The h Bar

bolbteppa

5:00 PM

dmckee

@Semiclassical I wrote a BST file once. For preparing my List of Publications. Never again.

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa You'd have to pay me A LOT to accept being in that

bolbteppa

haha

G. Bergeron

Thinking of it LIGO is really cool!

skullpatrol

@dmckee have you written any high school or freshmen textbooks?

0celo7

5:04 PM

@bolbteppa triggerable people are not properly conservative

They’re just liberals in denial

A true conservative has an iron conviction

skullpatrol

conviction to what?

G. Bergeron

@skullpatrol Of what is JUST and GOOD

dmckee

@skullpatrol No. I have some short documents I've written for my classes and university and one (count it, one) is at a level I consider suitable for the algebra/trig class (which is roughly equivalent to the physics I took in high school).

0celo7

@skullpatrol their correctness

dmckee

But Physics user Ben Crowell has.

His website is lightandmatter.com

Some of the bits in those books a really nice.

skullpatrol

5:07 PM

cool, thanks

John Rennie

@dmckee I just knew that was going to happen

dmckee

It was inevitable.

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie Hence why I tend to favour rigorous mathematical formalization, as was the case with QM (earlier today for you?)

0celo7

Every time!

“No.”

Slereah

@JohnRennie well it was literally about him

G. Bergeron

5:13 PM

@0celo7 ?

John Rennie

If it wasn't dmckee I'd suspect the post was a troll to lure Duffield out of the bushes :-)

bolbteppa

@0celo7 sure washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/22/… psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/… psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/…

dmckee

@Slereah It was about a position he argues for. The idea, not the person.

2

Slereah

@dmckee JD has no idea

Emilio Pisanty

The only reason Apple still has computer customers is because developers realized they could develop for Linux without having to actually use Linux.

Tweeted by SwiftOnSecurity on April 13, 2018 at 7:18 AM

Slereah

5:15 PM

He doesn't really understand what he's saying

Emilio Pisanty

on that earlier thread

G. Bergeron

@EmilioPisanty And kinda why I use a macbook air...

@EmilioPisanty Up until they will remove root access!

0celo7

@EmilioPisanty I have a mac to show off my wealth & style

G. Bergeron

They're already mightily pissing me off with the ''app-ification'' of their desktops

dmckee

@EmilioPisanty Snarky and only approximately true. (A) The library environments are different meaning you have to write robustly portable code and still test it on linux. (B) The kernel services are very different meaning there is a whole class of things you can't do on Darwin that you can on Linux.

G. Bergeron

5:18 PM

@0celo7 when I bought, the air was not a poor $/hardware ratio. Desktops mac... bleh

Emilio Pisanty

@dmckee this is Swift On Security tweeting

of course it was going to be snarky and only approximately true

dmckee

::chuckles::

Emilio Pisanty

I mean, what else did you expect from a high-rolling infosec-literate pop star?

skullpatrol

@0celo7 you have "style"? :P

0celo7

@skullpatrol I'm basically a sex symbol, yes

G. Bergeron

5:19 PM

@Slereah Yes but the errors can be subtle. It seems to be mostly a debate of semantic

Slereah

You seem to be under the impression that there is a debate

0celo7

@G.Bergeron Duffield really has no clue about physics

Slereah

You will never get an answer from duffield about a point he is arguing

G. Bergeron

what does he mean when he says ''speed of light''?

Slereah

as far as I can tell he means the coordinate speed of light

0celo7

5:21 PM

he means whatver he's citing means

John Rennie

@G.Bergeron he means $dr/dt$ where $r$ and $t$ are the Schwarzschild coordinates

Slereah

but then he doesn't understand that this is not a coordinate invariant

John Rennie

No 3 vector is covariant

Slereah

and he thinks time "stops" at the horizon

John Rennie

But I doubt Duffield knows what that statement means

Slereah

5:22 PM

kudos for banning him again, mods

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie SO no 4-momentum norm?

Slereah

I'll drink to that

John Rennie

@G.Bergeron I doubt Duffield knows what a four-vector is

or a norm

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie Is it really that bad?

