« first day (2304 days earlier)      last day (2632 days later) » 

Jim
2:00 PM
@ACuriousMind I know there exists a particle with an exact momentum of 6 but I have no idea where in the universe it might be
 
The way the duality works is a bit reminiscent of what little I know about T-duality
The space fibers over $S^6$ and $G_2/SO(4)$ with fibers $\Bbb CP^2$ and $\Bbb CP^1$, respectively
The ACS's are all related by flipping the complex structure on the fibers
 
@Danu Now that's interesting :)
 
Jim
Obligatory xkcd:
user image
2
 
@Danu ACS?
 
Almost complex structure
 
2:01 PM
Ah, almost complex structure :P
 
Almost complex structure
 
lmao
 
gj everyone :P
 
What is an almost complex structure
 
Jim
almost? so it's simple
 
2:02 PM
Do you use $0.95 i$ instead of $i$
 
@Slereah the tensor version of i
 
@Slereah Endomorphism of the tangent bundle that squares to -1
 
$5\%$ not $i$ enough
 
@Slereah It wants to be a complex structure when it grows up
 
So basically something which you can identify with multiplication by $i$ in a chart, but not consistently so when taking into account transition functions
 
2:03 PM
@ACuriousMind that's sad
 
@ACuriousMind Considering transitions between stationary states, is it always the case that if electromagnetic radiation that produces an oscillating electric field has angular frequency which lies close to or at the atomic resonance frequency that the electric field puts the atom into a superposition of different states and induces an oscillating electric dipole moment? Does this always happen before an electron moves to a different state?
 
@Danu I would not be surprised if that duality is a sort of T-duality
And probably for the case where the structures are Kähler it should show up in ST compactification
 
But they're not all integrable
 
Is the dual of an integrable structure integrable?
 
no
 
2:05 PM
Hm, maybe not so stringy, then
 
@ACuriousMind dual?
 
The nicest structure is the (unique) complex structure on a quadric in $\Bbb CP^6$
 
@0celo7 He said he found a web of dualities :P
 
So that's very nice: Projective, Kaehler, Einstein, etc.
But it dualizes to a nearly Kaehler (yes, that's precise terminology) manifold
 
@ACuriousMind he didn't really explain what they are
 
2:07 PM
@JohnDoe I think so, yes
@0celo7 So? Still he said it's a duality between ACSs.
 
I'm asking what that is
I'm not a complex guy
 
It's an involution on the space of ACS's :P
 
...
 
@Danu Don't get me started on terminology. A barely $G_2$ manifold is not the same as a nearly $G_2$ manifold.
 
Yeah
I have...
Almost
 
2:08 PM
@Danu Are the fixed points interesting?
 
Nearly
 
@Danu a different that carries one ACS into another?
*diffeo
 
@ACuriousMind I'm actually working with "homogeneous" almost complex structures (somehow compatible with the homogeneous space structure) and it's a result by Hirzebruch and Borel that you can count them nicely with Lie representation theory---in this case there are only 4 of them up to conjugation. It turns out there are no fixed points under the dualities I have
 
Homogeneous space structure?
 
@0celo7 Structure as a homogeneous space
 
2:10 PM
@ACuriousMind Okay thanks. So the states don't jump from one energy eigenstate to the other due to transition from em radiation? Someone downvoted this answer to my question with no comment.
 
@Danu to me that means the isometric group is transitive
What structure does that give?
 
In that diagram, @ACuriousMind, the $N$ is the nearly Kaehler structures
@0celo7 What do you want me to tell you? :P
It's a quotient of a Lie group
It's $G_2/U(2)$
(one of those---there are 2. I also have a similar result for the other one)
 
@JohnDoe The answer is likely getting downvoted because the claim that one can use Maxwell's equations to calculate these quantum mechanical transitions is wrong.
And the time scale of the absorption is often so short that you can for practical purposes treat it as a "jump", anyway
 
@ACuriousMind The way he describes it is as if it never jumps to another energy eigenstate but rather is left in a permanent superposition after exposure to em radiation.
 
@JohnDoe That user has explicitly stated that they reject the consensus view on how quantum mechanics works, so take care when evaluating their contributions.
Also, @JohnDoe, I would strongly urge you to ask your second paragraph as a separate question.
 
2:20 PM
@ACuriousMind @EmilioPisanty Is it true that "if you increase the potential, the wave function decays faster at infinity"
Say the ground state
 
@0celo7 what do you mean by "increase the potential"?
 
@ACuriousMind I somehow ended up checking out some of the websites Marty Green has created---quite the story.
 
