« first day (1974 days earlier)      last day (3251 days later) » 

13:01
Man it's a pretty hard paper to find
People love mentioning it but not putting it online
@ACuriousMind can you please help with Prop. 4.5.10. I've thought long and hard about it and have filled pages
@Slereah I bet one of the people at History of Science and Mathematics can locate it for you :P
I still have no clue what he's trying to do
Let's ask
13:03
Is there any English copy available
@ACuriousMind If you can figure out 4.5.10 I will never ask you any question ever again
Sorry, not going to spend hours an a problem I don't actually care about in the slightest.
hours?
I guarantee you'll figure it out more quickly
@ACuriousMind Will you at least read through it once?
0
Q: An English copy of One Hundred Authors Against Einstein?

SlereahI've been trying to find the famous article, "One hundred authors against Einstein" (100 Autoren gegen Einstein), of various objections to special relativity, which is quite often referenced, but finding a copy proved to be quite hard (there is one available here), and I can't seem to find it in ...

@0celo7 Was just trying to do that, then noticed I don't have something with my pdf of HE on it with me. You'll have to wait till Monday.
13:12
@ACuriousMind Ok
With any luck I'll catch my advisor later and he'll have an idea
oh, @Slereah
Does Penrose define trips with geodesics?
Yes.
Lol
Piecewise geodesic curves
The Penrose proof
It's that a piecewise geodesic can be smoothed
Not a general curve
That it is
Dunno if the same proof can be used for general curves
13:14
So the general proof is still out in the wind.
@Slereah I haven't sat down with the Penrose proof and worked out all of the details
He waves his hands a bit
But he uses Riemann normal coordinates...so it might not work for general curves.
Well he gives you a way to attach smoothly two piecewise curves in the normal 'hood
7
Q: How to deal with boundary conditions for path integrals?

SlereahFor non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the boundary conditions are rather simple to deal with, they are just \begin{equation} \langle x_1, t_1 \vert x_2, t_2\rangle = \int_{x_1(t_1)}^{x_2(t_2)} \mathcal{D}x(t)e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S[x(t)]} \end{equation} And then we can solve the path integral by...

