« first day (1981 days earlier)      last day (3246 days later) » 

14:00
he probably calls me names behind my back too
The dill patrol B)
The... shrill patrol?
the shill patroll
@ACuriousMind Yes.
@ACuriousMind They're older than me.
14:02
Bye
l8r
Let's find the most casual nickname for ted
I think starring your own posts is frowned upon, @Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ :P
Dudaroosky?
@0celo7 So, what makes it not disrespectful when you do it on the internet?
@ACuriousMind On the internet, on stack exchange, there is no age difference
@dmckee would you find it disrespectful if I called you dude here
14:05
People don't become different people when they go on the internet. Sure, you can pretend to be someone else, but I'm still a 23 year old physics student, you're still a 18-year old engineer-mathematician hybrid and Ted Shifrin is still a professor emeritus.
@ACuriousMind How do you know I am who I say I am
I could be lying
I could be Witten
@0celo7 How do you know anyone is who they say they are?
@ACuriousMind On the internet?
I think dmckee is legit
And Daniel Sank
I meant in general, but it was more kind of a joke
@ACuriousMind It doesn't make sense in general
I mean maybe Dr. Freire is an imposter, but he's an imposter who's really good at geometry so I don't mind :)
14:07
Getting mad for someone being too casual at you on the internet despite your IRL lofty status doesn't strike me as a very good reason
If you only want people to address you with your title then stick to your own university where that status actually means something
@Slereah Oh, sure, it's petty like all politeness issues are, but what I don't get is why one would make a difference between the internet and real life.
Also he pulled a "you know why I'm mad at you" when I didn't know why he was mad
Those are the worst
My mom seems to think I know why she's upset 100% of the time
He sounds like an old fuddy duddy to me
I know only after she tells me
Did he pontificate about kids these days
How much did he harumph
14:11
:O what happened to skull?
:P
Encouraging signs :P
I wonder if @skillpatrol actually blocked me
How do I tell
@ACuriousMind If I had met him in real life I probably would not say dude on the internet
And it's not like I called him dude every day for a month
I said it one time and he got mad
Give him some time. Maybe he got down on the wrong side of the bed on that day.
Haven't talked to him in months
Might be a one off incident.
14:18
Don't care to talk to him ever again
That's where you go wrong. Extreme reactions.
Unnecessary.
Extreme reactions?
3 mins ago, by The Dark Side
Give him some time. Maybe he got down on the wrong side of the bed on that day.
By "don't care to" means "I won't seek out conversation"
I say declare a vendetta on him
14:22
lol
next person who says his name goes on my ignore list
He's on the black list
hahaha ...
I wonder what happens if I block everyone
The only time when you need to give over the top reactions, is when there is biggg and genuine problem.
e.g. when 63% of the optics questions posted in the last week go unanswered. :P
huh
now I'm a crazy person talking to myself
14:26
You see, bigg problems.
@0celo7 lolwut, did you go ahead and really block-spree.
Ahh. He blocked me. (For whatever reasons.)
YAY...
Because
You're saying I have big problems
@0celo7 Nope.
I didn't say you are having big problems.
2 mins ago, by The Dark Side
You see, bigg problems.
14:29
Read around it.
3 mins ago, by The Dark Side
e.g. when 63% of the optics questions posted in the last week go unanswered. :P
3 mins ago, by The Dark Side
You see, bigg problems.
You posted in between those.
@Slereah What is the longest proof on metamath?
Hard to say
I mean 2+2=4 is about 22000 steps
What's the most complicated thing they prove?
Is there any Riemannian geometry there?
|- A e. CH & |- B e. CH & |- C e. CH & |- F = ((_|_` A) vH (A i^i B)) & |- G = ((_|_`
B) vH (B i^i C)) & |- H = ((_|_` C) vH (C i^i A)) & |- D = ((_|_`
B) vH (B i^i A)) => |- ((F i^i G) i^i H) (_ D
Chrome won't even let me copy it properly
14:40
there's a "unicode" button
WHAT
where
⊢ ((((𝐴 ∨ℋ 𝐵) ∩ (⊥ ‘𝐴)) = 0ℋ ∧ ((𝐴 ∨ℋ 𝐵) ∩ (⊥ ‘𝐵)) = 0ℋ) ↔ (((𝐴 ∨ℋ 𝐵) ∩ (⊥ ‘𝐴)) ∨ℋ ((𝐴 ∨ℋ 𝐵) ∩ (⊥ ‘𝐵))) = 0ℋ)
Wow
How do I learn what this means?