@EmilioPisanty It's just confirming a definition so I included it.
 
the faster the potential grows, the faster $\psi$ decays (typically)
 
@EmilioPisanty write aV in the schroedinger equation and increase a
 
2:21 PM
@Danu ...that's a 11-dimensional space, right?
 
Assuming V is positive
 
@ACuriousMind No, 10.
14-4
 
Ah, yes
 
SU(2) has dimension 3; you may have confused it with U(2)
 
@Danu That's exactly what happened
 
2:24 PM
Lol, imagine it would've had dimension 11 and I had been working on meaningless statements for the past months ^^
 
SU and U don't have the same dimension??
 
Not used to seeing $\mathrm{U}(n)$ for $n > 1$ :P
 
lol
 
@ACuriousMind So if the frequency of the em radiation is equal to the resonant frequency then electron goes from lower energy eigenstate to superposition of eigenstates to higher energy eigenstate?..Also, you say it happens at a short time interval, so only in this short interval does the atom behave like a electric dipole?
 
@0celo7 No, consider $\mathrm{SU}(1)$.
 
2:24 PM
@0celo7 Oh come on
 
@Danu this is news to me
@ACuriousMind huh
 
And you say you study Riemannian geometry?
 
I never said I was smart
 
Do you remember how to calculate the dimension of a submanifold?
 
No
 
2:25 PM
Especially if it's defined globally by some equation?
 
What is a submanifold
 
Okay, I'll stop engaging.
 
Good
 
@Danu You saying geometry in 11 dimensions is meaningless? ;O
 
@ACuriousMind (almost) complex or bust
 
2:28 PM
In my defense, O and SO have the same dimension
And I've never seen U(n>1)
 
@Danu and I thought we were friends!
 
@0celo7 This ties into a deeper correspondence between $\Bbb Z_2$ (real) and $S^1$ (complex)
Which shows up and useful all the time in the theory of vector bundles
@ACuriousMind Not enough structure in odd dimension :P
 
Tell me about it :/ Everything one can say about $G_2$ manifolds seems to require to somehow reduce the question to a question about CYs
(slight hyperbole, but only slight)
 
CY's on the other hand... :D
Excellent
 
A related question, but I guess I should start with this subquestion first: Is calculating the von neumann entropy of a quantum system that has a continuous spectrum useful?
 
2:45 PM
@Jim Maybe I have not expressed it good, but you are trying to avoid my point here. All I’m trying to say is that creativity is NOT the same thing as knowledge; and also accumulating knowledge, while necessary to one’s ability to innovate (you have to know the problem first!), can damage his creativity;
because human brain likes to follow the same lines of thoughts, apply the same reasoning, methods and tools again and again in every situation! This is why original ideas are very rare.
Learning the existing knowledge inevitably limits your imagination to a much smaller legitimate area. In science, when encountering new phenomena, we always try our best to describe them in the existing theoretical frameworks. But there’s no reason that the current physics/math is the best possible for describing the physical world.
@Jim “Standing on the shoulders of giants” seems to be our best (only?) way to expand our knowledge, but this is because we’re fundamentally limited. No one has ever been able to develop his own math and physics from scratch to describe the physical world in his own way without seeking help from others. But there’s absolutely no law that forbids this!
 
I think that the idea that "the naive student is the greatest innovator" is completely wrong (that seems to be what you're driving at).
 
There are way too many ways to combine A and B and get nothing useful. One cannot completely dispose of the need to learn the basics or the background

Take quantum mechanics as an example, not familar with the formalism and the physics that entails by it and one will start producing qantum mystism (or at best, misconceptions) very quickly
 
@Danu The determinant on U(n) should be a surjection onto the circle. So you subtract a dimension when going to SU.
 
The existing knowledge serves as a guide on which ideas A and B may be potentially meaningful when combined
 
It's a complex matrix thing, which is why I didn't see it
 
2:52 PM
@Danu I'm not saying that, but rather "accumulating the exsiting knowledge can destroy your creativity (and does in most of the real-world situations)"
 
I think that your parenthesized claim is wrong.
 
That probably depends to a large extent on the way someone's learned something.
(hence the importance of better education methods)
Getting used to soemthing makes you less likely to think of the other ways. I don't think anyone denies that!
 
@Danu is there some deep reason why even dimensions give more structure
 
Maybe they do not
We just study even dimensions more
 
@0celo7 I don't know---don't you think the existence of almost complex structures is enough?
In odd dimensions you have contact structures...
 