0celo7

we've been saying this for years

John Rennie

5:23 PM

@G.Bergeron read a few of his answers

0celo7

4 years

bolbteppa

Read 1 answer

G. Bergeron

I mean this: ''The ascending photon does not change frequency. It is emitted at a lower frequency. Because things go slower when they're lower.'' Could have potentially been a debate of semantic.

Slereah

0celo7

not that a physicist could define any of those things correctly either hehe

John Rennie

5:24 PM

@G.Bergeron there you go have a read

skullpatrol

@Slereah for how long?

Slereah

a whole year

John Rennie

> The bound state isn't called a geon. Two-photon physics is also called gamma-gamma pair production. The bound state is called an electron.

Semiclassical

@0celo7 he does have some knowledge of history. But he conflates knowing what person X said for what should be said

John Rennie

There you go. An electron is a bound state of two photons.

G. Bergeron

5:25 PM

@Slereah The fox is cuter than the dinosaur

Semiclassical

@JohnRennie ... ow

0celo7

to be fair idk about that thing

John Rennie

It's hard to credit anyone would write that for the world to see.

Slereah

0celo7

but the fact that there's never any calculus makes me worry

G. Bergeron

5:26 PM

@JohnRennie Eeeecccckkkk!!!!!

skullpatrol

@Slereah it doesn't show up on his profile?

dmckee

@JohnRennie When he talks about particle physics I'm on firm ground and I don't think I've seen him post of the subject without at least one egregious error.

Slereah

he's only banned on the chat

not on PSE

dmckee

I assume something similar is true when he talks about relativity.

Semiclassical

I mean, conservation of charge on its own is enough to prove that’s nonsense

0celo7

5:27 PM

That's probably a typo then

John Rennie

And spin, and lepton number

0celo7

does he mean electron-positron

Semiclassical

Yeah

0celo7

@JohnRennie Spin works out!

1/2 + 1/2 = 1

John Rennie

What, two photons = 1 electron?

0celo7

5:28 PM

o wait, he's saying electron = 2 photon

ok that's bad

maybe photon = e- + e+

John Rennie

Yup

0celo7

I could believe that

Semiclassical

I mean, had he said that the photon was a bound state of two electrons , that would at least have some consistency

Slereah

Most of what he says is usually a word salad of sciency words

John Rennie

I think we should stick to professional comments

G. Bergeron

5:30 PM

@JohnRennie Listen to him, come on

Semiclassical

I’ll confess though that there was a historical argument I was planning to give against him that I later realized was wrong

John Rennie

→ 7 messages moved to trash

Emilio Pisanty

@Slereah so maybe now is the time for someone who does actually know their stuff to actually make that crystal clear, and in a place that can be used as a solid reference in future?

bolbteppa

@BalarkaSen this looks like a good complement to the other paper link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40329-013-0010-4

Slereah

good title

Semiclassical

5:31 PM

Namely, him citing de Broglie in support of thinking of particles as just being concentrated waves

He cited dB’s thesis, so I looked a bit further ahead to the Solvay conference and saw dB walking that back a bit

John Rennie

@0celo7 you mentioned a book that gave all sorts of weird metrics including I think the metric for a shell observer. G something?

0celo7

shell observer?

John Rennie

Or it might have been @Slereah mentioned it

0celo7

only G book I know is Gourgoulhon

well, only GR book with G

John Rennie

Yes, I want the metric for a shell observer.

0celo7

5:33 PM

I dunno what that means

John Rennie

And I think it was Gourgoulhon

0celo7

ok

Semiclassical

But later (post Bohm’s 1952 paper) he did go back to his belief that particles were essentially wave phenomena

Slereah

the hell is a shell observer

John Rennie

@0celo7 an observer hovering at fixed distance from the black hole

Slereah

5:34 PM

o

G. Bergeron

@Slereah Like on-shell observer 0_o ?

Slereah

apparently not!

0celo7

definitely not in Gourgoulhon

G. Bergeron

ah

0celo7

I don't remember talking about this

Semiclassical

5:34 PM

So him citing de Broglie was actually appropriate, at least re: what dB’s own views were

0celo7

does anyone take dB seriously any more

Semiclassical

Well, there’s the thing

John Rennie

Ah, wait, I suspect I'm misremembering Special Relativity in General Frames.

Semiclassical

I think people still take him as having bed serious physicist, certainly

Slereah

yeah, it doesn't really have GR in it!

