Perelman has stubbed out the cigars and tamed the narrow necks. But they are less confident that he can control the number of surgeries.
> That could prove a fatal flaw, Yau warns, noting that many other attempted proofs of the Poincaré conjecture have stumbled over similar missing steps.” Proofs should be treated with skepticism until mathematicians have had a chance to review them thoroughly, Yau told us. Until then, he said, “it’s not math…

Danu

Zero mention of doubts real problems with the proof

He's pointing out that one should generally be careful with big theorems

vzn

@Danu you seem to reject the human/ social process of proof review by experts...?

Danu

18:52

Note that this was definitely too early for him to have any real idea of the proof

vzn

my interpretation is something like this: the proof was not accepted without the (significant/ substantial) additional commentary/ analysis by other authors, but that they still gave him credit for all the work.

Danu

@vzn that's a ridiculous assertion. Please do note that I am particularly interested in these aspects, as witnessed by the fact I'm a moderator on History of Science and Mathematics.

vzn

there was some controversy on Yau vs Tian in new yorker but maybe you regard that as a sideshow?

Danu

@vzn and that's just not true. Sorry, but there is no way around it. His proof was complete, and after verification without serious problems it was immediately accepted, as shown also by him receiving the Fields immediately

vzn

@Danu lol "immediately accepted." "immediately recieving fields medal." think you are playing with semantics now.

Danu

18:55

No I'm not. After verification, remember

ACuriousMind

@vzn Look at the Clay institute's page on Perelman's solution. All the articles are called expository, i.e. they do not contribute new things, they just lay out what is already there.

vzn

@ACuriousMind the proof cannot be comprehended by other humans without the expository articles. agreed perelman got full credit. whats the problem here?

Danu

And it's a fact that he received a Fields as soon as friggin possible. They're only once every 4 years, as I hope you realize.

ACuriousMind

@vzn The problem is you claim "controversy". The math community slowly working to comprehend a proof they do not understand yet is not a controversy

Danu

@vzn the problem is that you're trying to make some kind of story here that's just not supported by anything

vzn

18:58

maybe my pov (think it would be regarded as uncontroversial) is somewhat similar as espoused in this book, which has been criticized within mathematical community on similar grounds. amazon.com/The-Mathematical-Experience-Phillip-Davis/dp/…

@Danu no, its quite similar in some ways to another story, the ABC conjecture. are you familiar with the mochizuki affair?

ACuriousMind

There's more controversy around Mochizuki's proof of the ABC conjecture right now, and still most are not claiming he's wrong - the controversy is focused on the arcane and inaccessible way in which the proof is presented

vzn

@ACuriousMind ok, maybe there is some "controversy" over the korean authors claiming some original credit.

Danu

I have a strong suspicion that your POV is heavily by your own controversial views on quantum physics and thus you might want to paint all progress as controversial in order to legitimize your position, but that's besides the point.

It's absolutely completely different from ABC

vzn

@ACuriousMind (right now) nobody other than mochizuki knows whether its right or wrong. (and maybe not even him.)

Danu

THAT is a huge huge huge controversy

vzn

19:01

you guys seem to be (wanting to) rejecting the inherently social element of mathematics. and even science in general.

Danu

Because those who went to the recent controversy don't even get the feeling it's making any more progress. Nobody feels certain that anything can even be gained by studying it.

ACuriousMind

@vzn No one is saying that. But acknowledging the social element does not mean there is "controversy" in every new advance, or that it played any significant role in Perelman's case

Danu

@vzn oh cut that out dude, as I said I'm particularly interested and therefore also relatively well-informed about it

user54412

@vzn you should be aware that the typical, nothing-special, run-of-the-mill paper in math takes 1-2 years of peer review before it is published

vzn

ok, maybe you want to reject calling a proof verification a "controversy". or maybe you want to reject that "controversies" happen in math. dunno....

ACuriousMind

19:03

@vzn The first one. Proof verification is not a controversy, it is how math works

vzn

@ACuriousMind you seem to want to reject a kuhnian paradigm wrt mathematics. have espoused that myself previously somewhere, maybe this chat room.

Danu

You're just repeating false strawman-type claims about what "we" want

vzn

@ChrisWhite lol $1M millenium prize, century-old conjecture as "typical" :P

ACuriousMind

@vzn You think a prize-winning paper should get less scrutiny than the typical math paper?

user54412

@vzn no, my point is that 2-3 years is not at all unusual, so you can't take "time to verification" as evidence of controversy

Danu

19:04

I think nobody here really has an agenda except perhaps your incentive to portray progress as inevitably controversial, as I speculated on before

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Can you recommend any non-growling metal?

Danu

But let's drop those things. Just stop saying what "we want" ok?

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Nightwish

vzn

@Danu scientific progress has a strong kuhnian element. he did not necessarily characterize it as "controversy" although thats a fairly natural catchword. (do not regard myself as expert on kuhnianism, and some of my pov might be said to "go beyond it...")