3:06 PM
@Danu well, I know almost nothing about them ;)
So it's hard for me to say
 
Also symplectic forms of course
 
Jim
@Mostafa You've now said (and pardon my paraphrasing) that the accumulation of knowledge in a subject is both "necessary to one's ability to innovate" AND a "limit" on one's ability to innovate. While I agree that people can stubbornly refuse to change from what they are used to to anything new, the mere fact that, as you say, it's a necessity for innovation makes it less of a hindrance than any option that does not include it.
@Mostafa As for the new complete statement you made of "accumulating knowledge, while necessary to one’s ability to innovate (you have to know the problem first!), can damage his creativity", all I have to say is that it becomes a trivial statement. Creativity is useless towards innovation if one lacks a necessary component like knowledge, so there's no real alternative to judge this against.
@Mostafa This is a different claim from your previous "knowing causes an inability to innovate", since your new statement implies that knowing enables innovation. The triviality of the new statement makes me have to use the following (I apologize in advance if it offends; it's the specific wording of a quote from a favourite professor of mine used to illustrate that something has changed so much in an attempt to be correct that it defeats itself):
"You're right, but you're an idiot"
 
@0celo7 typically, yes
but keep in mind that increasing $a$ can change e.g. the number of bound states
so you need to be careful with what you mean there
 
increasing $a$ is a change of scale, so the behaviour of $\psi$ is just rescaled (e.g., an exponential decay with different length scale)
changing $a$ doesnt really modify the decay, it is just a rescaling
 
@EmilioPisanty Ground state, assume its nondefermate
 
3:17 PM
but if you have $V(x)\sim x^n$, then changing $n$ does alter the decay
 
Sigh. Nondegenerate.
@AccidentalFourierTransform proof?
 
increasing $n$ makes $\psi$ to decay faster
 
I'm looking for a rigorous result/proof
 
@0celo7 then yes, at least in an intuitive sense
 
@EmilioPisanty My prof already confirmed the intuitive result. I was hoping for something more substantial.
 
3:19 PM
@0celo7 Keep in mind that increasing $a$ can have a radical effect on the shape of the ground state
As an example, consider a double well which is mostly symmetric, but not quite
 
there is probably some formal proof about the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions of a Sturm Liouville problem
 
if it's not too deep, then the ground state will be an even superposition of contributions from the two wells
 
in terms of the asymptotics of $p(x),q(x)$
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform Schroediner is not Sturm Liouville for at least two reasons
 
@0celo7 1D time-independent
 
3:20 PM
however, if you make the well very, very deep, then the ground state will shift over completely to the deeper well
 
I wouldn't put it past physicists to call it SL
@AccidentalFourierTransform SL means compact interval
All the coefficients have to be bounded
 
Suppose we have a state with continuous spectrum:

Recall that the Von Neumann entropy is defined as:

$S=\textrm{Tr}(\rho \ln \rho)$

where $\rho =\int_I \lvert a\rangle\langle a\rvert da$ and $I \subset \mathbb{R}$

That is,

\begin{align}
S & =\int_I\langle q\rvert\left(\int_I \lvert a\rangle\langle a\rvert da\right)\ln\left(\int_I \lvert b\rangle\langle b\rvert db\right)\lvert q\rangle dq\\
& =\int_I\left(\int_I \langle q\vert a\rangle\langle a\rvert da\right)\ln\left(\int_I \lvert b\rangle\langle b\vert q\rangle db\right) dq\\
 
In fact, there was a "proof" of RH that used SL theory without checking that and it was WRONG.
 
@0celo7 Im a physicist. To me $\mathbb R$ is bounded and everything is analytic
 
@ACuriousMind can I call him disgusting?
 
3:22 PM
@0celo7 No.
 
I'd gladly put him on ignore though.
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform you'll have loads of fun with lacunary series then =P
 
@EmilioPisanty what's that?
 
@0celo7 things like $$f(z) = 1+z+z^2+z^4+z^8+z^{16}+z^{32}\cdots$$
 
What does that sum to?
 
3:27 PM
@0celo7 some analytic function
it's not elementary if that's what you're asking
 
@EmilioPisanty ok
 
The important thing is that it's complex analytic inside the open unit disk but cannot be analytically continued to anywhere outside the disk
 
@0celo7 It's dominated by the geometric series at $|z|<1$, so everything is fine, but things get iffy if you try to approach the boundary
 
@EmilioPisanty yeah I realize that
@BalarkaSen Why is it important?
 