Semiclassical

5:35 PM

I think people still take him as having been a serious physicist, certainly

John Rennie

Damn, where am I going to find that metric?

I suppose I shall have to try and derive it myself. That'll be fun :-)

Semiclassical

But we don’t treat dB as any sort of incontrovertible authority

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie What do you mean by ''the metric for a shell observer''? You explained shell observer, but then...

bolbteppa

'Aharonov–Bohm effect' etc

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa Yeah well that Aharonov...

Semiclassical

5:37 PM

dB having said it makes it interesting and maybe even worth thinking about. But that should be the beginning of an argument not the end of it

@bolbteppa ?

Slereah

I guess coordinates where a shell observer is at rest

Semiclassical

I was talking about de Broglie

0celo7

@Semiclassical that probability class was randomly canceled :(

I'll never learn GDP math

Semiclassical

Ah, too bad

bolbteppa

Ah

John Rennie

5:38 PM

@G.Bergeron if you're hovering a fixed distance from a black hole, and you have a clock and a ruler, then you can measure out your spacetime and calculate a metric in terms of your coordinates.

G. Bergeron

@Slereah Like in orbit?

Slereah

for instance, yes

John Rennie

@G.Bergeron no not in orbit - hovering.

bolbteppa

DeBroglie got a nobel prize

Semiclassical

Yeah

Slereah

5:38 PM

Take a planet orbiting a black hole, and then consider the geocentric coordinates

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie So accelerating outwards?

John Rennie

@G.Bergeron yes, non-zero proper acceleration

@Slereah not orbiting. Constant $r$, $\theta$ and $\phi$.

G. Bergeron

hmmm...

Slereah

Well it would have constant position if you consider the geocentric coordinates :p

But I guess there would also be frame dragging

G. Bergeron

@Slereah No but in one case it is an inertial frame and the other not

Semiclassical

5:41 PM

My main feeling right now vis a vis dBB is that involves two steps, one math and one Physics. Insofar as the former is just derived from the Schroedinger equation I don’t see any reason to quibble with it

Slereah

I don't think anything is inertial in those circumstances

John Rennie

The angular bits are going to be a nightmare because the geometry is not spherically symmetric about the observer. However since I'm only interested in radial motion it could be limited to the $g_{00}$ and $g_{11}$ components.

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie Yeah I was beginning to think it might becoming horrible

John Rennie

@Slereah locally it will look like the Rindler metric, which is a perfectly sensible metric.

0celo7

Semiclassical

5:42 PM

On the other hand, when it comes to the trajectories themselves...eh. I think I regard them as how a medieval astronomer would have the Ptolemaic model

Slereah

@JohnRennie Rindler isn't inertial at all!

John Rennie

I never said it was inertial. God preserve me!!

bolbteppa

'Back in my day', he's trying to appeal to you guys :p

Semiclassical

As in, not as granting insight into the true notions of the universe but as a hypothetical account which gives consistent and valid predictions

dmckee

I have to say that if you've spent a few year working really hard on something pretty mundane—say a sporting competition—and gotten good enough that most people would describe you as good at it but then hit a wall.

Slereah

5:44 PM

@JohnRennie maybe it's in that paper that's just a giant list of metrics in various coordinates?

I think you linked it to me

G. Bergeron

@Slereah Locally, if in freefall, yes

Abcd

@JohnRennie Do you have energy and time to answer my question (theoretical not a problem) about electrostatic force?

Semiclassical

Which come to think of it is really not so different from how a Copenhagen person might talk about the wavefunction

John Rennie

Actually ... I think it can be done by considering only $dt/dt_\text{shell}$ and $dr/dr_\text{shell}$. I may not need the explicit form of the metric ...

dmckee

Under those conditions, watching a master of the same skill at work does inspire something enough like awe to use the word.

G. Bergeron

5:45 PM

@0celo7 So his days are done?!?

John Rennie

@Abcd Problem Solving room?