There's a definition list
All the definition and axioms
I can't read any of that
Click on the links for details
The shittiest notation they use btw is 𝐹 ‘𝐴
It stands for 𝐹(𝐴)
What is a wwf
@Slereah no the worst notation is in SW
14:51
Well formed formula
$fx$ for $f(x)$
It means that it is correct in the syntax that Metamath uses
@Slereah in the future there might exist a video of two girls combing my chest hair
jus know
What, both grannies?
no
one is dead you ****
14:58
@0celo7 I'm easy about modes of address in so far as they occur in a pleasant or respectful context. In other contexts I might take it as part of a pattern of disdain.
@Slereah Only if you weren't into the whole brevity thing, I hope.
Oh you
vzn
vzn
@Secret interesting ideas, plz drop by this room occasionally if youre interested in QM/ physics interpretations, have some others interested in topic... it can take a very long time to devise/ formulate/ build genuinely new povs, but the effort is very much worth it... (re your profile etc)

 theory salon

theoretical computer science. highlight reel vzn1.wordpress.co...
@dmckee dude
That's cool
Hi @AlexClark
@skillpatrol welcome back
user147690
15:10
Hello @skillpatrol.
what brings you to these parts?
@skillpatrol pleasant discussion
Evidence
user147690
@skillpatrol Conversational data collection.
Those sorts of things
accurate data is important
have fun :-)
hi @BernardMeurer
15:20
Hello @skillpatrol
how are you doing?
Hm
Trying to prove $[a_p,a^\dagger_k] = (2\pi)^3 \delta(p-k)$
But I end up on $\int d^3y \ e^{i(p-k)y} (\omega_p + \omega_k)$
@skillpatrol Sick as hell, trying to figure out college stuff. You?
Does that seem correct to you
@Slereah In analysis class
Can't help you.
15:22
@Slereah ? which damn definition of $a^{\#}(k)$ do you have?
@BernardMeurer too much worrying will weaken your immune system
i'm ok
$a_k^\dagger \propto \int d^3x\ e^{-ikx} [\omega_k \varphi(x) - i \pi(x)]$
@Slereah does not sound right
@BernardMeurer have a nice cup of coffee and try to relax :)
15:26
Rekt by the Yugoslavian!
From casual inspection seems about right?
@Slereah why not check THE BOOK
cuz I'm at work m80
Bring Weinberg to work then?
@skillpatrol trying to get scholarships, no time to relax sadly
as soon as I figure this out I'll have the nap of an age
15:29
usually $\varphi(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}\int \frac{dk}{(2\sqrt{k^2+\mu^2})^{1/2}}(a^{*}(k)e^{-ik\cdot x}+a(k)e^{ik\cdot x})$
Well that is what I use, yes
But I am using the inverted formula for $a^\dagger$
see the correction above ^
usually you have $\sqrt{\omega(k)}$ in the denominator
@BernardMeurer sleep is good
But I don't need the formula for $\varphi$
therefore the inverted formula is different
15:31
Well there are factors I didn't write
There's $\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3 \sqrt{\omega_p \omega_k}}$ in front
no, it is different wrt the power of $\omega(k)$
and it is a derivative in Fourier transform...
$\hat{\omega}(x)=\sqrt{-\Delta_x +\mu^2}$
@skillpatrol Have interviews today and tomorrow, gotta get ready
but the last part is just pedantic
@BernardMeurer good luck :)
Thanks man :)
15:39
@yuggib how would you define "pedantic"?
@0celo7 where can I learn about the differential forms form of maxwell's equations?
i'm looking for a book.
@skillpatrol saying that the Fourier transform of a mutiplicative function is a pseudodifferential operator in this context is somewhat pedantic
@yuggib i meant in general :)
@skillpatrol check a dictionary?
@3075 Ward and Wells
15:47
@0celo7 ...
What
as if I could read that book.
It's a tough read, I'll be taking a crack at this summer.
looking for a beginner description.
please.
Zee
15:48
wait would every GR book have it?
