« first day (2262 days earlier)      last day (2667 days later) » 

10:00 PM
@heather Yes
 
okay, thanks @ACuriousMind
 
obe
@SirCumference it won't look good because it's cut off
since it's too big
any other nebula?
 
@obe Carina nebula?
 
obe
still too big
how about crab nebula?
I mean I could work with carina but it would require a lot of effort to fit it in.
 
Ehh, how about the omega nebula?
 
10:06 PM
@heather If you have questions, feel free to ask. If you think you've digested the explanation of tensors there, I might want to talk to you about covectors, which are also often introduced in this context, but aren't mentioned as such in the answer.
 
@ACuriousMind i'm currently still digesting =)
but thank you, i will keep that in mind.
 
evening fellas
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform, hello =)
 
-2
Q: If I have two branches why current must be split into both ? what math rule allow this?

Peter LongWhy a branch can not say "I do not take your current!" I need to know what math functions that allow this. I know it is a physical phenomenon, however, the fact that there is, does not give me the answer I seek. I would also like to know how the oscillator circuit works to make sync, thanks to t...

surprisingly smooth transition from electric circuits to quantum mechanics to differential operators o.O
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform I had to read it twice to make sure I hadn't missed some completely logical step inbetween
 
10:11 PM
user image
2
can I use this image on the main site?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform You can, but I will delete it as not constructive :P
 
@ACuriousMind btw someone thought you were me today
 
obe
@SirCumference want any text?
 
@obe Nah, I'm good with just a pic
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform lol
I didn't even interact with that user on that question, but apparently I left quite an impression :D
 
10:17 PM
darling, you always do
 
::blushes::
 
obe
hey
@SirCumference I have neptune, jupiter and andromeda so far
I can fit like 2 more
 
Might I see a screenshot before?
 
obe
10:34 PM
sure
5 mins
 
Hi ! how's everyone doing ??
I'm actually not a physicist nor a student, I'm just really curious
Lately I've wondered why does the sun bleach or fade colors, and so I looked for it
And I found out that photons are actually the responsible for all kinds of radiation
is that true ?
 
@obe By the way, want to see a magic trick?
 
kind of
alpha and beta radiation is not composed of photons
but ordinary radiation is made out of photons, yes
 
Ok then
@AccidentalFourierTransform Want to see a magic trick?
 
10:38 PM
Woah
ok
@AccidentalFourierTransform Pick any number. It can be real, complex, a cardinal, ordinal, integer, decimal, infinity, etc.
Just any number whatsoever
 
In the computer science subfield of algorithmic information theory, a Chaitin constant (Chaitin omega number) or halting probability is a real number that informally represents the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt. These numbers are formed from a construction due to Gregory Chaitin. Although there are infinitely many halting probabilities, it is common to use the letter Ω to refer to them as if there were only one. Because Ω depends on the program encoding used, it is sometimes called Chaitin's construction instead of Chaitin's constant when not referring to any specific...
 
Ok, now step 1) Ok, now count the number of letters in that number. Basically the number of letters when saying that number out in english
 
10:40 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform every wave is a form of radiation ?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform That's eerie, I was just reading that article yesterday :D
 
@ACuriousMind I actually picked an inaccessible cardinal at first
In set theory, an uncountable cardinal is inaccessible if it cannot be obtained from smaller cardinals by the usual operations of cardinal arithmetic. More precisely, a cardinal κ is strongly inaccessible if it is uncountable, it is not a sum of fewer than κ cardinals that are less than κ, and α < κ {\displaystyle \alpha <\kappa } implies 2 α < κ {\displaystyle 2^{\alpha }<\kappa } . The term "inaccessible cardinal" is ambiguous...
 
Like radio, tv, 3g, wifi ?
 
obe
@SirCumference this is only 50% done: link. I need to work on making the edges of the pie more realistic with some special brushes and also adding more things and making the inside of the pie stand out more.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Step 2) Consider that your new number.
 
obe
10:41 PM
also it's blue for now but I can change it to pie colour later.
 
Step 3) Repeat step 1 on that new number, and take that as your new number
Keep doing step 3, and you will always find yourself at 4, with an infinite loop since "four" has only four letters
 
@ACuriousMind I mean, what are the odds O_o
 
This will happen with any number, no matter what you pick
 
obe
@Maks yea those are electromagnetic waves which are a form of radiation.
 
