So I just ran into one of my cousins. She has a baby. 11 months old
She was with her mom.
I was not sure. . . I think they wanted me to play with the baby or something lolz.
At any rate, in somewhat unrelated stuff, I really want to buy a house. A reasonable 🏠 in a great neighborhood with big fat giant rooms
So I need to come up with 1M minimum. Hehehe. I wonder if I can build and sell an epic app. For most of you in SF you can just draft something and talk to a few peeps and get it. Over here you need to eat titanium and stones while balancing on the tip of a spear in 🔥 to be able to get moola. Let me do some thinking though
Are there any super faster than the usual fast ways of making 1M fast? lol
Would be helpful to know
Can't believe my cousin makes six figures as a nurse damn lol
At anyrate someone tell me how to make 1M quick or how to get a big fat giant house for cheap.This is my next nontrivial goal on the list
🏘️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏦🗽
Seriously how does one make 1M .Any millionaires on here? How did you make 1M lol
@Cows General theory of relativity and special theory of relativity and quantum physics
I want to be a theoretical physicist
@Cows recreationally
I want to explore professionally after my studies
@Cows I hate both
Anonymous
8:52 AM
Hmm, it seems completely unobvious why composite quantum systems should lie in tensor product of individual Hilbert spaces rather than spaces formed by direct sum of the individual Hilbert spaces. There seems to be some reasoning along the lines of "that's what enables entanglement", but I can't find the entire line of reasoning rigorously written down anywhere in mathematical terms
@Blue It sort of is obvious if you think about the number of different eigenstates of an observable the combined system needs to have, see e.g.physics.stackexchange.com/a/54899/50583
It is worth to note that entanglement is in a very precise sense the difference between the Cartesian product and the tensor product, though: The space where every point corresponds to a state is the projective Hilbert space, and there's an embedding from the projective space of the Cartesian product to the projective space of the tensor product (the Segre embedding). The image of this embedding are precisely the non-entangled states.
@Cows I would appreciate it if you didn't litter the chat room with one-boxed videos that don't have anything to do with the rest of the conversation. These one-boxes take up a lot of space and make scrolling up past them rather annoying.
@Semiclassical We don't really know how well-off @JohnRennie is, but he sure buys a lot of laptops!
Recently we have been treated to featured meta posts and blog posts about the importance of the "be nice"-policy, and how/why it should also apply to comments.
This is all fine. Educating each other about how we see their actions is surely the best way forward.
But, it seems to me the efforts o...
In a comment, I want to write the title of a question (to point out that it's a duplicate or related stuff) instead of "pasting" its URL. How can I do that?
The merit-list is a rank-order of the students that got selected through the procedure. They're going introduce the seat allocation lists (three or four of them?) by a further filtering procedure on the merit-list.
@YuzurihaInori Hmm, wait, 18th June? What do you mean?
Does anyone know if $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$, and $\nu_\tau$ are actually in the SM or if $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, and $\nu_3$ that $\nu_e$ and such come from are the ones that belong? I don't know too much about neutrinos, so that could very well be a nonsense question
@danielunderwood It's just a convention, like a choice of basis. You can write the SM in terms of the former fields (called the flavor basis) or the latter fields (called the mass basis). It's fundamentally the same theory, just in different notation.
Usually, the convention is that the SM neutrino fields are in the flavor basis, but the SM quark fields are in the mass basis.
Ahh I was thinking that the mass basis would be the more fundamental. Can the electron and such be represented similarly in a mass basis? I don't know that that would be any different than the flavor basis if they aren't thought to be mixtures though.
Tangentially related, is the supposed unitarity of the mixing matrix essentially the statement that there aren't any other members of either basis?
And is that unitarity affected by the supposed detection of sterile neutrinos?
And actually tangentially related to that, is there a decent source for physics news across fields? Google tries to give me stories, but they're usually terrible and/or not scientifically accurate
Discussion on question by Jyrki Lahto…
In a comment, I want to write the title of a question (to point out that it's a duplicate or related stuff) instead of "pasting" its URL. How can I do that?