@skillpatrol a good definition may be "pedantic is someone behaving like a mathematician talking to a physicist in a chat"
It's in Wald
He explains it in an exercise to chapter 4
YES I have Wald memorized. Deal with it
@3075 Misner thorne and Wheeler?
@yuggib shitty book naming time?
15:50
xD
@0celo7 it surely is beginner level
at least it does not pretending to be mathematical when it isn't...
@0celo7 gourgoulhon has it.
@yuggib very practical definition, thank you :)
@yuggib MTW is not generally considered to be an intro text
Your math abilities have clouded your mind
@0celo7 it was in my university...
15:52
And my QM prof did PDEs and shit in high school
We know things are different outside of North America
@0celo7 you're taking qm now?
Future QM prof
...
I remember you saying you won't be taking any quantum courses in university.
When did I say that
I said I won't take QFT
yeah you're right.
I said that to gauge your memory.
it's O.K.
15:55
I might end up taking QFT so I can get some physicist group theory
It's useful for solid state physics
you're going into condensed matter now?
Sure
@yuggib Is HE intro GR at your school
16:18
@0celo7 don't know...no one ever mentioned it
@yuggib how did you learn about spacetime topology
@0celo7 don't know, never cared too much about GR
even when I was a student :-P
@yuggib But the EFEs are PDEs
You love PDEs
vzn
vzn
16:36
@ValentinTihomirov more discussion in this room
@0celo7 I like those yes
but at an acceptable level of rigor they become a mess
an interesting mess nonetheless
16:50
Hey hey
I need to buff up on my Fourier transform
Kinda lost the habit of doing them casually
@Slereah Get the book Fourier Analysis
Nah
I don't need a fancy book
Just need to be able to do transforms of the scalar field to and fro without troubles
when are you @ChrisWhite coming to live on the best coast?
@Slereah huh?
What's so hard about it
Not terribly hard, just
Doing it naturally
It's easy for sign error to sneak in
17:02
Dammit I left Jost in the office
user54412
oh hey, this room is being streamed
Fancy Princeton professors, hire me
I'm looking for a PhD
@ChrisWhite Are you in there?
@Slereah you can't even do a Fourier transform
You can't even do a basic differential equation
17:05
My future QM prof did that in high school
@Slereah Proof?
user54412
@skillpatrol not yet ;)
Apr 2 at 18:05, by 0celo7
$X''+\lambda X=0$ with $X(0)=X'(L)=0$
Apr 2 at 18:06, by 0celo7
It's too hard :(
user54412
@BernardMeurer not on camera
@ChrisWhite Get your arm in front of the camera
Write my name on your hand
and block everything
Lol
Punch the speaker and tell them your God commanded it and it's discrimination to punish you
17:08
Is there any famous GR guy in Princeton
Not really
I don't think there is much research done at Princeton
It's New Jersey
What do they even have there besides Italians
They have Chris Christie
@JohnRennie I think I've got it worked out.
Hi Barry
17:24
Oh great, I was writing an answer to a question that's now been deleted
@BernardMeurer Dude my inner voice is now DJ Kahled
@0celo7 You know how passionate I am about McDonalds
Whenever I see the sun I think Lioooooon
🦁🦁🦁
They don't want me to go to McDonalds
So Imma go to McDonalds
I do the lion thing too sometimes
@JohnRennie OK, I'm still off by 2 years. Can you help? I can link you to my argument or explain it here, whichever you prefer.
17:36
Give me a link so I can glance through what you've done
@JohnRennie OK, first i.imgur.com/PT0boqM.gif?1 (modified the image slightly)
That's not a spacetime diagram ...
@JohnRennie No, it's just a diagram diagram.
I'm trying to explain simultaneity as mere bookkeepping
@JohnRennie Ack, sorry, old version on github, just now updated.