10:42 PM
@SirCumference Can you prove that?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform and is it true that everything that exists behaves as a wave and a particle at the same time ??
 
obe
@ACuriousMind are you 0celo7?
 
@ACuriousMind I saw a proof on reddit. It showed that -15 and 4 are the only numbers that have as many letters as their value
 
I.e. that four is truly the only fixed point and that there are no longer repeating cycles?
 
10:43 PM
Well, -15 has 15 letters
 
That's why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true?
 
obe
@SirCumference did you see it?
I'm gonna delete it in a few seconds
 
But since you can't have a negative amount of letters (only natural numbers), only 4 works
 
@Maks we actually discussed that yesterday
 
oh
I'm late
the problem is I actually dont understand much of the complex physics
 
10:44 PM
@ACuriousMind I'll try and find the proof, but it was pretty solid
 
only the basics and the stuff that I learn from being curious
 
@obe Note that I did not write "Proof?" but wrote a full sentence ;P
 
obe
@ACuriousMind lol
 
@ACuriousMind Found it, you can read protocol's answer here
 
2 days ago, by AccidentalFourierTransform
nobody believes in the WP duality anymore today
@Maks read that discussion ^
 
obe
10:46 PM
@SirCumference alright I deleted the link, going to work on it some more.
 
@obe looking forward to it
 
obe
did you see it?
 
@SirCumference Okay, that's only one part of what you have to show
 
nice job so far
 
obe
10:46 PM
thoughts?
 
@ACuriousMind huh?
 
@SirCumference That four is the only fixed point does not imply that the algorithm always reaches it.
 
@ACuriousMind You read it entirely that quickly?
 
oh no
I have an assignment on inflation
and Im asked to use QFT concepts incorrectly
fkng nightmare
 
@SirCumference Well, yes (although "skimming" is probably more appropriate).
 
10:50 PM
@ACuriousMind tbh I didn't care enough to read it :P
I kind of jsut trusted it
 
Okay, so what it shows is that four is the only number whose length is itself. But this does not show that you always reach four regardless of the starting point; it is conceivable that there are longer repeating cycles you could get stuck in.
 
@SirCumference congratulations, youre now a physicist
2
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform lol
One half of me is laughing, the other sobbing
4
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform XD
I knew people would cringe :/
 
too many stars today
there are no more messages about testicles in the starboard :-(
2
 
10:53 PM
@ACuriousMind Er, sorry, I don't follow. If four is the only number whose length is itself, won't it be the only one that loops?
 
@SirCumference No, how do you know that there isn't e.g. a number X whose length is Y, the length of Y is Z, and the length of Z is X?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Ahm, In the cosmos series, I saw that light is generated when the electron of an atom "jumps" from one lever of energy to another, actually when it goes to a lower lever of energy, and the energy is released in the form on light, and the amount of energy determines the color, did I get that right ?
 
@ACuriousMind Oh, huh...
 
(I'm completely willing to believe there aren't such cycles, but the proof doesn't show that)
 
10:56 PM
@ACuriousMind Well I guess I'll ask on r/math
 
@Maks yep ^.^
 
Not sure if it's a good question for Math SE
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform do we actually know why electrons dissapear and appear out of nowhere ?
disappear*
 
@Maks oh but they dont!
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform oh, care to elaborate ?
 
10:57 PM
why do you think they do?
 
11:07 PM
so...?
 
Sorry
I got a call
Emm actually the idea I got from every video I saw and every text I read was that they disappeared and appeared
 
no problem lol
 
Can you convert energy to matter ? If so, they can come from the energy
 
@Maks Can you link any video or text where you read that ?
 
yep, but electric charge is conserved
 
11:17 PM
I know you can convert matter to energy, that's what Einsteins formula is about
 
an electron cannot disappear because that would violate the law of conservation of charge
 
@anonymous In the cosmos series, Neil deGrasse Tyson says so
@AccidentalFourierTransform which says ?
The lay of conservation of energy ?
 
the law of conservation of energy could allow an electron to disappear
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform One could argue that an equivalent positive charge is generated to prevent any violation. But I find this a strange statement "electrons can appear and disappear".
 
but the law of conservation of charge forbids that
 
11:19 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform Conservation of lepton number too?
 