0celo7

@G.Bergeron no one takes him seriously

Abcd

@JohnRennie Okay

G. Bergeron

@Semiclassical Coppenhagen is a non-interpretation, dBB is

Semiclassical

So I guess I’m just willing to talk about both the wavefunction and the velocity field you get in dBB

Ehh. I agree with that but I suspect my reasons are different

Slereah

5:47 PM

@JohnRennie try here mb

arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4184.pdf

Emilio Pisanty

web.archive.org/web/20080509064103/http://creativecommons.org/…

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie I'm so used to coordinate-free diff-geo that I have to strain to think of it

Emilio Pisanty

well that is interesting

Semiclassical

Namely, I think that the notion of a single ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ is a historical fiction

There’s stuff Bohr wrote, stuff Heisenberg wrote, Pauli, etc

John Rennie

@G.Bergeron damned mathematicians :-)

Balarka Sen

5:49 PM

Be Nice

0celo7

Be Nice

John Rennie

@BalarkaSen I am being nice :-)

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie You know, a metric is a metric is a metric...

Semiclassical

But while there are certainly commonalities between them, there wasn’t the unity of message you’d expect

G. Bergeron

@JohnRennie hahaha

Balarka Sen

5:50 PM

@JohnRennie you have to be Nice, not nice. See the stackexchange "Be Nice" policy for more information.

G. Bergeron

@BalarkaSen @0celo7 You are both mathematicians?

Slereah

arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0394.pdf

good title

Semiclassical

I’d say that’s somewhat true of dBB as well, but it’s altogether more sharply defined

0celo7

sadly, I am

Balarka is 12

he's not anything

Balarka Sen

@G.Bergeron 0celo7 is a nuclear engineer, I'm a homeless man

bolbteppa

5:51 PM

Copenhagen interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised in the years 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values...

0celo7

lies

enumaris

hmmm

G. Bergeron

Nuclear engineer or mathematician?

Balarka Sen

The former

enumaris

physicist

bolbteppa

5:51 PM

I think they differed over small things viciously, but overall they thought there was only one theory of QM, the Copenhagen interpretation, e.g.

0celo7

@G.Bergeron don't listen to him

I clearly explain it in my profile

bolbteppa

"It appears that the particular term, with its more definite sense, was coined by Heisenberg in the 1950s,[4] while criticizing alternate "interpretations" (e.g., David Bohm's[5]) that had been developed.[6] Lectures with the titles 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory' and 'Criticisms and Counterproposals to the Copenhagen Interpretation', that Heisenberg delivered in 1955, are reprinted in the collection Physics and Philosophy.[7] Before the book was released for sale,

Heisenberg privately expressed regret for having used the term, due to its suggestion of the existence of other interpretations, that he considered to be "nonsense""

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa What I meant by non-interpretation is that it escapes answering the question

dmckee

Can we agree that the "classroom-copenhagen interpretation" basically punts on every ontological question you throw at it?

G. Bergeron

@dmckee exactly

0celo7

5:52 PM

ontology isn't physical

Semiclassical

“The term 'Copenhagen interpretation' suggests something more than just a spirit, such as some definite set of rules for interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, presumably dating back to the 1920s. However, no such text exists, apart from some informal popular lectures by Bohr and Heisenberg, which contradict each other on several important issues“

dmckee

That is, the answer is "The system doesn't have a value of [X], is has a PDF for measuremetns of [X]!"

Slereah

G. Bergeron

@0celo7 That is waht an interpretation is, though

Slereah

wot

bolbteppa

5:53 PM

I wonder how people 'derive' quantum mechanics, i.e. how they start the subject

Semiclassical

(Full disclosure: that last sentence has [citation needed{

Slereah

@bolbteppa In classes it's usually like

Balarka Sen

I'm going to throw "[citation-needed{" at uncited claims now

Slereah

"Look at the experiment, the particle is a wave!"

"It's $\approx e^{ikx}$"

And they go from there

The eikonal approximation

as it is called

QM classes are very Young slit experiment heavy

Semiclassical

Setting aside the anachronism that I think the phrase “Copenhagen interpretation “ represents, though

I do nevertheless regard it as a genuine interpretation

bolbteppa

5:56 PM

Landau's book, which is the closest to Bohr's perspective I am aware exists, is to take some experiment which shows a particle doesn't have a path, and proclaim Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as saying there is no such thing as the path of a particle, but that something like a path must exist in some as-yet-to-be-defined classical limit, so that probabilities must be used, and you go from there

e.g. can derive the basic equations by setting up the quasi-classical approximation as being $\Psi \sim e^{iS/\hbar}$