I've reset my t=0 to 2000
Ignore everything below line 97, that's where I'm stuck, hopefully an arithmetic error
Let the component of the Hamiltonian that represent the measurement device for an entangled two level system (e.g. Photon polarisation) be H_m and let the set $S=\{++,+-,-+,++\}$. Then $$ H_m=\sum_{\lambda \in S}a_{\lambda++}\lvert\lambda\rangle\langle++\rvert+a_{\lambda+-}\lvert\lambda\rangle\langle+-\rvert+a_{\lambda-+}\lvert\lambda\rangle\langle-+\rvert+a_{\lambda--}\lvert\lambda \rangle \langle--\rvert$$

Now consider an entangled state $\lvert\Psi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert++\rangle+\lvert--\rangle)$. When the measurement is made, the state evolved as follows $$H_m\lvert\Psi\ran
@Secret: Let's make a rule: Don't try to write down anything about "measurement devices" until you've confidently understood QM where the "measurement" is just "when you do a measurement, an eigenstate comes out where the probability is given by the Born rule".
17:44
@barrycarter: we are agreed that when the AMT (black) passes the NMT (red) the AMT regards the distance to Earth as 6 light years, and the time on the Earth's clock will be +8 light years. Yes?
@JohnRennie Yes, and I believe those numbers are correct.
@JohnRennie The general case will be v*x or 0.8 * 10 light years here
In the AMT's frame it takes Earth 6/0.8 = 7.5 years to cross those six light years. Yes?
Elapsed time on Earth = 7.5/gamma = 4.5 years
OH!
Damn, you're right. LESS time passes on Earth.
@JohnRennie Thank you! Fixing it up now
17:47
@barrycarter the sound of a pure mathematician adding 8 and 4.5 :-)
Simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction: I can get any 2 of those right at the same time.
:-) Pick any two.
@JohnRennie The question I was going to answer was deleted, but, if I did post this answer, would it be closed for being a "worked out problem"?
Do you have a link to the question? I will be able to see it even though it's deleted.
Checking my history
17:50
I understand the measurement give an eigenstate, but I don't understand how it happens in the maths. I have read a bit on how the measurement is a result of decoherance, but I still struggle on getting the maths right to see how it is done
@WillO made a crude comment, which was totally unexpected ;)
I wouldn't bother because it seems to me a non-question. The whole Andromeda paradox thing is just proof that relativity is unintuitive. There is no paradox, it's just failure of simulaneity. While I would have been politer than WillO I too regard it as a pointless waste of the site's electrons.
@Secret In the usual things you do in quantum mechanics, it doesn't happen in the math. That's the "measurement problem" - the act of measurement itself is exempt from the usual laws in quantum mechanics when you just do collapse+Born rule
@Secret read this
@JohnRennie But it would be nice to show a mathematical demonstration of why it's a bunch of hooey.
17:54
or von neumann's book
@JohnRennie But you're saying it would be closed here?
@barrycarter I would vote to close, yes.
Wow. OK.
The thing is ... this is, and I quote from the tour, a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy
That doesn't mean I won't answer questions from people not in any of the above catgories,
but they have to play by our rules.
"student" is very broad.
However, I'll just post it to space.stackexchange.com :)
17:57
If you want to ask about special relativity my answer will (usually) be use the Lorentz transforms. If your question is vaguely worded intuitive arguments then it isn't physics.
Could even do astronomy.stackexchange.com
let $A$ be the set defined as $\{a,b,c\}$ and the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $A$ be defined as $a\sim b, b\sim a, a \sim a, b \sim b, c\sim c$. The set of all equivalence classes of $A$ is $\{\{a,b\},\{a,b\},\{c\}\}$ (right?)
@JohnRennie Right, but simultaneity seems like such a big deal until you realize it's just bookkeeppiing
@Slereah I found a $100 Amazon card
What should I buy
@0celo7 Shankar for me
17:58
You were presumably going to show the OP how to use the Lorentz transforms to answer the question, but that's wasted effort as the OP won't believe you.
@Obliv Except you don't need {a,b} twice
@0celo7 : MTW?
@JohnRennie Oh, I thought the way I introduced simultaneity in conjunction with time dilation and length contraction was useful.
@barrycarter so the union of all equivalence classes will still be $A$ right? If that's the case, I can understand why it becomes a partition of $A$.
Why would I want MTW, it's garbage
17:59
Actually I'm being unkind to Chris Degnen as to be fair he was asking if you couldn't just do the calculation
It's a Book to Have
maybe
Buy Duffield's book
@Obliv That is correct.
@Slereah Incoming!!!
I should probably save it for Rebecca's birthday
@0celo7 Get me Shankar

« first day (1981 days earlier)      last day (3246 days later) »