Wait wait, before we talk about charges, I always had trouble understanding its simplicity
 
@SirCumference yep
 
Positive repels positive
 
@Maks Exactly which video ? Can you give a link please? Is it available online?
 
but attracts negative?
That's it ?
 
11:20 PM
essentially, yes
 
I read something about that the law of conservation of energy wasnt denied because of the neutrino
 
an electron has negative charge
 
Like, a scientist foretold the existence of a particle like the neutrinos
 
the neutrino is, well, neutral
it has no charge
Yes, Pauli
but neutrinos is a whole nother story
 
-11
Q: Is the tenth dimension a proof for god?

StringTheoreticanSo I was watching this cool video on the 10 dimensions as in string theory where the bc ghosts force us to accept that there are 10 dimensions in order to regulate the theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ca4miMMaCE So, here it is stated that the tenth dimension somehow "includes" every pos...

 
11:22 PM
@anonymous I'll look for another video
 
@Maks Ok I saw what you are talking about. But it is a wrong notion that electrons appear and disappear in orbitals /energy levels. See this answer physics.stackexchange.com/a/134684/102705
It seems Neil Tyson just exaggerated the uncertainty which people associate with Quantum Mechanics.
 
Ok... I understood that they dont "teleport"
But I didnt understand what they actually did
I think I need a more advanced level of physics knowledge to comprehend it right ?
Also, while we are at it, is this true ? youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
 
not really
you just have to accept that the classical notion of "trajectory" is not well suited to atomic physics
particles in general dont have a well defined trajectory
you shouldnt imagine electrons as spheres moving from here to there
 
@Maks At what level are you studying? It depends. A basic quantum mech course might get you started.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform http://science.jrank.org/article_images/ep201102/science/science982.jpg
this is how I image them
@anonymous I dont study physics, I'm currently doing a degree on computer science
 
11:30 PM
@Maks That image is WRONG.
 
But I've always been really curious of why everything works the way it works
 
@Maks well, thats not a particularly accurate picture
 
I know, I told you that's how I imagine it
 
@Maks bad news: physics has nothing to say about that
 
I know they are suppose to be clouds ? Or something like that
Cause you cant know the exact location of an electron all the time..
 
11:31 PM
physics has nothing to do with understanding "why everything works the way it works"
 
Is it true ? Or I'm showing how dumb I am
?
 
@Maks yes, a cloud is a better picture
 
@Maks Yes, that's better :) Their trajectory can be obtained from some equations and constraints
 
Soo.. how does an electron "jump" from one lever to another ?
Also I have two more doubts haha, that "superposition of states" is kindda strange for me, and I still can't figure out why cant you "measure all the properties of something at the same time"
 
11:34 PM
@AccidentalFourierTransform yeah, each cloud is the area in which an electron could possible be
 
@Maks Electrons don't jump in the way you are thinking
Did you read the answer I linked?
 
@anonymous yes, but I couldnt really understand it
:(
 
@Maks To clarify your doubts we need to to teach you a six-month long course on QM :)
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform lol
@anonymous oh shit
haha
isnt there a tl;dr version ?
 
11:37 PM
CR Drost will make you jump, jump!
 
Better if you start learning from some QM books for beginners
There are many good books
 
@CRDrost hi by the way :-)
 
Could you recommend any ?
 
@Maks the Feynman lecures are pretty good
the third volume is about quantum mechanics
 
@Maks There is no royal road to learn QM :).
Yeah, Feynman is good
 
11:39 PM
Can I read it if I only have a small knowledge of physics ?
 
and you can find them online
for free
 
Like, would it explain basic concepts like momentum and stuff?
 
@Maks yes well, you can try
youve got nothing to lose
@Maks if you'd like to have a more complete picture, you can read the first volume too
the first volume is about classical mechanics
 
Feynman then, I'll take a look at it
I'll come back in a month with many more doubts haha
 
11:42 PM
@Maks sure :-)
 
For the beginners
The dummies series is nice
But for the qm book you need to know some math and classical physics also
 
@obe Ya done?
@Maks Here's something that might help
 

« first day (2262 days earlier)      last day (2667 days later) »