The set of singularities on the unit circle is dense in the circle, I think
 
3:28 PM
what is the radius of convergence of $$\sum_{j=1}^\infty z^{p(j)}$$?, where $p(j)$ is a random integer in $(0,j)$ (uniformly distributed)
 
@BalarkaSen yes
 
@BalarkaSen that's neat
But why is it important
 
It's a textbook counterexample, that's all
Just says not everything nice can be analytically continued beyond it's domain
 
Ah
 
@0celo7 the fact that you have a function that's analytic on an open set $U$ but which cannot be continued at all beyond that open set?
pretty surprising to most physicists
 
3:30 PM
When you phrase it like that
Yes, it's surprising
 
So you normally think that that's nice but it's obviously some bogus topologist counterexample and there's never going to be any function remotely like that on any problem that's physically relevant
until
7
Q: The position-representation matrix elements of the propagator for a particle in a ring

lafahiI have a question about obtaining matrix elements of time evolution operator. I have the following Hamiltonian for a particle in a ring with magnetic field $$H=\dfrac {\hbar ^{2}} {2mR^{2}}\left[ -i\dfrac {\partial } {\partial \theta}+\dfrac {\phi e} {h}\right] ^{2}$$ and since $\left[ H,P\righ...

 
oops lol
 
@acuriousmind For this expression:

$S=\int_I\langle q\rvert\ln (\lvert q\rangle) dq$

while it does have the required form of summing the diagonal of the density matrix, I am not sure how to deal with ln. Clearly, ln is not an observable thus I cannot really interpret the diagonal matrix elements as some kind of expectation value of ln. $ln(\lvert q\rangle)$ may not be even a well defined notation since the matrix function ln() is defined only for square matrices. so either I have did something wrong when I evaluate those delta distributions or I am missing a concept
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform @YashasSamaga $3.2 \times 10^{-13}$kg is not 0.32 picograms!!!
 
@JohnRennie oops lol
=P
 
3:35 PM
@JohnRennie facepalm. Sorry for that.
 
@JohnRennie Ah, I already reverted that but I forgot to scold the reviewers :P
 
:-)
 
10^-12 is picograms?
OMG
kg = 1000grams
OMG
oops sorry!
 
Actually when I first wrote the answer I put picograms as well, but caught myself in time
 
picokilogram
 
3:37 PM
@Secret $\ln(\lvert q\rangle)$ does not even exist in the terrible world of physicist math.
 
Typo: while it does have the required form of summing the diagonal of the density matrix, hence fullfilling the creteria for a trace
 
@ACuriousMind uh, why not
if my prof can take a taylor series of a ket, I imagine something like that can work too
@Secret where did you get that equation
 
@0celo7 You can take a Taylor series of a ket-valued function, but not of a ket itself.
 
what even is a ket (I won't ask what it's counterpart is)
 
@Secret Why do you think $$\ln\left(\int|b\rangle\langle b|\mathrm db\right)|q\rangle=\ln\left(\int|b\rangle\langle b|\mathrm db|q\rangle\right)?$$
 
3:39 PM
@BalarkaSen A vector in a hilbert space
 
@BalarkaSen it's not a coket
 
And a bra (the dual) is an element of the dual hilbert space
 
@Danu Well...unless you're dealing with something like $\lvert x\rangle$ :P
 
The names come from the fact that if you put them together you get a "braket"=bracket
@ACuriousMind Morally
 
I know. I just think it's an awkward name!
 
3:41 PM
@Danu Position "kets" are immoral :P
 
@Danu Hm, makes sense
 
Just work in $L^2$ and you never need $\ket{x}$
 
@ACuriousMind wasn't this room on a timeout on discussions of mathematical morality?
 
ugh
can chat not have packages?
 
@EmilioPisanty Was it?
 
3:42 PM
@ACuriousMind =P no, it wasn't
 
@ACuriousMind he took the Taylor series of $|x\rangle$
 
@0celo7 that's horrifying
 
Hmmmmm...either I do not understand gauge theory, Witten does not understand gauge theory, or I do not understand Witten. None of these options bode particularly well for me grasping what the hell is going on in this paper anytime soon :P
 
Stop reading Witten
 
@ACuriousMind shoot for you not understanding Witten
 
3:44 PM
that seems to be your issue
 
@0celo7 Pretty sure he implicitly Taylored the function $x\mapsto \lvert x\rangle$.
 