A dude put a bounty on it and STILL no good answer
I am a master of the terrible question
They say asking the right question is 90% of the work.
"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
maybe
Didn't he try to build bomb for the Nazis
He claimed that he didn't work very hard on it ON PURPOSE
and instead partied a lot
13:30
@Slereah did you even look at 4.5.10
I have
My answer is
Iunno
Also using "non-spacelike" for a causal curve should be a crime
does it not bother you
they're so unspecifc in their proof
is the curve they create timelike everywhere?
or just piecewise timelike
if it's just piecewise then I believe them
because when I followed the proof that's what I got
mb try finding that proof elsewhere
@Slereah Oh, also. No $(\mathbb{R}^2,g)$ contains closed spacelike curves.
I know
13:36
@Slereah Yeah, no shit.
What on earth is happening here
I can't find the proof anywhere else.
It's one of those proofs.
Not in Penrose?
No, but you should double Czech.
Hmm double Czech; kinky
13:38
@BernardMeurer math
@0celo7 : p. 294 of O'neil
HOLY SHIT WHAT
Buying O'Neil right now...
how did you find that o.O
yeah O'neil seems to do proofs alright
ctrl + f
I looked through thousands of pages of books
YOU HAVE A SEARCHABLE LEGAL COPY
reg exp "causal curve .* timelike curve"
The legalest
13:42
@Slereah what
Do u not know what a regexp is
@Slereah I don't think he knows what a regular expression is :P
Mister engineer
@ACuriousMind never heard of it
@Slereah I don't take any engineering classes until the third year...
u need to beef up your bibliography skills m8
Research is a lot of biblio
13:45
and learning how to hide your real sources :P
wait
O'Neil assumes a smooth curve >:{
Does he?
He only says continuous
wait how does he define "causal curve"
Velocity vector is non-spacelike
So $C^1$ I guess
what if the velocity vector is not defined >:(
13:49
Well show you can smooth it I dunno m8
sobs
@ACuriousMind is it this hard to track down proofs in QFT
lol, everything is just "as Witten showed" :P
Then you look it up and Witten says "We can show that...but we won't do that now".
Then you spend a week or so figuring it out yourself.
Such a tease
Why do you even care about piecewise continuous curves
What are you gonna do with them
@Slereah are you gonna buy O'Neil
@Slereah Well, to be fair, it was only an off-hand remark and not the actual focus of that paper, but everyone cited Witten as if he had shown said claim in that paper...which he explicitly did not.
13:53
@0celo7 Maybe
It's like 55$
Not too expensive
from where would you get it
it's $70 on Amazon
yurup
ahahahha what is $\sigma$ in this proof
and what is $V'$
check up the book legally
It's p. 294
I have the book legally
sigh, they don't prove it in the piecewise smooth case
I give up
13:58
Why not use the Penrose thing
Probably works with non-geodesic piecewise curves
because he hand waves the proof
I don't think he actually uses the fact that it's geodesics in the proof
Is the $J/\Psi$ particle racially insensitive
Ok, suppose we have a function $f:T_pM\to T_pM$
and a function $h:\mathbb{R}^2\to T_pM$
write this as $h(s,t)$
What is $$\frac{\partial}{\partial s}f(h(s,t))$$
now don't you tell me "chain rule"
Leibniz rule
So what do you mean by "what is"
What is even $h$
Is it just $Df(\partial_s h)$
or what
I'm so confused
@Slereah $h=sX(t)$, where $X(t)$ is a curve in $T_pM$
so $h(s,t)$ is a vector in $T_pM$
14:05
Well I'd go with chain rule, really $\partial_s f(h(s,t)) = f_s(h(s,t)) h_s$
wtf is $f_s$
Derivative wrt $s$
$f$ is a vector valued function on vectors
Well you can vary a vector function with a parameter
GR is literally the worst
nothing is worse than GR
14:07
$g(u, \nabla f(h(s,t))) h_s$
my girlfriend said I spend a lot of time sulking over HE
:(
@Slereah jesus christ what is that
With $u$ the tangent vector of the curve of whatever $s$ is
I dunno
un momento
if the variation of a piecewise smooth curve is smooth
we might be in business
High hopes
indeed
@ACuriousMind do you know anything about proper variations in Riemannian geometry
14:10
@0celo7 Nope
it's like you don't know any Riem geo beyond the basics
He's a QFT man
All his manifolds are Lie groups
Lie groups are boring
aha, and $Df$ is linear
glorious
Well yes
All derivatives are linear
proof?
14:14
per definition
literally everything in math is true by definitions
Well no
Some are true by demonstration
using definitions
and inference rules
aka a theorem
14:17
your momma is a theorem
@ACuriousMind what was your usual loadout in FC3
I'm going with bow, Vector, FAMAS and the .50 sniper
all suppressed
the sniper is so OP
and now that I can beatdown the armored guys, it's easy
Is there a community wiki answer about special relativity that summarizes/answers the various questions about SR?
@barrycarter no reason for it to be community wiki, necessarily
@barrycarter make a blog
14:29
We do have some good canonical questions about it though
@DavidZ It would be nice to have a single question/answer explaining the various scenarios that seem to come up repeatedly
Where is the list of canonical answers, btw
@barrycarter I think that question would be too broad, though
@Slereah I don't think there is a list. It would be good to include in the tag wiki though.
would be nice yes
@DavidZ Hmmm... but all the SR stuff ties together. As many others have noted, it's difficult to understand Lorentz contraction and time dilation without also understanding simultaneity.
14:31
> The lemma is valid in the piecewise smooth case
sobs
Is the "tag wiki" the same thing as have a tag for something (which we already do?)
Yeah, which can be solved with cross-links between appropriate questions
@barrycarter no, the tag wiki is an extra information page for each tag
Obviously the tag must exist for there to be a wiki for it, but the tag wiki is not the same as the tag
@DavidZ Well, I might try to write up a community wiki Q and A, hopefully it won't get closed.
If you mean a general question that encompasses many different aspects of SR, that's very likely to get closed
I think the interaction between contraction, dilation and simultaneity (and even light travel time) should be addressed in the same question.
Oh well, what's a few more rep points ;)
14:36
@Slereah do you understand how O'Neil wants stuff to hold in the piecewise smooth case
Do I
Where does he talk about it
294
Apparently you just need to deform it in the direction of its acceleration?
Which for a piecewise curve I guess means smoothing it
PROOF
Iunno
Look at the hood around the bending point?
14:39
cries in corner
and join two points on each side by a geodesic
I hate GR
I hate it so so much
Since you always can
The hard part is probably showing that this smoothing is causal
:(
I hate my life
you big babyman
14:43
:(
tfw a Frenchie calls you out
27 mins ago, by 0celo7
your momma is a theorem
@Slereah I think the key is that $x$ is supposed to be smooth
but I dunno how to prove it
at least, for $v>0$ it's smooth in $u$
something like that
your pappy is an axiom :P
what?
lol?
14:48
bob would beat your ass for saying that
@BernardMeurer can confirm
who is bob?
according to HE we have $\alpha(u,t)=\exp_{\gamma(t)}(uZ|_{\gamma(t)})$
so...uh...
how on Earth does one calculate $\partial_t\alpha$
$\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{\alpha(u,t + h) - \alpha(u,t)}{h}$
good luck with that.
Probably some shit like $g(\dot \gamma,\nabla \alpha)$
14:52
it's actually $$\mathrm{d}\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)$$
Ugh
HE notation
What is that in Real Notation
That is real notation, actually.
The partial there is the coordinate vector in the parameterized surface
Oh
Real Notation would be $\partial_t$
See a real diff geo book like do Carmo or Jost
No need to use \frac without cause
14:58
That works too
I think the frac makes it look fancy
Also isn't that what I said
Wait what is $d\alpha(\partial_t)$ supposed to be
Huh? I have a package waiting at home
I didn't order anything
Is $\partial_t$ the argument
Did one of you buy me O'Neil 😍
@Slereah $\mathrm{d}\alpha$ is the pushforward of the map $\alpha:D\subset\mathbb{R}^2\to M$.
And $\partial_t$ is one of the coordinate vectors in $D$.
@Slereah Note that for $\gamma:\mathbb{R}\to M$, we have $$\mathrm{d}\gamma\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)=\dot\gamma$$
So basically $g(\partial_t, \nabla \alpha)$
15:02
@Slereah No, what the fuck is that
$\partial_t$ is not a vector on $M$
and how is $\nabla\alpha$ defined
The usual way?
$\alpha$ is not a function on $M$ either!!
Then I dunno m8
What do you ask me for
15:04
Well I'm SOOOORRY
I won't talk to you about GR anymore
GOOD
What should we talk about instead
Metrology
What's that
This article is about the science of measurement. For the study of weather see Meteorology. Metrology is the science of measurement. Metrology includes all theoretical and practical aspects of measurement. Metrology is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) as "the science of measurement, embracing both experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty in any field of science and technology." The ontology and international vocabulary of metrology (VIM) is maintained by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), a group made up of eight...
15:05
The study of U bahns?
so do u know where to get a really good ruler
The science of...measurements?
@Slereah yep
I had a geo dreieck in 4th grade that was exquisite
Phew
I thought you were gonna say Trump
Ask @ACuriousMind for a translation of that word
@Slereah I don't think in puns
I have no idea what a Geodreieck is in English
15:08
Do you know what it is?
Of course, no German student goes through school without using a Geodreieck.
A set square or triangle (American English) is an object used in engineering and technical drawing, with the aim of providing a straightedge at a right angle or other particular planar angle to a baseline. The most simple form of set square is a triangular piece of transparent plastic (or formerly of polished wood) with the centre removed. More commonly the set square bears the markings of a ruler and a half circle protractor. The outer edges are typically bevelled. These set squares come in two usual forms, both right triangles: one with 90-45-45 degree angles, the other with 30-60-90 degree angles...
Apparently it is a Geodreieck in english
What do Americans use when they want to draw lines at particular angles?
Ah, Slereah found it.
a protractor
15:30
Any idea why is the sign wrong here:

From $\sum (u \overline{u} - v \overline{v}) = 1$ we have $\sum (u u^+ - v v^+) = \gamma^0$ so that

$Q = \int d^3 x \psi^+ \psi = \int d^3 x \overline{\psi} \gamma^0 \psi = \int \dfrac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \hat{\overline{\psi}}\gamma^0 \hat{\psi}= \int \dfrac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \hat{\overline{\psi}}[\sum (u u^+ - vv^+)] \hat{\psi}$

$ \ \ \ = \sum \int \dfrac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} [(\hat{\overline{\psi}}u ) (u^+ \hat{\psi} ) - ( \hat{\overline{\psi}} v ) (v^+ \hat{\psi})]$
15:54
@ACuriousMind we don't
They don't teach constructions in geometry any more in America
@ACuriousMind aaaaaaarrrrgghhhhh
that damn paper arrived also on MO
0
Q: What is going on with Quantum Mechanics derivation of Wallis' Formula?

john mangualRecently there was a proof of the Wallis Product using quantum mechanics on the arXiv. However, there are many proofs of the result, Wikipedia has 4. Fine Print the first proof has on Wikipedia, the Euler product as an input, $$\boxed{\sin \pi x = \pi x \prod_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \left(1 - \frac{...

btw, siege of dragonspear due to come out today...new BG fun
No one is safe
SHIT
CHROME AUTOFILL
15:58
@0celo7 What.
I just sent an application to a conference at my school and my "school and address" section is my home address
@ACuriousMind They don't teach compass + straightedge constructions
what is so hard to understand?
@0celo7 How you can call whatever you do in school "education" :P
@ACuriousMind I don't know
@yuggib Hmm...I would have to get the "Enhanced Edition" for that though, right?

« first day (1974 days earlier)      last day (3251 days later) »