0celo7

@Danu That's a nice observation.

Danu

19:07

Anyways, I think I've made my case and it's clear what the situation is to everyone so I'm calling it quits. Bye!

@0celo7 what observation? I'm on mobile

0celo7

@Danu vzn's agenda.

@ACuriousMind Anything in particular or all of their material?

Slereah

Dragonforce, too

DragonForce - Through the Fire and Flames (HD Official Video)

►

0celo7

Did I ask you?

ACuriousMind

@vzn Not every scientific progress has to be a paradigm shift in the sense of Kuhn. Some are, and those indeed tend to be controversial. Even for Kuhn, the "standard" state of science ("normal science" in his parlance) is that one paradigm reigns, and science plots along smoothly.

Slereah

No

But DO IT

0celo7

19:09

What would the French know about music?

Slereah

What would Americans know about any form of culture

0celo7

Enough to save your sorry asses in the War.

Slereah

Sure but so did the Soviet Union

I wouldn't trust Stalin, tho

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Oh come on.

Is that a woman?

ACuriousMind

@0celo7 Try the older stuff

Slereah

19:14

Like

The Riddler

0celo7

@ACuriousMind I was lamenting their hair styles.

I can't listen to this in good conscience.

Slereah

If you're gonna lament metal hairstyles

Maybe stop listening to metal altogether

0celo7

I don't like a female lead, either.

Slereah

They are all a ridiculous people

0celo7

@ACuriousMind Is this band German?

vzn

19:16

@ACuriousMind most major scientific shifts are "kuhnian", and admittedly many scientists, even topnotch ones, have an instinct to sweep that under the rug. understandably they are not really ever "trained" on it.

0celo7

@ACuriousMind I really like Bye Bye Beautiful.

vzn

the mochizuki proof looks somewhat "kuhnian" in some sense/ pov/ lens. same with perelman.

ACuriousMind

@vzn How so? Which were the paradigms before and after?

0celo7

Also the Einstein Field Equation you wrote is wrong. — Slereah 7 hours ago

I like to think ACM missed that.

vzn

@ACuriousMind if its true (mochizuki/ ABC), then it will be a kuhnian shift. its possibly/ currently "mid kuhnian shift"

ACuriousMind

19:20

@vzn Perelman's proof is now accepted. He won the most prestigious prize mathematics has to offer. If there was a paradigm shift, what was it?

vzn

@ACuriousMind a century old conjecture proven true.

ACuriousMind

You can't just say "most major advances are paradigms shifts". Paradigm shifts are not reflected in new knowledge, but in a fundamental change of the epistemology and methodology of a field

vzn

@ACuriousMind (agreed) did not say that. said "major scientific shifts"

there are not that many major scientific shifts throughout history... although one could argue they may be becoming more frequent, because of the "proliferation" of science/ tech these days.

ACuriousMind

The advent of quantum mechanics and of relativity arguably was a paradigm shift. The axiomatization of mathematics beginning with people like Weierstraß and culminating in Bourbaki-style mathematics as opposed to the unrigorous infinitesimals of the early analysts also was one. Proving a century old conjecture, by itself, is not

vzn

@ACuriousMind agreed. not even sure if kuhn listed both those in physics himself. something plank said once was very kuhnian (probably few have noticed). have you heard that quote? let me dig it up.

> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. —Plank

0celo7

19:25

CNN is pretty amazing with their headlines.

vzn

plank was involved in & played pivotal role in at least two physics revolutions: the atomic model of matter, and quantum mechanics (interlinked)....

0celo7

@dmckee So, ever been to the APS?

dmckee

Driven by it a couple of times. It's specs are muchos impressive.

vzn

@ACuriousMind its quite interesting that youre willing to consider (a/ any) math shift as kuhnian, that is not done by ("almost") anyone afaik. :)

Slereah

@Danu It's the old "Physics is stagnating because we haven't thrown out everything" argument

A rather odd duck of an argument

vzn

19:32

@Slereah lol "stagnating"!?! you guys are sure adept with straw men. (sigh) have stated myself here that physics is in a very vibrant period, possibly more so than ever in history.

Slereah

Wasn't talking about you

You egomaniac :V

vzn

@Slereah who then? Duffield? 0celo7? Danu? ACM? :P

Slereah

People in general

I've heard that kind of argument many time

A lot of people think we're not making good progress unless all our theories are wrong

vzn

what do you mean by "thrown out everything"? oh.

DanielSank

@Slereah Careful, I was warned by the mods about using that kind of language.

vzn

19:35

@Slereah sometimes/ occasionally that is a measure of progress. but not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. figuring out the difference between the two. having the wisdom to do so.

Slereah

@DanielSank What is the correct term to use

Charlatan?

Crackpot?

Jiminion

19:49

Physics does seem to have wandered into a box canyon.

0celo7

@DanielSank I think I've been banned for it.

@dmckee I'm not gonna go.

He wants to me go for a full week two weeks before finals.