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa I think it should go as '' Hey, let's find another realization of the Weyl group than the Poisson bracket on phase space''

Semiclassical

It’s one which operates by deflation, eg “if no measurable consequence is conceivable then it’s not a question of physics”

bolbteppa

Modern books seem to state a list of axioms and then derive Heisenberg from these axioms as far as I have seen

Slereah

@G.Bergeron not very pedagogical

bolbteppa

@G.Bergeron madness :p

G. Bergeron

5:58 PM

@Semiclassical The point is that an interpretation, by very definition, is not physical in the sense that it makes no measurable difference

Slereah

Feynman-Gibbs is almost entirely Young based

bolbteppa

I think you can get path integrals immediately from what Landau does, instead of using quasi-classical approximations, i.e. instead of 'no path' you just say 'all paths'

G. Bergeron

@Slereah I think the way it goes in a typical class is rather shitty, to be honest. Then you have people thinking the ''wavefunction'' is the be all end all.

It just a coefficient of a change of basis

Slereah

IS IT NOT

Semiclassical

Sure. CI proceeds by sharply restricting what the meaningful questions we can ask in a theory are

That to me is still an interpretation

enumaris

5:59 PM

uhhhhhh

getting all theoretical up in here

Semiclassical

It’s just one that regards questions like “what is the trajectory of an electron “ as being analogous to the question “what does the color red sound like?”

Slereah

@skullpatrol itisamystery.com

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa And the reason for looking at other realization is because classical measurement exclude the observer (the mathematical formalism implies measurements that are not interactions)

skullpatrol

@Slereah got it, thanks

G. Bergeron

@Slereah ???

Semiclassical

6:01 PM

So I think there is something healthy and valid about the insistence that one only ask meaningful questions

Slereah

@G.Bergeron that is the sound of mystery

Semiclassical

I don’t think one is compelled to do so, but I do regard that as an option

G. Bergeron

@Semiclassical An interpretation is all about giving ontological status to abstract quantities

Semiclassical

Ehhh, I don’t buy that

Slereah

although to be fair, "interpretation" in QM is a fairly flexible term

bolbteppa

6:04 PM

@G.Bergeron It sounds interesting, but I wonder how it would lead to paths no longer existing

Semiclassical

@Slereah well, yes

G. Bergeron

@Semiclassical positing that electron exists on the ontological level is an interpretation otherwise, you never 'demonstrate electrons', only that some equations accuretely relates some numbers on a display to other numbers on the display

Semiclassical

And tbf I think there are ways of defining ‘interpretation ‘ which would disqualify CI

But, well, so much the worse for those definitions then

skullpatrol

"Interpretation" takes many forms...

Semiclassical

Yep

I think one can argue about whether CI is ultimately coherent or not

enumaris

6:07 PM

...

this ain't no philosophy chat bros

G. Bergeron

In the same vein, you know when in condensed matter, you ditch the electron as the ''fundamental'' particle, effectively this quasi-particle exist as much as the free electron, it is just that we give higher ontological status to excitation of the vacuum. This is just a choice from which physics is wholly independent.

enumaris

(jk)

Semiclassical

But to the extent that it reflects how certain practioners think about QM? That’s an interpretation

G. Bergeron

@Semiclassical It's the interpretation of saying damn it I don't care.

enumaris

the "shut up and calculate" approach?

can we make "shut up and calculate" an interpretation of QM?

G. Bergeron

6:08 PM

@enumaris SOmething like that

enumaris

we can call it the Feynman interpretation if that makes it sound better

G. Bergeron

@Slereah mysteries are way too happy sounding!

bolbteppa

The only 'interpretation' language I trust is about Copenhagen and about defining QM independently of classical mechanics, e.g. the old way requires the quasi-classical approximation or some axioms, and this 'consistent histories' thing is probably the only thing worth thinking about beyond this, because it's about applying the theory to the universe, but nothing beyond the quasi-classical approximation, at least to me right now, is justifiable, but I know there are a few question marks

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa It leads to non-commutative phase space, so of course paths become meaningless

@bolbteppa Then the really cute thing is that the Shroedinger equation just become a condition to be satisfied be functions generating realization of the Galilean group

*projective representation

@bolbteppa I'd disagree about thinking of the wavefunction of the universe

bolbteppa

@G.Bergeron That's vaguely how you get Schrodinger in the quasi-classical approximation as well

G. Bergeron

6:14 PM

@bolbteppa But then I just used group theory

Then when you go from galilean to poincaré you get dirac and klein-gordon equation, isn't it nice?