O wait, ln is not linear wrt its arguments! I guess that's where I got it wrong. In that case, I got the following expression for the von neumann entropy for a continous spectrum (no degeneracy):

$S =\int_I\langle q\rvert\ln\left(\int_I \lvert b\rangle\langle b\rvert db\right)\lvert q\rangle dq$

which makes a lot more sense, and it will be finite as long the integral does not diverge
 
@ACuriousMind Now I'd like for you to explain what topology that function is continuous in...
 
in physics you dont need continuity to Taylor expand
 
@0celo7 None probably , but assuming all functions are nice is perfectly fine in physicist math
 
3:47 PM
@ACuriousMind that puts you here instead of further down the rabbit hole
 
@EmilioPisanty Yeah, I hope to arrive there, too
 
@ACuriousMind $1=\pi$ is valid in physicist math
 
@EmilioPisanty heh, captures my current feelings quite well
 
@0celo7 I got that equation when I tried to write down the expression for von neumann entropy of a state with continuous spectrum (no degeneracy) (and the normalisation is the usual $\langle x\vert y\rangle=\delta(x-y)$
Emilo then spotted my mistake thus the correct equation should be $S =\int_I\langle q\rvert\ln\left(\int_I \lvert b\rangle\langle b\rvert db\right)\lvert q\rangle dq$
 
@Secret that's odd, cause there doesn't seem to actually be a spectrum in your calculations
your notation is not particularly indicative of what you're doing
 
3:50 PM
@ACuriousMind Well, $\ln(|a\rangle\langle b|)$ makes sense, no?
 
@0celo7 Yes
 
so use the log rules
 
@0celo7 what "log rules"?
 
that's just $\ln(|a\rangle)+\ln(\langle b|)$
 
What, $\ln(\lvert a\rangle\langle b\rvert) = \ln(\lvert a\rangle) + \ln(\langle b\rvert)$?
 
3:50 PM
yeah
 
I feel unclean just having typed that
 
and $\mathrm e^{\langle a|b\rangle}=\mathrm e^{\langle a|}\mathrm e^{|b\rangle}$
beautiful
 
then set $\langle b|=1$ and you have a definition
since $\ln 1=0$
 
I... can't even...
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform yep
 
3:51 PM
oh you silly boy
 
@EmilioPisanty What? Isn't this what physicists do?
 
@0celo7 not in public
 
I guess it will be clearer when I wrote out that $I=(x,y)$ is some real interval, and the continuous spectrum of eigenvalues will be all real numbers within this interval.

For the trivial case of a free particle $I=(-\infty,\infty)$ which is all reals. For the bounded interval case above, it can arise in spectroscopy for the continuum portion of a spectrum (usually because the states are so closely spaced that their transitions overlap

So technically, I am not really calculating anything, I am just interested in what the expression for von neumann entropy in continous system look like, wh
 
@YashasSamaga Any idea about how to solve this limit ? $$\lim_{x->0} \frac{1}{\ln(1+x)}-\frac{1}{\ln(x+\sqrt(1+x^2)}$$
 
@Secret So this is $\psi(z)=\chi_{(x,y)}(z)$?
 
3:54 PM
you have to combine them
that is definitely the first step
 
@YashasSamaga Doesn't work.
Try it
 
that is the first step
it is a gaurntee
 
I did it
Doesn't work
 
your first step was correct
the rest was wrong
 
@EmilioPisanty There's some pretty bad physicist math in analysis. Like people writing $\sup_{n\in\Bbb N}n\chi_E$, etc.
 
3:55 PM
You have one rule in limit which states that
 
If you allow functions to take the value $\infty$ that's actually well defined
 
lim (f(x) - g(x)) = lim f(x) - lim g(x)
 
@YashasSamaga What ? I didn't even show you my steps :P
 
provided that lim f(x) and lim g(x) exist
 
@YashasSamaga Solve it completely and then let me know
 
3:55 PM
^ if that condition is not satisfied, then either limit does not exist or it exists
 
@EmilioPisanty Yeah, pretty much, a function bounded between the reals x and y
 
if it exists you MUST MUST MUST combine them
 
@Secret that doesn't answer the question
 
@anonymous let me try to solve it
 
Is it "a" function, i.e. any arbitrary function, or is it the unique function which is flat between those two reals?
If the latter, you're missing the normalization
if the former, you're missing the wavefunction
 
3:57 PM
@anonymous do you know the differentiation rule?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform so what kind of physicist are you
certainly not a math one
 
@0celo7 the bad kind?
 
there is no good kind, so that's too vague
 
the vague kind?
 
@anonymous 0.5 is the answer?
 
3:59 PM
@Jim wrong!
 

« first day (2304 days earlier)      last day (2632 days later) »