Bernard Meurer

Go anyway, find a way to get the West Nile Virus, escape finals

0celo7

West Nile Virus?

In Illinois?

Bernard Meurer

You gotta make an effort dude, you want things to just come easy?

0celo7

What?

Jiminion

20:08

There's plenty of WNV in Illinois.

0celo7

20:55

@Jiminion Proof?

Jiminion

0celo7

Holy shit

vzn

21:20

@Jiminion what do you mean?

Jiminion

@vzn Not much progress with standard model. String theory is going nowhere. (Lots of progress on side issues, though....)

vzn

@Jiminion what do ppl think of as "progess"? stasis of the std model could be taken as evidence theres nothing wrong with it. agreed wrt string theory.

Higgs detection only few yrs ago can be regarded as huge triumph of std model.

Jiminion

@vzn It is slightly scary (but more amusing) how some folks are trying to redefine science to avoid having to "prove" the notion of multiverses. If these people had greater sway, it would be scary and dangerous.

0celo7

@vzn Progress increases GDP.

vzn

but yeah, particle physics is not so dynamic as the 20th century wrt discovery of new particles. aka "low hanging fruit"....

0celo7

21:24

Anything that does not is not progress.

Jiminion

Yes, but the Higgs was predicted in the early 60's. Just like LIGO was cool, but not really any advance in theory, just validation of older theory.

vzn

@0celo7 funny. citing GDP so much, maybe you should read something about economics...

@Jiminion oh, so the "box canyon" is mainly "theory". yeah maybe.

0celo7

@vzn Like what

vzn

@0celo7 anything

0celo7

@vzn Lol

Jiminion

21:28

GDP? I'm dense today.

vzn

@0celo7 maybe your new nickname is "Mr GDP".

0celo7

What makes you think I haven't read anything

vzn

@0celo7 lol "educated guess" :P

Jiminion

My 'box canyon' worry is that renormalization is/was a useful cheat that obscured greater understanding.

vzn

@0celo7 you seem to be more interested in GDP than, eg, gravity waves...

@Jiminion probably! but didnt feynman get a nobel for that? :)

Jiminion

21:31

@vzn Yes, but even Feynman held his nose w.r.t. normalization.

vzn

@Jiminion really? no kidding? didnt know that

renormalization reminds me of fractals.... scale invariance etc

Jiminion

@vzn I think so. He wasn't super happy about it.

vzn

@Jiminion he also seemed to nearly completely pass on the QM interpretation/ incompleteness/ nonlocality debate...

Jiminion

@vzn I think anyone born before 1930 couldn't really deal with QM.

0celo7

@vzn Because gravity waves do not increase GDP

Jiminion

21:34

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." - RF

vzn

@Jiminion interesting musing. Bell born 1928. Bohm born 1917.

@Jiminion nice quote! wow! "dippy hocus pocus"! nearly ranks up there with "spooky action at a distance"!

Jiminion

What is GDP?

vzn

@Jiminion youre joking right? so are you trained in physics? nice historical grasp there!

0celo7

@Jiminion gross domestic product

vzn

@0celo7 youre a gross domestic product :P

2

0celo7

21:39

$$\mathrm{GDP}=C + G + I +X-M$$

Jiminion

Oh, I thought it was some Physics term.... Ocelo7 was being amusing.... yes I know about Gross Domestic Product..

vzn

← wow 3 stars today! on huge roll!

lol must be MR GDP 0celo7 bored out of his mind :P

Jiminion

Ocelo7 and I are Star "Whores"

0celo7

@vzn I have not starred anything.

vzn

← afraid to talk now

0celo7

21:45

vzn

@0celo7 so have you thought about talking to anyone about your chat addiction?

0celo7

Huh?

Bernard Meurer

Damn @vzn controlling the star board today

vzn

← wasnt me!

@BernardMeurer interesting coincidence referring to perelman as "mad scientist" :D

Jiminion

22:01

@0celo7 It's been mostly me.

Bernard Meurer

@vzn Better than being a wizard like Grothendieck :p

vzn

22:20

@BernardMeurer (wow, more coincidence/ cybersynchronicity!) are you sure? what about a zen wizard?

Bernard Meurer

@vzn I'm afraid of zen people

#nucleargandhi

vzn

@BernardMeurer ?

Bernard Meurer

@vzn There's this game I used to play called Civilization, and each nation was represented by an iconic character, India was Gandhi. Gandhi was, for no apparent reason, a massive asshole that would nuke you the first chance he got

thus he became known as nuclear gandhi

vzn

oh! lol. just found that otherwise. google knows everything. knowyourmeme.com/memes/nuclear-gandhi

says it was due to... get this... software defect... small world...

Bernard Meurer

22:38

Yep hahaha

And they never fixed it, he remained nuclear throughout the series

DanielSank

@Danu please help this question

0celo7

@DanielSank >:[

DanielSank

@0celo7 :]

0celo7

don't act like that

you don't like me

and we all know it

I'm just too fabulous for you

Transcript for