@bolbteppa arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609002.pdf

This is why I think a wavefunction of the universe is a rather weird concept

bolbteppa

Yeah, Landau just imposes Galilean/Poincaré invariance on the wave function in the quasi-classical approximation and gets it

G. Bergeron

Anyway, this hbar is a time-blackhole

2

bolbteppa

and my sense is the quasi-classical approximation is very very much linked to lie groups

G. Bergeron

What is quasi-classical in the approach I just summarily exposed

Actually, no, I need to get to work!!!

bolbteppa

Nothing

G. Bergeron

6:17 PM

ok brief answer, perfect!

See you later

bolbteppa

Cool

skullpatrol

@G.Bergeron a blackhoke of productivity

Emilio Pisanty

@Semiclassical OK, no, but what about "what is the difference between a polyrhythm and a harmonic interval"?

G. Bergeron

@skullpatrol exactly

Emilio Pisanty

Harmonic Polyrhythms Explained! [ AN's Bass Lessons #27 ]

►

bolbteppa

6:17 PM

'consistent histories' referenced in the very beginning of that paper is the whole 'wave function of the universe' thing

G. Bergeron

@bolbteppa I know

this or MWI

Semiclassical

@EmilioPisanty given that I don’t know what that is, the point is rather lost on me

skullpatrol

Apr 18 '17 at 17:15, by Balarka Sen

i should ban myself out of here. h bar is like a sentinent blackhole of productivity

Emilio Pisanty

> What if I told you that harmony is nothing more than just fantastically complex, interlocking polyrhythms?

(mostly, just watch the video, it is awesome)

where

> a polyrhythm is the simultaneous use of two or more conflicting rhythms

Jacob P.J

A spherical ball of volume V is dropped into a viscous liquid.It experiences a viscous drag F.If a ball of volume 8V made of the same material is dropped ito the same liquid, the viscous drag will be?

enumaris

6:23 PM

but harmony depends on the tone tho, rhythms mostly just the beat

Jacob P.J

I tried solving it this way, F proportional to R

V is proportional to R^3

I'm stuck from here

enumaris

isn't F proportional to R^2

skullpatrol

@G.Bergeron the phrase goes back to Sep 20 '12 in the math room

Semiclassical

@EmilioPisanty mmkay, will do

Emilio Pisanty

@Semiclassical trust me, you'll thank y'self

Semiclassical

6:28 PM

The essay which I rather like re: the various interpretations is Bell’s essay “Six Possible Worlds of Quantum Mechanics”

Alas, I haven’t found any copies online outside of SpringerLink

(It was initially published in 1989; Bell died in 1990, so this was one of if not his last publications)

bolbteppa

Can't find it either

Semiclassical

yeah

the springerlink pdf is here: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01889711.pdf

bolbteppa

Overall this interpretation stuff is too risky to really get invested in

Semiclassical

6:44 PM

@bolbteppa yeah, there's a reason why JS Bell made sure he had a solid reputation and career before he started publishing on interpretations

bolbteppa

He translated at least one of the Landau books, that alone means I have to know what he said on this stuff hah

Semiclassical

lol

I mean, I'm not prepared to argue that anyone should stake their career on this stuff

bolbteppa

My worry is getting really invested in this stuff and it all being pure bias

Semiclassical

but I dislike the idea that people who do find this stuff interesting/worth working are worthy of derision or mockery

I mean, there is a line beyond which you get into crackpot territory, and that's a risk

bolbteppa

My sense is: being sympathetic to this stuff, rather than just trying to understand it, is what would concern people since so many people who understand these theories claim they are flawed

Semiclassical

6:49 PM

I couldn't quite parse that sentence (too many commas)

bolbteppa

haha

Jacob P.J

@enumaris No F = 6pi neta R v

enumaris

that's a pretty odd expression for drag...

usually drag is proportional to the surface area

which is R^2

hmm